User talk:KP Botany/Wikicrap that people fought hard to keep

This article contains statements that are made up--and internally incosistent--and tied randomly to unrelated scientific research--it's clear someone is having fun with Wikipedia, but administrators insist that this hoax crap be preserved on Wikipedia. Clearly WP:Verifiability has no meaning. Simply write what you want and tack on any scientific journal, because that is sufficient, and time wasted actually reading the journal won't be of value to Wikipedia. In fact, you'll probably be attacked for it.

Pure crap statements that have the certified approval of numerous Wikipedia administrators:

"Forensic anthropologists identify Negroid skulls by rounded eye sockets, rounded nasal cavity, facial projection and skulls that are long from the front to the back."

Note that this statement has no reference. But it gets better.

"Classification of skulls is often ambiguous. In anaylsis of human remains in the United States, skull shape is used to define race. Although race based on skull shape is unambiguous,"

A little contradictory? Well, no, it's certified by various Wikipedia administrators. And if you point out that it's obviously internally inconsistent one of them will smugly tell you that administrators always save the wrong version--implying that any time you say there is something wrong with an article, you are wrong. The fact is, just because some administrator protected it without reading it, it isn't necessarily perfect.

But, we have to stick with this, that classification of skulls is often ambiguous while race based on this classification is unambiguous. This was probably just a spurious vandal's racist remarks added to Wikipedia, and now preserved, because, after all, we'd never bother reading what we preserved.

"This method only works well in the US because Americans have origins in distant regions of the world.[6]"

This article does not discuss this issue at all. But, again, who cares if a source is actually tied to what is supposedly says, the article is sourced after all, and it's been stamped as correct and will remain as is because the people who created it are preserving it through edit warring. In other words, oh my, gaming the system works on Wikipedia.

"For example, about one-third of people who identify as white in the US have detectable African DNA,[7]"

The two studies listed, however, don't discuss this, but are rather modern genetic studies of admixture mappings done on two mixed African populations, and one population of white college students. The study does not say this. The sentence itself, is NOT AT ALL RELATED TO THE ARTICLE'S SUBJECT. But, as long ad asministrators are allowed to protect articles with hoaxes in them and demand they be kept on Wikipedia, nothing can be done.

I advise that Wikipedia editors not bother with looking up refernces, doing careful research, WP:Verifiability, or reverting spam. All of these are so wanted on Wikipedia that they will be protected and you will be hounded and insulted for thinking they are not wanted.

Negroid is a largely-archaic term used to describe one of the groups of craniofacial anthropometry, a view now mostly regarded as an over-simplification of the spectrum of diversity found in Africa. The concept's existence is based on the now disputed typological method of racial classification. Sub-Saharan Africans are the most genetically diverse of the historically defined races. Also, categorizing Africans based on skull type is an oversimplification because they have the largest variation of skull shapes of any human population.

Definitions

Natives of Africa in The New Student's Reference Work from 1914 the work included the term "Negroid" as a racial classification.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines negroid as the "indigenous peoples of central and southern Africa...The term Negroid is associated with outdated notions of racial types; it is potentially offensive and best avoided."

Craniofacial category

Forensic anthropologists identify Negroid skulls by rounded eye sockets, rounded nasal cavity, facial projection and skulls that are long from the front to the back.

Challenges

Classification of skulls is often ambiguous. In anaylsis of human remains in the United States, skull shape is used to define race. Although race based on skull shape is unambiguous, it will not pin point geographic origins accurately all the time due to skull variation. This method only works well in the US because Americans have origins in distant regions of the world.

Classification by skulls does not necessarily agree with genetic ancestry or self-identified race. For example, about one-third of people who identify as white in the US have detectable African DNA, and about five percent of Americans who identify as black have no detectable "Negroid" skull traits or genetics. There is no objective test to tell whether someone identifies as black or white in the US without asking them.