Talk:Mongoloid/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Alternative terms

Regarding this,

No, it says nothing about it being alternatively referred to as "East Asian race". The author made a subjective claim by saying it would be better if it was referred to as "East Asian" instead as a modern term. Mongoloid is an obsolete term. Find a better source that actually shows that "East Asian race" has been used during the era the term was used. A registered user removed this information a few months ago and now I'm removing it again.

Ok, I don't get it, and you need to stop to talk to me via edit summaries. "East Asian race" redirects here, and we have good evidence that this term has been used as an alternative, because "Mongoloid" has unduly become associated with trisomy. You yourself say "Mongoloid is an obsolete term". Indeed. This is why people have proposed an alternative term. "Mongoloid race" is a somewhat antiquated term to what some people prefer to call, more self-explanatorily, "East Asian race". I am not stating that this is suddenly the primary, or preferable term, or to move the page, and you are free to still call East Asians "Mongoloids" as much as you like. I am merely mentioning it to accommodate the redirect. Please explain what you think is a problem here. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Find a better source that actually shows that "East Asian race" has been used during the era the term was used

um what? "Please find a reference that shows the modern term was used while the old term was also used"? How does this even make sense? Clearly this is not a reasonable request, and seems to suggest that less than good faith is involved here

I think I understand what is going on here. I apologize if I am mistaken, but I now have the impression people do not actually prefer the term "Mongoloid" but are trying to discredit the entire topic by insisting on using an obsolete term for it. If this is really the case, it would be extremely disruptive behaviour, basically "edit-warring by article name". Try to make a factual argument instead of playing semantic games please. --dab (𒁳) 08:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Due diligence: evidence that the term is in perfectly regular use:

in medicine: 2004, 2010

in political ideology (mostly 1930s China and Japan, so perhaps this satisfies the bizarre request "please show that both terms happened to be in use at the same time"): [1][2]

It is disingenious to suggest that the existence and widespread use of the term is unsubstantiated. But I am not going to take the trouble to work any of these references into the article until somebody condesceds to make a good-faith argument explaining what type of source is required and would be seen as adequate. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• That you can find the phrase mentione in two or three snippets without any discussion of what it is supposed to mean is not sufficient for introducing an attempt to shoehorn in an alternative statement into the definition. Much less so is the mention of the personal preference of an author in a book that is not about race, but about South East Asia. You need to demonstrate that the term has any actual currency by showing it used and explained in a study that is actually about Racial classifications. Mention of the phrase is perhaps enough for a redirect, but not enough to be a notable inclusion in the lead. Find a contemporary book about race and racial classifications that uses this term and explicitly states that it can be used instead of "mongoloid". The racial typological classification of "mongologoid" is itself a n outdated concept which is not redeemed by using a new word for it - but lending false credibility by pretending that there is a more current term for the same concept is misrepresenting the topic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you somehow suggesting that the term "East Asians" is not applied to the racial category? In your world knowledge, does the US census use "East Asian" as a racial category, or does it use "Mongoloid"? The fact that "Mongoloid" is not an outdated concept but is in very contemporary use in specialist literature is well established in the article. It is also well established that the term has fallen out of use, and has been replaced by "East Asian" outside of specialist use. The term "consensus" as used on Wikipedia does not mean that I need your personal consent to present perfectly encyclopedic, perfectly well referenced facts into an article. If you want constructive debate on the facts, I am here for that, but so far you have just refused to acknowledge the reference facts. No constructive debate is possible if one side refuses to engage in it. --dab (𒁳) 10:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What you are doing is a type of OR or synthesis. You are using the fact that a term is used in some cherry picked sources as evidence for the currency of a term in a specific sense. If you want to include a statement in the article that "East Asian" is widely or currently used as a synonym of "mongoloid" (i.e. as a racial typological category), then you have to demonstrate a (highly reliable) source that actually states this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

:::Well the "Mongoloid" racial category was defined by shared ancestry and the widely used "East Asian" racial, uh sorry ancestral population category is defined by shared ancestry, so I guess it's about as axiomatic as 1 + 1 = 2. But I guess you need a reliable source to inform the unwashed masses of the demonstrably obvious. Probably we also need a reliable source that "East Asian ancestry" is defined by ancestry. And I doubt sociologists would want to defer to to life-saving medics on any subject, saying something socially unfashionable about biology might jeopardise their champagne budget. Preferred Pronoun (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No "mongoloid" was never defined by shared ancestry, it was defined by shared phenotype. Ancestral populations are defined by shared ancestry as define dby genotype, that is the entire issue. They are different things.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Get consensus?

WP:DENY EvergreenFir (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[3] There are several sources using Mongoloid or variations in a genealogical sense, e.g. Darwin. This is synonymous with East Asian ancestry which is in widespread modern use. Maunus's flat refusal to accept the facts presented here can only be considered WP:Stonewalling. Preferred Pronoun (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC) There are tons of sources, recent, scholarly literature from the 2000s and 2010s, that use "Mongoloid" as a technical term in anthropology. Attempts to suggest the term is "historical" (as in, obsolete) are untenable. There are tons of sources that use "East Asian" as a replacement for "Mongoloid" in other fields. This is even less "historical", it is a reaction to some fields (social sciences) objecting to the "-oid" suffix for some reason. It is just as untenable to deny that "East Asian" is used as a racial term, already because the US census does so. In short, Maunus has no leg to stand on here, and the reverts are simply disruptive. Simply denying the existence of obvious, bona fide, scholarly, ubiquitous WP:RS does not make for a "content dispute". I have tagged the article and will rest my case, imho this is a case for admin intervention, but I have no time for wikilawyering. --dab (𒁳) 13:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC) I suggest an RfC to establish whether it is Ok to describe the usage of terms based on one's own survey of works and one's own estimate of what can be considered equivalent usage, or whether we require a source that actually describes the usage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC) ¨ By the way it is a really extreme claim that because the US survey uses "east asian" as a racial category that means it is equivalent to "mongoloid". One can of course be "east asian" in the US surveyy and not present a single "mongoloid" anatomical trait. One can also have "mongoloid" anatomical traits and identitfy or be identified by others with a nother racial category in the US census. One can also be "east asian" in the US census and have predominant Euoropean ancestry. So no, the terms are not synonymous - mongoloid is a term that comes from anatomical racial typology (which is according to all reliable sources obsolote). "East asian" is a term that either describes geographic ancestry, or describes membership in the US racial group "east asian" - and which may or may not correspond with anatomical features earlier described as "mongoloid". You really need to up your game and present some actual sources that describe the use of racial terms instead of just cherry picking random works that use the words that to you seem to be equivalent.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC) CU blocked OP, struck through their post above. @Dbachmann:, anything by a sock, particularly of the racist editor Mikemikev, can be reverted on sight. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section

Can we not integrate the information in the criticism section into the rest of the article? --Beneficii (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Much of the writing here needs to be placed in context including criticism. Travelmite (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Requirement to revert out of context material

Much of the modern material in this article is taken out of context. There is a quote from M. Pietrusewsky which begins "For example ..." What is omitted is this is an example of how racial topological approaches are being being abandoned. The full quote begins as follows: "Early craniological analyses focused on a few measurements of observations that were used to assign skulls to a racial type. This procedure has been recognized as too simplistic and impressionistic."[4] Material will be re-evaluated, with respect to all Wikipedia policies. Note that attempts to misconstrue the source material of living anthropologists in a manner that could harm their reputation must be reverted under all circumstances. Travelmite (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Extra example: Wilkenson taken out of context. She writes three studies agree no correlation between eyeball size and racial origin, and one study confirms that eyeball size not correlated with orbit (eye socket) diameter. This was written up as Mongoloids have the smallest eyeballs and largest eye sockets. The disproof was used to make unsupportable statements!

It seems clear based on some of the controversial phrases in this article, that these will not be the only examples. Travelmite (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why historical results are automatically "controversial"? Yes, by modern standards, craniological studies are crude. But then it was all that was available a hundred years ago, and their results were surprisingly accurate. Of course nobody will rely on craniological studies today when high-end autosomal archaeogenetic studies are available. This doesn't make these studies automatically invalid, it just makes them highly unreliable by modern standards. Just like Dalton's atomism isn't "controversial" with regard to modern particle physics, it is just seminal work that has been completely superseded by later, more accurate studies.

Surprisingly, though, morphology of dentition appears to be extremely significant, for which reason the morphological studies of Sinodonty and Sundadonty, unlike craniology, are not outdated at all but highly relevant for the prehistory of Southeast Asia. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Past edits take phrases from modern sources out of context, as explained. In some cases, the material in the Wikipedia article is opposite to the conclusion in the source, and potentially damaging to the anthropologist. It's a serious matter that cannot be ignored. Wikipedia is not a place to make arguments that to show "morphology of dentition appears to be extremely significant" to some viewpoint. That level of analysis belongs in peer-reviewed works, not Wikipedia. Travelmite (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Assuming images are of Mongoloid

There are a number of images here which have no connection with Mongoloid. These are not images from publications about the concept of Mongoloid. They seem be be assumptions by the Wikipedia editor who included them. Someone has been taking photos of Japanese girls for no purpose and posting them about Wikipedia. Travelmite (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is OR and also an unethical way to use other people's photos. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree, Malayans and Indonesians were not Mongoloid. Don't know who was uninformed enough to claim that. Fortunatestars (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Samoans

Samoans are a mix of Taiwanese and Melanesian aboriginals. This was not known in 1921; at the time, we simply didn't know where the Polynesians came from and gene testing hadn't yet arisen. I dont believe that the ancestors of Samoans ever looked like present-day Mongolians. The author of that study put a lot of work into his theory, but it should be discarded now. —Soap— 20:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Some genetic studies on Austronesian peoples appear to confirm this, though this article does not mention these genetic studies. Jarble (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Eurasian listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eastern Eurasian. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Keratin

This comment is really more about white people, but I brought it up on Talk:Keratin#"European_skin_lacks_keratin" and nobody replied in over a month, so Im hoping people on this more-trafficked page may have opinions. Should I remove the sentence The stratum corneum of Mongoloid skin contains lots of keratin, African and Melanesian skin has low amounts of keratin, and European skin lacks keratin.? It seems that if white people had no keratin at all, we'd know it because everytime we took a shower the water would seep through and enter our blood supply, right? I think the author of the book that this is referenced to may be a bit out of his field here. But see further commentary on talk:Keratin for how the claim may be based in fact even if the wording he used makes it incorrect. —Soap— 19:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I am quoting the relevant paragraph here, so people can read it. In the quote, I bolded the words "keratin" and "keratinization." In Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago: Revised Edition, on page 75, in the last paragraph, Peter Bellwood said, "Skin pigmentation is mainly produced in the deepest layer of the epidermis by melanocytes that produce the black and brown pigment called melanin. The visible color is also affected by the thickness of the outer skin layer, or stratum corneum, which contains keratin. These factors do not vary congruently; African and Melanesian skins are characterized by dark pigmentation but little keratinization, Mongoloid skins have a thick stratum corneum packed with keratin but little pigmentation, and European skins lack both pigmentation and keratin. Indeed, human skin colors are formed by the actions of several factors that seem to vary rather independently."--Ephert (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

When Peter Bellwood said, "...European skins lack both pigmentation and keratin," he may not have meant that European skins do not have keratin. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says that the verb "lack" has two definitions: 1) "to be deficient or missing," and 2) "to be short or have need of something." Therefore, Bellwood might have meant that European skins are deficient or missing keratin, or Bellwood might have meant that European skins are short or have need of keratin.--Ephert (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

When Peter Bellwood said, "...European skins lack both pigmentation and keratin," he appears to have meant a meaning of "lack" other than missing something. Europeans, in fact, have melanin in their skin, so it would be false for him to claim that Europeans do not have pigmentation in their skin. If we rule out the usage of the word "lack" that would make a false statement, Bellwood's usage of the word "lack" in this instance may have meant: 1) European skins are deficient in both pigmentation and keratin, 2) European skins are short of both pigmentation and keratin, or 3) European skins have need of both pigmentation and keratin.--Ephert (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed. I never noticed the hidden comment until now that said This information is in the last paragraph of page 75 which starts with "Skin pigmentation is mainly produced" and the first paragraph of page 76. The phrase "contains lots of" is a rewording of the source text's phrase "packed with". The phrase "low amounts of" is a rewording of the source text's word "little". At the bottom of page 75, Bellwood said, "...Mongoloid skins have a thick stratum corneum packed with keratin but little pigmentation..." but this comments really just tells us about the wording of the source, and doesnt help verify its truthfulness, and of course, doesnt answer the question of how white people manage to sruvive with no keratin. —Soap— 18:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sunburn and wrinkles

I also removed Asian people and black people have a thicker dermis than white people. The skin of Asian people and black people also has more sun protection than the skin of white people due to Asian people and black people having larger and more numerous melanosomes in their skin than white people. The thicker dermis and the more numerous melanosomes of larger size might be the reasons that Asian people and black people have a lower incidence of facial wrinkles than white people. for a similar reason ... this was merely a restating of the paragraph immediately above it in the text, and provides no new information other than that whites are the odd ones out here, not Asians. Also, I'm not sure why melanin would be correlated with wrinkly skin but perhaps someone can enlighten me? —Soap— 19:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

On 18:59, 14 November 2018, User:Soap removed information which was cited to Mitchell P. Goldman et al. (2013), with the edit summary, "skin sensitivity is a touchy subject, i know, but we shouldnt need to repeat the same information twice." The John A. McCurdy and Samuel M. Lam (2005) source is cited for the statement, "Both darker-skinned and lighter-skinned Asians have a thicker dermis than Caucasians of comparable skin pigment..." The Mitchell P. Goldman et al. (2013) source is cited for the statement, "Asian people and black people have a thicker dermis than white people." These statements are similar, but they are not the same. The statement cited to McCurdy & Lam (2005) mentions Caucasians, and the statement cited to Goldman et al. (2013) mentions white people. The statement cited to McCurdy & Lam (2005) has the qualifier, "of comparable skin pigment." Furthermore, the McCurdy & Lam (2005) source is cited for the statement, "...which may be the reason for a 'substantially lower incidence of fine wrinkles' in Asians when compared to Caucasians...," while the Goldman et al. (2013) source is cited for the statement, "...might be the reasons that Asian people and black people have a lower incidence of facial wrinkles than white people." Notice that the statement cited to McCurdy & Lam (2005) is about fine wrinkles while the statement cited to Goldman et al. (2013) is about facial wrinkles. Additionally, the Goldman et al. (2013) source is cited for a statement about more numerous melanosomes of larger size factoring into Asian people and black people having a lower incidence of facial wrinkles than white people. In conclusion, the statements cited to McCurdy & Lam (2005) and Goldman et al. (2013) are similar but they are not the same.--Ephert (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

As a comment: Im sorry for making many small edits ... I think Ive always been this way, but in the last few years Ive cut my cable and mostly use my mobile phone and/or a hotspot, which made a habit into a necessity. I get to a traditional Internet connection every few days but it didnt occur to me until after 20 or so edits that there is a full=page editing option I could use instead of just clicking section by section. last thing before i head out for the night is that i also removed a statement that was referenced to just a screenshot of a paper, not the paper itself, and which we hedged by saying the author may have written the statement. it should be easy to verify this if it is true, and if not, it doesn't need to be here. also, it had bad grammar. —Soap— 20:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The statement was actually referenced to the paper itself. It was reference referenced to the "caption of the mandible photograph at the top of numbered page 639 which is the seventh page of the PDF document," per the invisible note. On 08:49, 2 October 2018, User:Travelmite added in the W.S. Laughlin "may have written" wording. The fact of the matter is that William S. Laughlin did write it. In Eskimos and Aleuts: Their Origins and Evolution, in the caption of the mandible photograph on page 639, William S. Laughlin said, "Fig. 14 Mandible of a man of the Okhotsk culture, Hokkaido, Japan, about A.D. 1000. The enormously broad ascending ramus is characteristic of many Mongoloid groups. The breadth of this feature in Eskimos and Aleuts exceeds the breadth in Neanderthal man. There are multiple mental foramina in the region of the chin. [Specimen courtesy of Kohei Mitshuhashi, Sapporo Medical College]."--Ephert (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC); edited 20:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Original research

This article suffers heavily from original research and falsified misrepresentation of references, and inappropriate sources. In my most recent edit I removed a claim that "recent studies" of southeast Asians show that they have "little" admixture from "Australoids", and that most of the admixture in Southeast Asians is "maternal". First of all, I could find nothing in those sources to corroborate that. The second source is from a preprint repository (Biorxiv), which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the third source indicates that in Austroasiatic speakers of Southeast Asia, the admixture is heavily skewed towards a paternal contribution from "Melanesians" (meaning "Australoid"), and that their maternal DNA is primarily Southeast Asian. This is not consistent with the removed statement in tbis article Northeast Asians and Southeast Asians do not differ significantly and that the genetic difference is "maternal".

Quote from the Cosmossscholars reference (the third reference):

" So, received wisdom now describes a complex and still controversial expansion pathway. The present authors suggest that this situation arises from four principal sources. First, many studies have a very narrow focus; single discipline or single target. For example, it is pretty much agreed by all investigators that Austronesian maternal genetic lineages (mitochondrial DNA; mtDNA) track back to Taiwan and/or Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) whereas their paternal lineages (Y chromosome markers aka NRY) track back more or less exclusively to Melanesia/ISEA, a seemingly impossible dichotomy! "

https://www.cosmosscholars.com/phms/index.php/gjar/article/viewFile/515/324

--Hunan201p (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Mongoloid admixture?!

The current revision of this article promotes "Mongoloid" as a legit scientific term. Seriously what is this?

• Hideo Matsumoto (2009) said that Iranians are "basically Caucasoid with a northern Mongoloid admixture."

Where is the definition of Mongoloid admixture? What is its northern variant? How Iranians have that admixture? Terms like Caucasoid and Mongoloid are historical racial concepts (pseudoscience). If you look at published genetic papers in the recent years, majority of them do not use such terms. Caucasoid has been replaced with West Eurasian and Mongoloid belongs to East Eurasian category. Someone better rewrite this article. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, but instead of re-writing the article, why not just delete it? Please see my comment directly above yours. -Hunan201p (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I've held off on replying above about that while I'm thinking, but let me interject now: I don't think we can just delete the article. WP:TNT is an option, but we'd need to rewrite it. Mongoloid does find occasional use in current sources (e.g. Hyun Jin Kim says that the Huns "partially or predominantly of Mongoloid extraction (at least initially)" in * Kim, Hyun Jin (2013). The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107009066. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)). I think it has some limited use in forensic anthropology as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

We can't delete this article and other related articles because they are used in many physical anthropology works and some genetic studies. Someone may asks "What is Caucasoid/Caucasian race?" and Wikipedia provides the answer to their question. The best solution is neutralization, rewriting, or removal of POV and dubious contents. --Wario-Man (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Finns and Sami

DerekHistorian and Hunan201p, stop edit warring and discuss your edits. Start an RfC if you need to. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This reference:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3850526

Does not make any statements as to the racial origin or status of ancient Haplogroup N carriers nor does it suggest a Mongoloid ancestry for Finns or Saami. It does not even contain the word "Mongoloid" (search it yourself). Blatant oeiginal research. @EvergreenFir: - Hunan201p (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hunan201p Study is from "Battling to be “European”: Myth and the Finnish Race Debate",

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42837118_Battling_to_be_European_Myth_and_the_Finnish_Race_Debate

Do not tell me is this original original research. Many anthropologist and geneticist argued for a Mongoloid origin for Finns.

Many physical anthropologists and geneticists had argued that Finnish people were at least more ‘eastern’ than most Europeans. Kittles et al (1998) find that the ‘Y Chromosome Haplotype variation’ reveals that Finns have ‘dual origins’ between Mongoloid and Germanic. 72% of the Finns carry the ‘Tat C’ eastern genetic marker com-pared to only seven percent in the people of Norway. [52]

Gugliemino et al (1990) argued that the Finns are genetically the most ‘Eastern’ of Europeans with ten percent eastern genes on average while others have estimated that Finns have a quarter or more ‘eastern’ genetic marker com-pared to only seven percent in Norway.

Ruoslahti et al (1968) find that Finns carry genetic markers found in the Chinese but in no other European populations. Research has also noted that Finland-Swedes are genetically hardly distinguishable from Finns and have much more in common with them than with the Swedish people (Hyyppä and Mäki 2003).

Wiik (2006) argues that Finns area round a third mongoloid genetically with the genetic origins of Finnish paternal males being in the east. However, Niskanen argues that the Finnish ‘mongoloid look’ actually involves features inherited from early European (Cro-Magnon) man which have remained due to Finland’s cold environment and its relatively late move to agriculture. Niskanen therefore argues in favour of the ‘Continuity Theory’which began to gain a following from around 1980 onwards. In a detailed discussion of racial history, Niskanen argues that Finns are not actually‘Mongoloid.’ Finland has been inhabited since the end of the last Ice Age and the Finns arrived somewhere between 10,000 and 6000 years ago in waves. Niskanen argues that Finns are a mixtureof a number of European ‘sub-races’:Finns are ‘Old Europeans,’ amongst the earliest settlers to northern Europe, and Proto-Nordics, otherwise known as Cro-Magnon Man.DerekHistorian (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

DerekHistorian has recently added content from a new reference to the article, "Battling to be “European”: Myth and the Finnish Race Debate" by Edward Dutton, which is of extremely low quality. It was published in 2008 by Antrocom, an obscure online publisher with an extremely low impact factor, and its author is a white supremacist race realist and editor-in-chief of the disgraced Mankind Quarterly. In this article, he makes numerous statements in his summaries of various papers which do not at all reflect their content. For instance, this statement from Dutton's article:

Many physical anthropologists and geneticists had argued that Finnish people were at least more ‘eastern’ than most Europeans. Kittles et al (1998) find that the ‘Y Chromosome Haplotype variation’ reveals that Finns have ‘dual origins’ between Mongoloid and Germanic. 72% of the Finns carry the ‘Tat C’ eastern genetic marker com-pared to only seven percent in the people of Norway. [52]

...is simply fabricated. This is Kittle's 1998 paper, it says absolutely nothing about the racial origins of Haplogroup N and completely lacks the terms "Mongoloid" and "Germanic":

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707615390

This "Finns and Saami" section thoroughly violates WP:MEDRS, which is what references on the genetic origins of human groups have to adhere to, which was formed by community consensus. DerekHistorian has offered no references to support his edits other than this race realist's butchered screed, and there's no valid reference out there saying anything about Haplogroup N being Mongoloid. The section has to go and consensus to neutralize this article already existed here on this talk page just months ago. Hunan201p (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree that we can't say that the Finns and Sami are "Mongoloid" if the sources added don't use those terms. I would suggest that we all adhere strictly to what the sources actually say.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't be biased. I once made many replies of "Removal of population with full or partial "Mongoloid" origin". I was against the inclusion of all these people who are not even Mongoloid but nobody supported me despite me removing the sections of Finns, Iranians, South Asians who are clearly not even part Mongoloid let alone being included in the Mongoloid section but than this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4E67:F600:8014:D8B6:B260:511F said " I'm using pseudoscience sources because this article is about a pseudoscience topic." --DerekHistorian (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Read the sources. The fact that you said, "Iranians, South Asians are clearly not even part Mongoloid" shows me you haven't read a single source that has been included to support the inclusion of these groups. Something I told you to do months ago. So stop lying and read the sources. It literally says that some Iranian and some South Asian groups are part Mongoloid. So why on earth are you saying that they're not? This is supported by the sources and you would know this if you actually cared to read. So stop complaining, stop lying and refrain from adding erroneous information to this article. If you want to include the section on Finns and Turkic people then find sources that explicitly mention "Mongoloid" in them. You can't make assumptions here on Wikipedia. So find the sources that explicitly state that Finns have Mongoloid admixture just like the sources found in the section for "Iran" and "South Asians" that literally say they are part Mongoloid. Listen to what Hunan201p is saying and stop dragging me into this issue when I told you months ago that this article is about "Mongoloid" not about modern genetics. (101.182.40.99 (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC))

You're adding fallacious content to the article sprinkled with POV statements that aren't in any source. No matter how you try to change the statements, you can never change the fact that not a single one of the papers referenced contains the word "Mongoloid". The section is gone.Hunan201p (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The words Mongoloid have been used 38 times like always you're going to pretend it don't exist https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42837118_Battling_to_be_European_Myth_and_the_Finnish_Race_Debate

You're clearly just being double standard but of course you're going to pretend like it don't exist. --DerekHistorian (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The term Mongoloid or anything like it isn't used in any of the papers Dutton cites. No original research is allowed on Wikipedia.Hunan201p (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The term Mongoloid had been used 38 times. Are you seriously just going to ignore and pretend again ? for example what sentence says this As stated, Wiik (2006) argues that Finns are around a third mongoloid genetically with the genetic origins of Finnish males being in the east.--DerekHistorian (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Plausible edits

The down syndrome has thankfully just been placed first, as it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinc 07 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Carleton Coon races after Pleistocene.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)