Talk:Craniometry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Rewrite
I've tried to boil down the racist and pseudoscientific 1911-worldview of the original article, leaving a description of the history of craniometry behind. -- The Anome 18:08, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This now needs a thorough copyedit and fact check. -- The Anome 18:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Citations!
Clearly, this is a controvercial topic and subject matter. However, this version of the page contains no citations or references! I'm half-tempted to just delete the whole thing and hope someone can come up with VERIFIABLE, UNBIASED information. Until then, I've tagged it. --66.91.248.69 11:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clean-up
I've altered the sentence Certain patterns could be discerned in Europe, which gave life to theories of population history (which, according to user 68.119.151.169 makes no sense) to Certain patterns could be discerned in Europe. These patterns gave life to theories of population history: several historians believed they could deduce socio-economic histories of nations and ethnic relations between nations from skull shapes. However, I'm not fully happy with this. Does anyone have any improvements in mind? Aecis 17:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- It's hard to know how to improve it without knowing what it's supposed to mean. :-) This text doesn't come from the 1911 Britannica. User:EGud added this paragraph in May: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craniometry&diff=13778865&oldid=13778859. But there are no sources and no supporting text. Searching Google hasn't shed any light for me on who or what this is about. So I'm removing this paragraph; if anyone understands the anthropological issues better than I and can cite them, please feel free to restore and expand it. Twp 12:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Kozmosis?
Someone (I'm too lazy to find out who) added an external link to a web forum called "Kozmosis" in this article. After putzing around there for several minutes, I still had no idea how it is related to Craniometry (it appears to be some kind of open source programming forum), & therefore removed the reference & link. If I'm wrong, add more information explaining why that forum is relevant. -- llywrch 18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] I am curious?
I am curious, why do people keep posting studys done by racist scientists who have, for the most part, have been exposed for fruadulence, bias and distortion. Examples: Rushton, Lynn, Beal. These people, especially Rushton, have not only had counter studys done of their work, but have also been investigated by police.
It is very discouraging to know that people are presenting the work of these individual's as fact, when the overwhelming majority of their colleagues have firmly dismissed their work as nothing more than pseudo-sciencfic brinkmanship.
You can find more references to Rushton or Lynn, over wikipedia, then you will any crediable scientist.
Rediculous.
(Wikipedia, helping to spread lies.)
P.S. One gets the impression that the people editing this page have no idea what they are referencing.
- Well, there's a few reasons why they are mentioned.
-
- Firstly, so they can be discussed neutrally and portrayed as crackpot or discredited theories in order to provide the reader with the reasons why they are considered crackpot racist theories unworthy of modern scientific consideration
- Secondly to provide historical context for words which people may stumble across on the internet. Why you'd be suggesting is we don't mention Hitler, the SS, the holocaust because it was evil genocide. But I'd say we have to mention their theories in order to critically dispute them and provide people with aa more moral, ethical and correct argument to take away and use to efute these ideas elsewhere on the net
- Wikipedia is Neutral Point of View, meaning we may disagree with these theories but can only refute them by providing studies and references which refute them, and at best, mention "they are no longer supported by the majority of anthropologists" or similar.
- So although most of us would agree with you that craniometry and other archair pseudoscientific mechanisms for classifying races as inferior to white people are crap and all that, I think its valid to responsibly mention these theories, not just ostrich neck them and hope that kids some day will come to the "right" conclusions without knowing why the wrong conclusions ARE wrong. Rolinator 03:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
some merge with Cephalic index?
[edit] How have they changed?
From the article "Cranial vault size and shape have changed greatly during the last 150 years in the US." How have they changed? The whole paragraph is fairly useless without this information Epachamo 01:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
