Talk:Mongoloid/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Mongoloid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

File:PC Analysis of Asian Genetics.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PC Analysis of Asian Genetics.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

removed POV tag

The POV tag really ought to be accompanied by a discussion on the article's talk page as to _what_ is disputed so that it can be discussed and eventually resolved. If you restore the tag, please include here in this section an explanation of _what_ exactly is disputed. Thank you. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

What is up with all the words in quotations? Angry bee (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, they really bother me, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.151.219 (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Plot 2B Genetic Diversity in Asia.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Plot 2B Genetic Diversity in Asia.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Plot 2B Genetic Diversity in Asia.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Mong" and "mongo" in Scotland.

Citations for these informal terms might perhaps be found in direct speech in contemporary Scottish fiction or reports of law court cases.truthordare (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis

This page has far too heavy a reliance on primary sources, and has fallen into WP:SYNTHESIS. I suggest an immediate pruning of all statements supported only by primary sources. A prime example of this is "Considering Y-DNA, in 2010 Alexander Shtrunov (Russian: Александр Штрунов) who published in the The Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy said the introduction of haplogroup N1c (M46+) in Eastern Europe was spread by people with a Uraloid appearance with both Mongoloid and Caucasoid features in the Mesolithic period...". Wikipedia cannot possibly allow this into a controversial page such as this one, since it does not represent the consensus view among scientists, and is too recent. It is probably not reliable either. Abductive (reasoning) 01:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Fully agreed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disputed/Undue/Outofdate

The article gives the appearance that this is a current concept in the study of human biological variation and it gives undue weight to the outdated view of "major races" which is not used in any parts of science anymore (except American forensic science). Particularly the section on traits is problematic since by ascribing traits it reifies the notion that "mongoloid" is a valid grouping which it is not by any accounts. The history section also does not describe the history of the concept after ca. 1950 when the idea of major races was abandoned - instead it uses a couple of fringe science references to make it seem as if the concept is still in scientific use. It also uses statements from 60+ year old sources as if they reflect current views. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation of the tags, Maunus. I assume you came by your judgments through reading contemporary scientific sources. Would you be able to name any works of modern physical anthropology or the like that discuss the questions relating to categories of physical traits which are associated with population groups, smaller and larger? Presumably some association of physical traits with population groups is a reality. If the term "mongoloid" is not a valid grouping according to the best science then it would be appropriate to present this article as a history of the term and how it has been used, concluding with a clear explanation of why the term was dropped by science. I have no special knowledge of this field so I do not know where to look for the accurate information on this topic. —Blanchette (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

All basic textbooks in physical anthropology that I know of describe this terminology as outdated and based on scientifically invalid analyses. An example is Stanford, Allen & Anton Biological Anthropology (3rd) edition, has a chapter dedicated to historical classifications. Other examples are geneticists Joseph Graves "The Emperor's New Clothes" and C. Loring Brace's "Race is a Four letter word" which provide detailed histories of the concept and its scientific demise, also an excellent source is Caspari, Rachel. 2010. "Deconstructing Race: Racial Thinking, Geographic Variation, and Implications for Biological Anthropology" in A Companion to Biological Anthropology Clark Spencer Larsen (ed.), Wiley-Blackwell). The usage is as the article mentions maintained by some applied (forensic) physical anthropologists, but not within the more research based branches of physical anthropology. More genetically oriented studies of Human biological variation do not use concepts such as mongoloid, negroid or caucasoid, because they do not fit the with the actual patterns of genetic variation in which clades follow human migrational patterns that do not align well with continental origins and is much more detailed than the notion of three main clusters suggest. This can be reviewed in Human Biological Variation by James H. Mielke,Lyle W. Konigsberg,John H. Relethford 2005, or in Vogel and Motulsky's Human genetics 2009 edition. Indeed the term is mostly of historical interest, with a remnant of usage in law enforcement contexts.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you have good citations to add to the article.--Ephert (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. They are available at libraries and some of them even on line.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Mongoloid is a scientifically valid race, as identified by its combination of phenotypic traits. Some forensic sources:

Bass, William M. 1995. Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society, Inc.
Eckert, William G. 1997. Introduction to Forensic Science. United States of America: CRC Press, Inc.
Gill, George W. 1998. "Craniofacial Criteria in the Skeletal Attribution of Race. " In Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains. (2nd edition) Reichs, Kathleen l(ed.), pp.293-315.
Krogman, Wilton Marion and Mehmet Yascar Iscan 1986. The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Springfield: Charles C.Thomas.
Racial Identification in the Skull and Teeth, Totem: The University of Western, Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Volume 8, Issue 1 2000 Article 4.
Howells, William. 1997. "Getting Here: The Story of Human Evolution". Compass Press.

As Sarich and Miele (2004) point out, it does not take a trained anthropologist to distinguish between 50 Japanese and 50 Norwegians, into 100% sorting accuracy. The only people who deny race are a handful of politically correct driven scientists from America. "Race denialism" is virtually unheard of in China, Russia and so forth. Even a recent poll in Poland showed 75% of anthropologists believe in the biological reality of race. OrangeGremlin (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Those sources are all American forensic scientists. Similar sources by physical anthropologists such as Tim White's Human Osteology, clearly show that the fact that there are phenotypical clines that roughly map on to geographic variation (when comapring extremes) does not validate the race concept. "Race denialism" is unheard of everywhere except in right wing extremist circles such as Metapedia which use it to describe the mainstream physical anthropology of the past 60 years.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The clinal argument against race is a straw man. See Sarich and Miele (2004) who pull it apart. Page 209 - "Human cognition can deal with categories that are not discrete", and on race itself: "they're supposed to blend into one another". The fact clines exist do not invalidate race. By the same logic as Sarich and Miele show, all colours in a rainbow blend into one another, but despite this continious gradation - no one has trouble seperating the colours. You are using existentialist philosophy, which has no meaning in the real biological world. Biodiversity can clearly be broken up and catalogued, all the existentialist connotations are irrelevant. See Sesardic, N. (2010). “Race: a social destruction of a biological concept.” Biology and Philosophy 25(2): 143-162. Your claim "Race denial" is a supremacist neologism is also incorrect. Professor George Gill (2000) uses it:

"Why this bias from the 'race denial' faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in 'race denial' are in 'reality denial' as well" - Gill, George W. Does Race Exist? A Proponent's Perspective. University of Wyoming, 2000

Who is George Gill? Only recognised as the world leading authority on skeletal biology... You are seriously dumbing down wikipedia with your pseudo-scientific race denialist philosophy. I see you are on virtually all race related pages, claiming they don't exist. Yet you wouldn't last 5 minutes in a debate with George Gill or Sarich and Miele. OrangeGremlin (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I know all of the sources, since they the same ones paraded about by neo-racialists at every chance. Gill is an applied anthropologist specializing in forensics, he is well respected within forensic anthropology, but has little clout outside of it. His view of race is a fringe view within the discipline. Sarich is a well respected scientist for his other research, but again his view on race is not representative of the mainstream.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

OrangGremlin is correct. The "consensus" is a handful of vocal PC American pseudo-scientists such as Maunus here. The validity of Mongoloid proposed by Blumenbach has been corroborated by modern genetic studies eg.

"To unambiguously infer population histories represents a considerable challenge…Although this study does not disprove a two-wave model of migration, the evidence from our autosomal data and the accompanying simulation studies…point toward a history that unites the Negrito and non-Negrito populations of Southeast and East Asia via a single primary wave of entry of humans into the continent" [humpopgenfudan.cn/p/A/A1.pdf]

And anyone who has spent time in East Asia will note the striking and abrupt division between Bangladeshi Caucasoids and Mongoloid Burmese. "Race does not exist" is used as a pseudo scientifc PC justification to fallaciously undercut any observations on racial and especially racial cognitive differences. 221.246.127.42 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Turn this page into disambiguation page, merge Mongoloid race material into "East Asian race" article per WP:COMMON NAME

The article titled: "Mongoloid" should become a redirect to several topics: (1) the racial typoology known as the East Asian race; (2) the historically common but now derogatory reference to people with Down's syndrome; and (3) Mongolians. Mongoloid became an outdated term in racial typology. "Mongoloid race" has 66,900 results, "East Asian race" has 176,000 results. Thus per Wikipedia:Common name the article on the racial typology should be titled "East Asian race".--R-41 (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Upon looking at material, it appears that there seems to be confusion or disunity as to whether "East Asian" is equivalent to Mongoloid or a branch of the Mongoloid race. As such I am retracting my proposal to move the article. I am having the "East Asian race" redirect to Mongoloid. However I strongly suggest that a "Mongoloid race" article be created and to have the article "Mongoloid" be a disambiguation page to Mongolians, the Mongoloid race, and as the now derogatory term of reference to Down syndrome.--R-41 (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Some ethnic groups outside of East Asia (e. g., some Native American ethnic groups) have also been historically been described as "Mongoloid". Jarble (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message"?

"This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information."

"An editor has expressed a concern that this article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole. Please help to create a more balanced presentation."

Not wishing to appear obtuse, but, does everyone not understand that this seems to be intended as a record of "Historical Race Concepts"? Is there this level of contentiousness on the geocentricism, phlogiston, or the various divine being pages? Of course antiquated ideas are composed of "out-of-date information". Should the page on Pythagoreanism or Aristotelianism be "updated" to "reflect recent events"? Why would anyone think it needed to be? Which will be more likely to produce an encyclopedia? Criticizing and deleting the work of others? Or producing additional verifiable content? Is not a first principle of Wikipedia etiquette to assume good faith?72.197.53.106 (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue appears to be that people keep trying to insert language explicitly stating that it's a "Historical Race Concept", but other people keep reverting the article to remove that language, because they feel it's current. 71.243.112.118 (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"Yellow people"?

Political correctness aside, not sure how accurate it is that 'Yellow people' redirects to this page.314159 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think 'political correctness' is either here or there. Where should it redirect? Paul B (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Simpsons? Or perhaps nowhere at all. 24.236.209.49 (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it more proper to direct to some article on racial slurs. I'll research. --Bridgecross (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I would submit that "Yellow" is currently considered a racial slur (See:List of Ethnic Slurs), whereas "Black" or "White" are not, by themselves, considered slurs. I would certainly never call my Asian friends "yellow," whereas my friends of African descent prefer to be called "black." This drives some people crazy, some find no rhyme or reason to it, but then Wikipedia is not the place to make reason out of the world, only to describe it. Since the article on racial slurs has an entry for "Yellow," I'll redirect there now. With best of intentions and in good faith. --Bridgecross (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the redirect to this article as "yellow" has been removed from the list for not being a slur. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I note that the entry was removed with the explanation "Not ethnic slur" That's not much discussion for something that had a very decent reference of "Often offensive." It seems a case of one bad edit spilling into another. Anyone else want to ring in? --Bridgecross (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that "yellow" is also a now-obsolete term for a person with a minoirity of African ancestry, as in High yellow. In the madness of modern terminological norms I guess they would now be "black" (indeed see the plot summary for the film High Yellow). Paul B (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Finns and Saami as "Mongoloids"

The claims that Finns or Saami would be East Asian to any greater extent are absurd. I removed the long explanation on how Finns are not mongoloids, as there is no need for it. Finns are not considered mongoloids by any experts in the field as far as I now. I kept the source and a claim that Finns have previously been claimed to have partial Mongoloid ancestry, as the source still goes through the old research quite well.

The Eastern Saami are known to have perhaps the highest amount of East Asian ancestry in Europe, according to the source below on average 6%. The claim by Cavalli-Sforza that Saami would be over 50% mongoloid must be a misquotation, perhaps he was referring to Y-DNA haplogroups, which is not the same as autosomal DNA. There cannot be such a great difference between scientific studies.

Finns have a small but clearly detectable Siberian element in the gene pool, but the actual amount of East Asian autosomal DNA is smaller, somewhere close to 5% in most studies. It's hardly worth even mentioning in the article, perhaps it should be removed altogether.

"European Journal of Human Genetics (2010)" A genome-wide analysis of population structure in the Finnish Saami with implications for genetic association studies Jeroen R Huyghe et al

In this paper we describe for the first time the results of an analysis of population structure in the Finnish Saami based on genome-wide autosomal SNP data. Using data from the HapMap and Human Genome Diversity projects, we performed a model-based and a model-free ancestry analysis. In both analyses an East Asian contribution to the Saami gene pool became apparent. Using the HapMap, for which the densest map of SNPs was available for the analysis, the median estimated percentage of the genome originating from East Asia was 6% and estimates ranged from 0 to 13%. Ion-5 (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add a supporting fact. According to Häkkinen's hypothesis (a synthesis of the views of Janhunen and Kallio especially, which could be described as a "two-homeland-stages model"), which seems to be quite mainstream and has remained uncontradicted so far, the origin of the Uralic or Finno-Ugric languages, 5000 years or so ago, lies in the Lake Baikal area immediately north of Mongolia in South Siberia. This suggests that the speakers of Proto-Uralic were of North/East Asian, Mongoloid appearance. Then they migrated to the lower Kama area, in a region where both Indo-European and unidentified non-Indo-European languages were spoken. The speakers of these languages, probably all indigenous to Eastern Europe, were certainly not of Mongoloid appearance. The Kama/Volga confluence is the immediate homeland of the Uralic languages, about 4000 years ago, from which the speakers of Proto-Uralic expanded and migrated westwards as well as eastwards, absorbing Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages in the process. Modern speakers of Uralic languages look Mongoloid in the east (especially Siberia, where East Uralic languages are spoken) and more and more European in the west, until in Northern Europe/Scandinavia (and Hungary) they look as European as their Indo-European-speaking neighbours, gradually shading from one type to the other in the form of a continuum. This state of affairs has long puzzled researchers who wondered about the original physical type of Uralic speakers, but the new synthesis neatly explains it all (although it is based on exclusively linguistic arguments!). If there is still a detectable (even if minor) remaining Siberian genetic influence in modern Finns and Saami (also in Hungarians, too?), this is a resounding confirmation of the new syntheis on the Proto-Uralic homeland (Turkic influence is likely for Hungarians, Volga Finnic groups and Mansi/Khanty/Samoyeds, but there is no evidence, historical or linguistic, for close Turkic contacts with Finnic and Saamic peoples), keeping in mind that the early speakers of Uralic gradually mixed with indigenous European populations, progressively decreasing/"diluting" the Siberian genetic element until Scandinavia, while retaining it in the east (and also keeping in mind that a dominant social class causing a new ethnic group to adopt their language need not be numerically dominant and can in fact be relatively small, and can have been tiny in absolute numbers, in view of the low population densities in the prehistoric taiga region). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Slavs as mongoloids

I must say I question the long section on mongoloid admixture in Slavs for the same reason as above. The admixture is very small and the sources used mainly mention Y-DNA/mitochondrial haplotypes. This article is mainly about a racial type, and and certain Y-DNA/mtDNA lineages say more about historic migrations than present-day autosomal gene pools. For example, Inuits, while being clearly part of the Native American gene pool, have mainly European Y-DNA, due to contact with Europeans. Besides, is every group of people which have small East Asian ancestry going to be covered? It will be a long article in that case. Ion-5 (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It's still noteworthy enough to mention this, because in view of my above remarks about the Uralic homeland the Mongoloid admixture can point to Uralic and besides also Turkic and other East Asian influence. It's true that it makes no sense to describe Slavs as "Mongoloid" synchronically, of course. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It does not mean being partially East Asian. Slavs are Asian ourselves, which is why we are "North Mongols" in that map thing, and why we look like Asians, but with lighter pigmentations than most of the other races in Asia. This is why Slavs were treated as they were treated in WWII... Some of my Slavic kindreds are in denial about being Asians, and want to join the very group that would like us extinct, which mass-murdered us in WWII... Not a wise decision, and they will never be accepted by that group. Learning about history before pretending to be European is advisable... The Slavic homelands are over 50% in Asia. The best you could say if trying to call yourself European is Eurasian, not European. And, this shouldn't bother you, because you shouldn't be racist against yourself. The East Asian admixture is just more Asian, of a different race, on top of Asian, it is not Asian on top of European. East Asians are called East Asians for a reason, they are only one of the races of Asia, but the rest of us are also Asian.

My having fair pigmentations does not change the fact that my face, body, and teeth are all blatantly Asian. And, all my ilk also look blatantly Asian, even if most are a little more showing of European admixtures from modern mixings than me. Asian cheeks, jaws, mouths, teeth, and eyes are all highly common of Slavs. And, it is not from an East Asian mixed in hundreds of years ago, it is from being Slavic.

If others want to ignore their own reflections, and history... Fine... But, I identify as Asian, not European, or "white." Because I know what I look like, and I know fair pigmentations are not from Europe, and exist even among East Asians (yes, they do, East Asians carry fair pigmentation DNA, and on rare occasion have it active (and, those families have not mixed with anything not of East Asia for hundreds of years, if they ever did such a mixing at all)). I also know history, geography, the distribution of these various traits I have, and my genealogy (unless I was switched at birth), including the blond hair, which all indicate I am either Eurasian, or Asian, not European. Slavs who think they are Europeans do not know these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.247.182 (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

History of the concept section

This is not a section about when Mongoloids developed, it is about the history of the concept, so I have added quotes from Brown which should not be removed simply because someone thinks they are wrong. What I have removed is material sources to Shigeo Iwata[1] which says "Each of the several bone pieces of 28,000 years ago that were discovered in Shiyu site in China bears a number of lines. Each of these lines denoting a number suggests that the people used to record 20 or more numbers. The 22,430-year-old bone tubes excavated at the Zhoukoudian site in the southwest of Beijing bear symbols that have been deciphered as representing 3,5, 10, and 13. The shape of the symbol for 10 leads us to believe that its creators employed the decimal system. Presumably, the Mongoloid completed the decimal system 50,000 years ago when they branched into East Asia, both North and South America, and the Pacific islands. The Chinese people recorded numbers as large as 30,000 in the period 3.300 years ago." Not only is Iwata in no way a specialist in Mongoloids, this claim about the decimal system is just nonsense. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"said"

Charlotte, who is a Wikipedia editor, said, "Can we do something about the overabundance of the word "said" in this article? This isn't Wikiquote. Mining quotes containing the word "mongoloid" in order to prove that it is a current concept is WP:SYNTHESIS. Concerning the bulk of the article with scholars who have used it is WP:UNDUE. The awkward manner of listing every author's credentials appeal to authority." Charlotte added that "the genetic studies section is probably not worth attempting to salvage, as it consists mainly of bare tables of data are literally worthless without reading the primary sources from which they are taken" Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Eskimo

I'm not sure why "Eskimo" should be a better notion than "Inuit". Please explain, why you use "Eskimo" in that context? 188.102.54.228 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the Yupik peoples do not consider themselves Inuit, so only "Eskimo" covers them both. Read Eskimo. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't use the term negro; this is a very short sighted answer by someone who doesn't really understand the term. The chart displays "Alaskan Native" so the comment on the Yupik people is irrelevant. 69.116.158.191 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

hair

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.23.54 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Central Asians: Mongoloid or Half-Europid Half-Monoloid

Well... Central Asians are of a mix of Europids (Indo-Europeans groups like Iranic and Tocharian) and Mongoloid ones (Turks and Mongols). Their phenotype is not similar to Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and other East Asians. They're unique type. A bridge between European Caucasoids and East Asians. --188.158.80.47 (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen few Chinese girls (from Han people) who look while being in Central Asia the same as locals (however most of Chinese look distinctly different) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.23.54 (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

btw half-Korean-half-Russian usually looks exactly like Central Asians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.23.54 (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ordos

I explained why I removed "The human fossil remains of the Ordos Man from Salawusu site in Inner Mongolia dated between 50,000 and 35,000 BCE show strong Mongoloid features, specifically on the fore-tooth and occipital bone. Weiwen, Huang, Salawusu Relic. Encyclopedia of China, 1st ed." I said " I can't verify the source, which might not be a problem if I could find it mentioned elsewhere, but I can't, so deleting". It's been restored despite the fact I said I couldn't find it anywhere else and can't verify it. Believing that something is true is not a reason for it to be in the article, material must be verifiable AND must be a significant point of view - see WP:UNDUE. It seems pretty obvious to me that if that statement is correct we should be able to find other sources. These may well exist but until they are found this shouldn't be in the article. I could find no sources discussing this fore-tooth and occipital bone. Dougweller (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell the claim only appears in the Chinese encyclopedia, and I doubt that the editor who added it can read Chinese, as they got the author's name wrong in a very basic way. Ergative rlt (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Review of sources badly needed here

I see earlier editors who have worked on this article have in some cases pointed out that the categorization assumed by this article topic is old-fashioned and no longer scientifically favored. The article does not yet reflect that current scientific consensus enough, by far, and it would be good to review the sources cited in this article (some of which are good, but too many of which are primary rather than secondary sources) to update and improve this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I really wonder who writes these articles. The Koch brothers? A bunch of South Africans with an apartheid era education? First, there are races of modern man. Second, that gets me to the fact that this page does not rely at all on actual modern genetics. The page feels like you have taken a wrong turn into a museum of 1950s anthropology. MrSativa (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Down Syndrome / Down's Syndrome

All through the 1960s and 70s and 80s, Down('s) Syndrome people were called mongoloids. I have a cousin with this condition. I am not convinced that there should be a quick little line telling people to look for the chromosomal condition on another Wikipedia page. Mongoloid was a term that referred to people like my dear cousin and this page needs a little more to recognise the people that were called "mongoloid" who have Down's Syndrome for a very long time. More explanation of the situation needs to be there. I am not capable of giving it, but I suspect there are people could explain these things and use the history of the terminology without whitewashing it. (Yes, it seems to be referred to as "Down Syndrome" lately.) Any thoughts???

Yes, I have thoughts. The idea was that Down's Syndrome was a throwback of Mongoloid genes among Caucasians (not meaning people who live in the Caucasus today). Then, we discovered dna testing, and found that Down's Syndrome genes have nothing to do with Asians. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/down-syndrome "What are the genetic changes related to Down syndrome? Most cases of Down syndrome result from trisomy 21, which means each cell in the body has three copies of chromosome 21 instead of the usual two copies." See, it has nothing to do with Asians. It has to do with having an extra chromosome, not any specific gene. So, contrary to archaeic pre-dna beliefs, 'Mongoloids' have nothing to do with Mongoloidism. MrSativa (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

68.71.8.38 (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. This article is about a specific topic, not a word. --Cold Season (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There is too much emphasis on that rare issue (Down Syndrome is itself rare, and most who have it likely do not get called such things, especially in this day, and age)... And, it is making it out as an insult to those with Down Syndrome when the ones being insulted are Asians, as it implies every Asian on Earth has Down Syndrome. It is not an insult to be called Asian. It is an insult to be accused of having Down Syndrome. Some people need to get their priorities straight. Being Asian is not a defect, while Down Syndrome is. This clearly rare issue of people with Down Syndrome being called "Mongoloid" (meaning Asian) is highly racist. And, those viewing it as an insult to the Down Syndrome person instead of Asians are themselves extremely racist. The only way it holds any power to insult someone with Down Syndrome is if you view it as an insult to be called Asian, thus requiring racism against Asians to be insulted, thus making this entirely about racism against Asians instead of prejudice against Down Syndrome. The association to Down Syndrome is explicitly a way to insult Asians. Attempts to make this page push that view of the term "Mongoloid" is racist vandalism of the Wikipedia page, and all such things should be kept off the page. If anything, there should be a paragraph explaining this insult of Asians, as an insult of Asians, which also might be a mere bother to people with Down Syndrome who are not Asian (unless they're racist, then they will be more angry, and/or hurt than annoyed/weary), but is quite extremely racist against Asians (this is beyond ten time worse than such stereotypes as being bad drivers - this level of hate is clear-cute white supremacist group level, at the degree of NAZI Germany).

To even think that Asians should be bothered by correct terminology for being Asians over this is ridiculous, and yet more racism. Some non-Asians not liking to be called "Mongoloid" does not mean there's some huge group of Asians not liking to be called it. Non-Asians do not get to up, and declare terms for Asians as offensive like this. This is ridiculously racist, and has zero consideration of Asians. This is even worse than non-Poles telling me I'm supposed to view it as an insult when someone tries to call me the Polish word for Poles, and simply says, and spells it a little wrong, just because haters of Poles say it, and spell it like that, as if it's the word, or how it gets said, or spelled that is the problem... No. The problem is the hate, which stands no matter what words they're using when they insult us. At least with non-Poles declaring Pollack a bad word it's based off trying to fight hate against Poles... (But, in a very wrong way, of practically calling the Polish word for Poles itself an insult, which is itself prejudiced against us! >:-[) But, this anti-"Mongoloid" crazy nonsense isn't even that, and is instead about non-Asians who don't like being called Asian, so think that particular word for Asians should now be a bad word. Ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.247.182 (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Too much emphasis where? There's barely a couple of sentences. I tend agree that these aregumentds about particular ethic terms being "insulting" are often deeply confused, but they exist nontheless. Paul B (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Turks, OOA, Haplogroups

The copy & paste of generic Turkic culture is offtopic and has nothing to do with the Mongoloid typology. Likewise, the tables on the Out-of-Africa theory and haplogroups are synthesis and also have nothing to do with Mongoloid typology. Mongoloids aren't even touched on. East Asians are, but populations ≠ physical types. They are instead made up of various physical types, some more prevalent than others. Soupforone (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

LOL at redirect

White people => white people (Caucasoid?) Black people => black people (Negroid?) Yellow people => mongoloid

just found that amusing96.55.155.242 (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's funny how Wikipedia even has such a redirect. In terms of nomenclature, old habits die hard for Western concepts. -Ano-User (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, how hilarious that Wikipedia would base their redirects on common language usage. I'm about as Liberal as they come, but some people seriously need to pull their heads out of their asses. Whether you like it or not, skin color is a primary racial indicator, and therefore people who want to actually get a point across tend to use words and concepts that the rest of humanity understands. Before you get all pissy about the word "yellow", perhaps you'd care to explain why a simple descriptor of color is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.246.67 (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't sound liberal at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.42.89.251 (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

From school i remember term Europoid rather than Caucasoid...--Aeorin (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Politically Correct term

The article says multiple times, that the usage of the term "mongoloid" is controversial at best in both public and technical usage, however it does not state the proper term to be used. How should one refer to this ethnic group? (IMHO such information should be included in an article like this) --Aeorin (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It isn't an ethnic group, it's a physical anthropological type (cluster of craniofacial features, mainly) that is found in a huge number of entirely distinct ethnicities. For heaven's sake don't call it an ethnic group, that is exactly the kind of thing that puts people off using these terms. Generally "East Asian" will do just fine. But in technical literature you'll still often see "Mongoloid" anyway, I don't think most people really care.Megalophias (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Racism

The problem with this article is that it presumes there is such a thing called a 'race' of 'Mongoloids'. Dividing mankind up into three races is old thinking. Also, in the age of the human genome project, most of the methods used belong in a museum for anthropological theories. MrSativa (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just because you term it old thinking it is not incorrect. Scientiest like Charles Murray and others will disagree with you. Genetic methods can fairly accurately point to which race - or "regional subgroup" as some call it today - an individual belongs. I advice you to read the following piece which addresses some points of this debate: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11837 I also fail to see how it is racist to talk about different races. The article does not state that any race is superior to another. But well, if you want to call it racism, do as you wish. It will not change the facts or anyone's view on the matter. 91.49.197.89 (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Edge.org is not a reliable source.--Beneficii (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Photographs of private persons: Double standard?

I notice this article has a lot of photographs of private people, that is, people who are not famous or notable. I think this is objectifying, and I doubt each of those people gave their permission to have their image posted like they were objects to be studied. We're also invading their privacy by posting their image.

There is also a double standard, if you look at the articles Caucasian race and White people. The former has no photos of people at all (only sketches), and the latter does have photos of people but these are famous people who are notable on their own, and whose pictures are already widely available (i.e. they're not private people). This is less objectifying, because these people are famous for something they did.

All in all, we're objectifying the private people photographed in this article by using their image in ways they may not have intended, while in the white people article we only post photographs of famous, notable people, which is less objectifying. This is a double standard. Let's fix this.--Beneficii (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If the photographer released the image copyright under a free licence and the photograph was taken within a country that guarantees photographic freedom within public areas by law, I don't see any problem with using photographs of private people. The idea of the images being "objectifying" is extremely subjective and is purely opinion-based; it's also an extremely Eurocentric way of perceiving things. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Japanese use of the term Moko

The Sino-Japanese word Mōko (蒙古?) meaning "Mongol" was recognized for its connotation of a "stupid, ignorant, or immature" person (c.f. Mongoloid), and the ethnic group is now called by the katakana Mongoru (モンゴル?). Shouldn't there be a specific wikipedia page for racism against Mongolians or Mongolophobia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Chinese character 蒙 originally means "to deceive, to cheat, blind, dim sighted, unconscious, ignorant", and the Chinese have always used the word Menggu (蒙古) to refer to Mongolia. So, it's not actually something to do with the sentiment coming from Japan, they've merely inherited the usage from China. Folks might be interested in reading Graphic pejoratives in written Chinese. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Tina Manning and John Trudell Photograph

User:Rantemario restored the photograph of Tina Manning and John Trudell with this edit with the edit summary "reverted wp:nor, rescued removed images, and rearranged images". I had removed that photograph in this edit, because its description says that it is a "Non-free" image and that "It is only being used to illustrate the article in question" which I believe would be either the Tina Manning or John Trudell article. Since that photograph is a "Non-free" image, I think that using that photograph in this article might be considered copyright infringement.--Ephert (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed the picture. Presumably the picture belongs to the estate of John Trudell. Per WP:FREER we should not use this picture if it can "be replaced by a free version that has the same effect". Any picture of Native Americans could be used here, so we should not use this picture here. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Mongoloid proportionately short legs and running ability

Esteban Sarmiento et al. on page 223 of the 2007 book The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans published by Yale University Press said that the proportionately long legs of Sub-Saharan Africans make them naturally better runners than Mongoloids who Sarmiento et al. mentioned as having proportionately short legs. This is an interpretive claim made by Sarmiento et al. dealing with how proportionately short legs versus proportionately long legs affects a human's ability to run. The 2007 book seems to be a reliable source, and WP:ANALYSIS allows Wikipedia to include interpretive claims made by reliable secondary sources. In this case, Sarmiento et al. (2007) appears to be a secondary source as it "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources" as quoted from the WP:SECONDARY policy description, and the primary sources appear to be the finals of Olympic running events and the fact that Mongoloids have proportionately have short legs. In his own words, Sarmiento et al. (2007) said on page 223, "Although differences in body segment proportions may be associated with climatic differences, they also endow each of the geographic groups with different capabilities. For instance, the high lower-limb to body-size ratio makes sub-Saharan Africans much better natural runners than Mongoloids. Sub-Saharan Africans are thus much more commonly seen in Olympic finals in all the running events, despite the fact that Mongoloids currently make up a much higher proportion of the human population." I was thinking about adding this source into this article as, "Esteban Sarmiento et al. (2007) said that the proportionately long legs of Sub-Saharan Africans make them naturally better runners than Mongoloids who Sarmiento et al. mentioned as having proportionately short legs." Does any Wikipedia editor see an issue based on Wikipedia policy which would indicate that this contribution should not be included in this article?--Ephert (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, since the Sarmiento et al. (2007) source is talking about race and sports, I think that it should go into the race and sports Wikipedia article and not this one.--Ephert (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Texture

The table insinuating that hair texture is continent based is erroneous. It is actually typology centered (i.e., Mongoloid, Negroid, Caucasoid [2]), and as such is transcontinental. The actual global hair texture distribution map makes this clear [3]. Soupforone (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Mechanical properties of ethnic hair
	Caucasian	Asian	African
Elastic modulus (G Pa)	3.3	4.7	2.5
Yield strength (MPa)	67	100	58
Breaking strength (GPa)	117	139	101
Strain at breakage (%)	35	32	20
The values presented here are based on 15 measurements. Values show up to 15% variation from sample to sample.

Source: Bhushan (2010) Page 1106¹
¹Bhushan, B. (2010). Springer Handbook of Nanotechnology (3rd ed.). Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York: Springer. Page 1106. Retrieved December 29, 2016, from link.
This is the data table whose inclusion is being discussed. --Ephert (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Soupforone: In this edit you removed the Bhushan (2010) data table from the Mongoloid article, and this edit you said, "The table insinuating that hair texture is continent based is erroneous", and you also said in that same edit that hair texture is "transcontinental" due to actually being based on "typology" "(i.e., Mongoloid, Negroid, Caucasoid [4])". Are you claiming that the data table insinuates a continental basis for hair texture due to it using the word "Asian" instead of the word "Mongoloid"? If sources that use the word "Asian" cannot be added to the Mongoloid article, that would mean drastic changes would have to be made to the Mongoloid article. Many of the reliable sources already cited in this article use the word "Asian" instead of the word "Mongoloid" for race, so the removal of sources that use the word "Asian" instead of the word "Mongoloid" would mean removing lots of reliably-sourced content from this article which would greatly lower the amount of information provided by this article. The objection to instances of the word "Asian" due to the word possibly being misinterpreted to mean everybody in Asia, including Persian people for example who are of the Caucasoid race or Siddi people for example who are of the Negroid race, seems unreasonable. On the other hand, the word "Mongoloid" can also mean people with Down syndrome as in this text from 1955 where they talk about "a doll-like mongoloid child" to mean a "doll-like" child with Down syndrome. I am not saying that you are arguing against instances of the word "Mongoloid" in this article, but it would be similarly unreasonable to remove sources from this article that use the term "Mongoloid" for race due to the possible objection that the word "Mongoloid" might be misinterpreted to mean people with Down syndrome. Although I think it is unnecessary, perhaps a clarification could be added to this article to avoid misinterpretation of these two words if you believe such a clarification to be necessary. The clarification could say, "Instances of the word Mongoloid in this article are in reference to race and not in reference to people with Down syndrome. Please see the Down syndrome article for the latter usage. Instances of the word Asian in this article are in reference to race and not in reference to everybody in Asia. Please see the ethnic groups in Asia article for the latter usage." I feel that it would be a great loss to this article to decide to not include the Bhushan (2010) data table simply due to the fact that Bhushan (2010) chose to use the word "Asian" instead of using the word "Mongoloid" in the data table.--Ephert (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Mongoloid typology =/= Asian provenience. While Asian is indeed sometimes used as a euphemism for Mongoloid, that doesn't obscure the fact that not all the native inhabitants of Asia are Mongoloid; many are instead morphologically Caucasoid, Australoid or Negroid. The same goes for Africa, which is inhabited by populations with Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid phenotypes alike. Europe is the only continent with a single native phenotype, Caucasoid. The global hair texture distribution map reflects this. Anyway, in the mechanical properties table, since Asian is apparently a euphemism for Mongoloid, I've adjusted the labeling accordingly per WP:RELEVANCE. Soupforone (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Divergence estimation

The tables on estimated continental divergence dates for the DNA of early human populations don't appear to have anything to do with the Mongoloid typology. This is perhaps understandable since the early human populations of the Out-of-Africa period had not yet evolved specialized morphologies, other than a few incipient traits. They were instead generalized anatomically modern humans. Soupforone (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Paleomongoloids their own race?

Since they're a mixture of both the Australoid and Mongoloid mixture, they don't belong in either category and thus should be categorized as their own race since there are large populations of this type of new race which can be seen in various places such as, the Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:DF:8000:4701:0:2:54CB:6EDC (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a source. The terms Australoid and Mongoloid do not refer to "races" in the sense of ethnic or genetic groups, but rather morphologically similar peoples, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not sure what "new race" you're referring to, either. 204.11.129.240 (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Proportion of world population

I am sure Caucasians come top of the world population table because Indian Asians, Semitics, and generally "brown-coloured people" from Asia Minor and the Mediterranean are included in the figure. It is interesting to note that many White Northern Europeans don't count these people as Caucasians. If the category of "mixed race" was included, then that would probably come top, as who can prove that their entire DNA history is not the product of more than one race? Conclusion: every human person should be classified as mixed-race. 86.147.5.71 (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Montagu statement change

User:VierraCerna made a 05:25, 10 August 2017 edit to a sentence which was cited to Montagu. In this edit, User:VierraCerna removed the description of Mongoloids as having broad faces in addition to making other changes. I have doubts that the broad-face description was a false characterization of Montagu's claims, because the broad skull description has been stated by other reliable sources. For example, in Table 1 of Blumenfield (2000), the data entry for the "Cranial form" of the "Mongoloid" is "broad" on page 5 of 16 of the PDF document. User:VierraCerna also made this 09:15, 21 August 2017 edit where they added the Ainu to list for the Meyers Konversations-Lexikon diagram. I looked at the image of the Meyers Konversations-Lexikon diagram, and I did not see Ainu in the list. I want to know the reasons for the changes User:VierraCerna made to the statement which is cited to Montagu.--Ephert (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Montagu statement I think it safe if we also add Ainu into Mongoloid, their DNA is the closest to Tibetan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VierraCerna (talk • contribs) 14:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC) "According to genetic tests, the Ainu people belong mainly to Y-DNA haplogroup D2 (a haplogroup that is found uniquely in and frequently throughout Japan including Okinawa with its closest relations being Tibetans the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean." "Full-blooded Ainu, compared to people of Yamato descent, often have lighter skin and more body hair. Many early investigators proposed a Caucasian ancestry, although recent DNA tests have not shown any genetic similarity with modern Europeans. Cavalli-Sforza places the Ainu in his “Northeast and East Asian" genetic cluster." "Omoto has also shown that the Ainu are Mongoloid, and not Caucasoid, on the basis of fingerprints and dental morphology." — Preceding unsigned comment added by VierraCerna (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained hidden content

What's with the unexplained hidden content in the "Subgroupings" heading of the "Genetic research" section? I think we should remove it. Fortunatestars (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)!

The term "Mongolasian"

In a 17:40, March 15, 2008, edit, User:DrMWSpanakos added "Because of this and the incorrect usage of the term "Asian" as a racial category another term was introduced by noted ethnologist Dr.MWSpanakos of New York City, "Mongolasian", and has gain great popularity." This statement was not cited to anything, and it was removed in a 00:03 March 19, 2008, edit, by an IP editor who used the edit summary "rm unsourced comment." In a 06:52, December 17, 2012, edit, User:DrMWSpanakos added "But the term Mogoloid is giving way to the more recent use of the term Mogolasian." This statement was again not cited to anything, and it was removed in a 19:30, December 17, 2012, edit by User:Ergative rlt with the edit summary "private terminology not suitable here." In an 18:41, February 15, 2018, edit, User:DrMWSpanakos added "In the early 2001 another term was introduced by noted ethnologist Dr.MWSpanakos of New York City, the usage of the term "Mongolasian", and has gain great popularity." This statement was again not cited to anything, and I removed it in a 21:16, February 17, 2018, edit with the edit summary "I reverted the inclusion of an unsourced statement." Please, User:DrMWSpanakos, do not try to add the term "Mongolasian" into this article again unless you can cite it to a reliable source.--Ephert (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)