Talk:Mongoloid/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removal of population with full or partial "Mongoloid" origin

I have reinstated the information regarding the Mongoloid admixture in various populations of the world. I have done this simply because this page is speaking about the historical term "Mongoloid" and having a look at the sources you will realise that some of these groups were classified as "part Mongoloid" which warrants their inclusion in this article. This page is not, and has never been, about "pure Mongoloids" as that doesn't make sense considering the fact that this is an outdated term no longer used in the scientific community. This page is about who was classified as "full Mongoloid" and who was classified as "part Mongoloid" by various anthropologists of the time. You need to take note of the fact that anthropology is spoken about in these sections. e.g. "Katz and Suchey (1986) did a study separat[ing] the Mexicans who had a Mongoloid appearance from those who had a Caucasoid physical appearance" as seen in the "Mestizos in Latin America" section. "British ethnographer, Herbert Hope Risley classified the people of the Ganges Delta up to Bihar as "Mongolo-Dravidian" or the "Bengali type" and "Howard S. Stoudt noted that the Sinhalese differed to the Indian Tamils because they were large chested with more Mongoloid faces" both of which are found in the "South Asians" section. Please read the sections before you start removing information and no, this page is not limited to people who are "full Mongoloid" or of "predominantly Mongoloid" origin. This page is about Mongoloids, people who are full Mongoloid or partial Mongoloid as classified by anthropologists at the time the term was widely used. If you want to discuss your thoughts on all of this, then we can talk in this section. I also think inviting Ephert (talk · contribs) who has successfully gathered of all of this information and carefully chosen the correct pieces of information for this article should also be invited to discuss the situation. I understand you're speaking about anthropology only, but even that alone, would mean pieces of information found in some of these sections you deleted must be kept.(2001:8003:4E67:F600:55F3:B57B:17FB:4569 (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC))

I agree with the IP editor’s reinstatement of the content regarding Mongoloid admixture that was removed by User:DerekHistorian.--Ephert (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Referring to the content that User:DerekHistorian removed, User:DerekHistorian, in their edit summary, said, "I'm removing these sections. I think these sections are way too much, they should only apply to Mongoloid and predominate Mongoloid anthropologically. genetically," indicating that User:DerekHistorian believes that a greater than 50% (predominate) Mongoloid standard should be the standard for a population's inclusion in the Mongoloid article. I disagree with the greater than 50% Mongoloid standard that User:DerekHistorian is proposing. I agree with the following statement by the IP editor, "...this page is not limited to people who are 'full Mongoloid' or of 'predominantly Mongoloid' origin." I think that populations with 50% and lower Mongoloid percentages are relevant to the Mongoloid article. I think that populations with Mongoloid admixture are relevant to the Mongoloid article.--Ephert (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

None of the sections there are partial Mongoloid. They don't belong the Mongoloid SKULL SHAPE anthropologically nor genetically. So how are they Mongoloid? All these people all they have is minor Mongoloid DNA. If you're going to add partial Mongoloid why not add partial Black/Negroid where it's DNA is present in Europe, Middle east, North Africa, Latin America. Why not also add a partial Caucasoid where it's DNA is also present in half of Africa, all the middle east, North Africa, parts of Asia. Why not add partial South Asian which.

ACCORDING TO THIS GENETIC AUTOSOMAL DNA. Central Asians, Southeast Asians, Middle east people should also be partial racially South Asian Indian/Pakistani genetically. They are as South Asian as East European Finns, Saami are Mongoloid https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jueri_Parik/publication/8373878/figure/fig10/AS:267942692651040@1440893924678/The-spatial-distribution-of-Indian-specific-mtDNA-haplogroups-R5-and-R6-and-West.png

This is what wikipedia lead section already mentioned " Due to covering a large and diverse population, from Native Americans to Vietnamese, the Mongoloid classification is difficult, but Mongoloids do share some similar skeletal and dental features.[8] "

None of those sections of groups belong to the Mongoloid or predominately Mongoloid except for example like Kazakh, Kyrgyz from Central Asia.

I'm removing these sections. I think these sections are way too much, they should only apply to Mongoloid and predominate Mongoloid anthropologically. genetically. Finns, Sami, Iranians are racially Europoid 90-95% with minor Mongoloid. Almost all the South Asians are Europoid/Dravidian-Australoid with tiny Mongoloid 5% except for some ethnic groups who are not even typical South Asia. Many Turkic ethnic groups are basically Caucasoid with minor Mongoloid. Meztizo can be also 70-90% European or African/European mix not necessarily Mongoloid, they also have African admixtures in different levels. DerekHistorian (talk) 7:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@DerekHistorian: I'm sorry but you sound extremely ignorant. Since when did this page ever speak about "pure Mongoloids"? The answer is, it never did. The fact that you literally say that Southeast Asians are mixed Indian and Pakistanis shows me that you don't know what you're talking about. Also, Middle Easterners have no Indian and Pakistani ancestry, neither do Central Asians. Also, since when did "South Asian" equal "Indians/Pakistani"? For your information, there is also no such thing called "Europid". Also 5% Mongoloid? There is no such thing called "Mongoloid genes". You obviously are very confused over this topic because you're conflating a dated racial classification with modern science. Where are you getting this information from? You say this is about anthropology, did you even read my initial comment? If you did, you would know that certain anthgropologists classified certain groups as "part Mongoloid" because they exhibit "Mongoloid" charactersitics and I included some examples of this, pulled from the text that you deleted, in my initial comment. Stop being stubborn and take the time to read every single section on that page before you remove content. Have you done that? No you haven't because if you did, you would have not deleted all of the information. All you have done is remove a whole of information with a whole lot of sources. If you continue with this behaviour, and fail from actually reading the content in each section beyond just the sub-heading, I will be going to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to seek mediation. Also, the fact that you reverted my edit a second time means that you're borderline entering an edit war and that's against the rules. This page is about the historical classification called "Mongoloid" and that includes every group classified as "pure Mongoloid" as well as those that are classified as "partial Mongoloid". Read the content that you have deleted in a timely manner or I will be getting external help to resolve this matter. Also do not yell in edit summaries. (2001:8003:4E67:F600:55F3:B57B:17FB:4569 (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC))

@Ephert:. I'm pinging you in order to get your views on this issue considering you are the one that added the vast majority of this information. If you would like to remain abstinate from this dispute then you are more than welcome to. (2001:8003:4E67:F600:55F3:B57B:17FB:4569 (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC))

Firstable what is the point of cherrypicking outdated pseudo-science anthropology information that were removed since 2011. This wikipedia should be about skeletal skulls of Mongoloid people but none of those people from section belong to Mongoloid. The lead section already said this " Due to covering a large and diverse population, from Native Americans to Vietnamese, the Mongoloid classification is difficult, but Mongoloids do share some similar skeletal and dental features.[8] " For example the part about "Howard S. Stoudt noted that the Sinhalese differed to the Indian Tamils because they were large chested with more Mongoloid faces" is such a superficial pseudo-science. Including the other pseudo-science source. There are many sources that does not even claim Native American have Mongoloid skulls.

You are including racially people like Finns, Saami, Iranians who have about as much East Asian as Arabs, Middle easterner people, South Europeans have have Sub-Saharan black admixture.

Here is the East Asian autosomal DNA. By your logic all people from Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, North Europe, Middle east even up to Egypt should be considered part Mongoloid since their mongoloid admixture range to various degrees https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-p_vcmYwVYSM/Vg7EbAJH1VI/AAAAAAAAo6s/wfPGWbolbW8/s1600/East-Asian.gif

The green colored map shows South Asian DNA admixture dominant in the Indian continent but is also widespread to Southeast Asia, Middle east, parts of Southern Arabia and southern Central Asia, and Xinijiang China by your logic these people be partially South Asians, the study is from science journal. ::: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jueri_Parik/publication/8373878/figure/fig10/AS:267942692651040@1440893924678/The-spatial-distribution-of-Indian-specific-mtDNA-haplogroups-R5-and-R6-and-West.png , the study shows Middle easterner, Iranians, Central Asian also have South Asian admixture not just being Caucasoid with minor Mongoloid. DerekHistorian (talk) 9:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@DerekHistorian: blogs are not reliable sources. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 00:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@DerekHistorian: Of course it’s a pseudoscience source because Mongoloid is a pseudoscience term. All the sources that confirm Native Americans to Vietnamese are "Mongoloids" were confirmed by pseudoscience journals and articles like "The Living Races of Man". Why are you conflating modern genetics with pseudoscience terms like “Mongoloid”? There is no such thing called “Mongoloid”. Modern genetics uses terms like “Eastern Eurasian”, “South Eurasian” and “West Eurasian”, not terms like Mongoloid or Europid. Your inability to discern modern genetics from pseudoscience renders this discussion useless. You have removed sourced content on a pretext that does not make any sense, simply because of the fact that “Mongoloid” is a dated term from a bygone era. Not to mention, the fact you pulled out blogs as a way to back up what you’re saying. Blogs are not a reliable source. Mongoloid is an outdated term and this page discusses every group that is of full or partial Mongoloid origin as classified by the pseudoscience sources published during the era this term was considered accurate. I don't know what you're on about when you're talking about "skeletal structure" because this is an outdated term. You have read absolutely nothing of what you have deleted. So based on that, I’m going to revert your edits because nothing of what you’re saying is justifiable. You’re obviously confused over what “Mongoloid” is. If you still feel you’re in the right, then I am happy to seek mediation on this issue and establish clarity over the fact that “Mongoloid” is an outdated term rooted in pseudoscience.

What ethnic groups do you think these people come from? 1, 2 and 3. I'll give you the answer, the first is of a girl from the Guaraní (Native American) tribe of South America, the second is of a famous Bengali singer and the third is of a Sinhalese actress. Anthropologists of the 19th century classified people from all of these groups as either "full Mongoloid" or as "partial Mongoloid". This page isn't about skull shapes, it's about groups that were classified as being fully or partially part of the outdated Mongoloid racial classification by various anthropologists throughout history. So stop trying to turn this page into something that it is not.

Also, no that source does not indicate they have South Asian admixture. They display the distribution of certain haplogroups. Haplogroups are not necessarily connected to someone’s ethnic origins. Please, you don’t even know what you’re quoting or saying. You’re just pulling random maps, yet have no understanding of what they’re explaining. You obviously have absolutely no idea of what you’re talking about. This discussion is absolutely pointless. There is no need to engage in a discussion with someone that obviously does not have an understanding of human genetics. (2001:8003:4E67:F600:4436:A8A8:8846:AC9C (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC))

So since you acknowledge it's pseudo-science, why why did you include groups that are not even anthropologically East Eurasian nor genetically. If you were so interested in pseudo-Mongoloid traits why didn't you include Capoid people ?

Capoid described by anthropologist as sharing some superficial similarity with Mongoloid such as the epicanthic eye fold and flat noses

Look here --->[1]

The occasional occurrence of Mongoloid or pseudo-Mongoloid eyefolds in some African Negroes and particularly in the Capoids.

Earnest Albert Hooton - 1946 -

what's the point of making examples of your superficial Bengali individuals that could even be just supeficial pseudo-mongoloid. You selected Bengali that looks like 1 in a million when 99.99% of them look like these---> [2] typical of Indian/Pakistani looking type of people.

Even places like North Africa who are 82% Caucasoid 18% Black African can look pseudo-Mongoloid and mentioned even by historians. Pseudo-mongoloid Berbers? Epicanthal eye fold or slanted eyes are found in some Berbers of North Africa, a region without mongoloid admixture. Since admixture from East-Asians is impossible in North Africa, some authors described this feature as Khoisanid.

Go ahead an look at the pictures. You should be stating that North Africans are also part Mongolois

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=32676

And it is mention Towards the north " aethiopian ", pygmoid and pseudo-mongoloid types become more numerous.

Bantu, Issue 1 --- Source [3]

Famous singer Bjrork from iceland known fro her pseudo-Mongoloid traits when both her parents are clearly white

[4]

How does that source not indicate South Asian admixture? That was only a example of their South Asian mtDNA haplogroups distribution, I didn't even edit their Y-DNA haplogroups. This autosomal DNA shows Iranian Tajiks than Mongoloid. By your logic every race in the world is mixed because most people in the world have a bit of DNA of that and this. Source --->[5]

As for Nigo, the link is from the blog but the source is from DNA project.DerekHistorian (talk) 7:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@DerekHistorian: This page is about Mongoloid, an outdated racial term. It has nothing to do with East Eurasian which is a genetic component that originated in Eastern Asia. This page speaks about every group that was classified as full or partial Mongoloid in origin. All groups that were classified as full or partial Mongoloid must be included on this page. You can't just pick and choose what you want and conflate modern genetics with pseudoscience terms.

"superficial pseudo-mongoloid"? I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense. For your information, they're not. Let me explain, one of the major populations that settled in South Asia were the Austro-Asiatic-speaking migrants from mainland Southeast Asia. They brought Austro-Asiatic languages to South Asia and that's why Austro-Asiatic languages are spoken in parts of eastern and northeastern India, Bangladesh and Nepal. Their ancestral component is known as Ancestral Austro-Asiatic (AAA), this element was introduced to various other ethnic groups in eastern South Asia like the Bengalis. The smallest of the major migrations to eastern India and Bangladesh was the Tibeto-Burman-speakers from Tibet. They brought Tibeto-Burman languages to Northeast India. Their ancestral component is known as Ancestral Tibeto-Burman (ATB) and this element was introduced to other groups in eastern South Asia at a smaller scale. Did you know any of that? No you did not. No, it doesn't indicate South Asian admixture on a large scale at least. Please educate yourself on what Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups are. Also, why on earth has this discussion turned to genetics when Mongoloid has nothing to do with genetics? Mongoloid is an outdated racial term from the 19th century. Speaking about modern genetics means nothing here. We follow what the anthropologists said based on their observations. So all of this content coming from you makes no sense because you don't decide what is included and what is not. We follow what the sources say and it says that the Bengalis, for example, were classified as "part Mongoloid" whilst the Native Americans were classified as "full Mongoloids". This is a page about an outdated term and as a result, this page will reflect it as such. So stop disrupting this page with your obviously misinformed beliefs that modern genetics and outdated terms like Mongoloid are correlated. Mongoloid and the other historical racial classifications are outdated biological taxons that are no longer in use anymore. In due time, I will be reverting your edits and restoring the last stable version of this page. If you revert them again, I shall then open a case with the help of the administrators to settle this matter in an official manner. (2001:8003:4E67:F600:8014:D8B6:B260:511F (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC))

I'll tell you this, there's no point arguing about this stuff. This page has been created through the use of sources. You're just purposely avoiding a swathe of sources in order to push whatever your beliefs are regarding this topic. Well you can't do that here on Wikipedia. Like I said, we follow what the sources say. Doesn't matter if they're "full" or "partial" or only have a "sliver", if they were classified as "Mongoloid" in anthropological studies, then they're included. There's no point trying to ignore what the sources say.

Conclusion This page is about an outdated racial term called "Mongoloid". All of the pieces of information on this page reflect the archaic way of determining race during the time this term was widely used. As a result, all populations that have been classified as full or partial Mongoloid origin by various anthropologists of the time have been discussed on this page. (2001:8003:4E67:F600:8014:D8B6:B260:511F (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC))

I suppose you didn't even bother looking at this autosomal DNA. http://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1398888033132.png] many ethnic groups from Middle east, Arabia, Central Asia are mixed with South Asian genetically and Tajiks have more South Asian DNA than Mongoloid. South Asians are only 5-10% Mongoloid for Bengali 15-20% compared to North Africans who are 18-21% Black Sub-Saharan. Even if Mongoloid is a outdated racial terms there's no need to include people that look superficially pseudo-mongoloid. The Native Americans, Jomon, Ainu, Taiwan aborigines are Mongoloid with pseudo-caucasian traits too. Now as for real biracial, even ussually people who are 3/4 white and 1/4 black or Mongoloid always almost end up look white let alone those who are 4/5 white. THOSE Iranians, South Asians, and many of the Turkic group are not part Mongoloid, they have have minor Mongoloid influences. I'm not denying that Bengali, Indians, South Asian have Mongoloid admixture but it's not significant enough to make them consider biracials or even part Mongoloid. Native Americans in many anthropology are not even classified as full Mongoloid. "Great Surprise"—Native Americans Have West Eurasian Origins

Oldest human genome reveals less of an East Asian ancestry than thought. BY BRIAN HANDWERK, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC. PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 22, 2013

Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from East Asians as previously thought, according to a newly sequenced genome. Source---> [6]Based on the arm bone of a 24,000-year-old Siberian youth, the research could uncover new origins for America's indigenous peoples, as well as stir up fresh debate on Native American identities, experts say. Although these claims are controversial. Many Native Americans even without west Eurasian admixture don't look like the typical Mongoloid people you see. For example Haplogroup X is also one of the five haplogroups found in the indigenous peoples of the Americas.[12] (namely, X2a subclade). Although it occurs only at a frequency of about 3% for the total current indigenous population of the Americas, it is a bigger haplogroup in northern North America, where among the Algonquian peoples it comprises up to 25% of mtDNA types.[13][14] It is also present in lesser percentages to the west and south of this area—among the Sioux (15%), the Nuu-chah-nulth (11%–13%), the Navajo (7%), and the Yakama (5%)[15]. mtDNA X is either part of the East Asian migrants of Native America but the haplogroup itself is not east Asian origin but it could have already existed in native americans. The distribution of R1 in Native Americanis believed by some to be associated with the re-settlement of Eurasia following the last glacial maximum. One theory that was introduced during European colonization.[42] or both. Overall they are 2/3 genetically East Eurasian but even their East Eurasian is properly not typical of people from Asia's East Eurasian. Many Amerindians tribes with 0% west Eurasian admixture still look pseudo-caucasian. That mal'ta boy who introduced west eurasian genetics to native American look predominate east asian mongoloid too. THIS WHOLE WIKIPEDIA PAGE only cherrypicked sources that classified them as Mongolians/Mongoloid no the sources from back than 2010-2014 which mentions many Native Americans and Amerindians having pseudo-caucasoid morphology-DerekHistorian (talk) 7:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@DerekHistorian: If you want to talk about genetics then please go to a forum, this is Wikipedia. Okay but I'm sorry, your thoughts and feelings on who you think is of partial Mongoloid origin and who is not doesn't change the facts published in the source. We follow what is published in the source. Also, just so you know, I'm not saying that Bengalis and other South Asians are "biracial" people. I'm merely explained to you two particular migrations that intermixed with other migrations of humans that created the people of South Asia. What I'm saying is they have diverse origins. (2001:8003:4E67:F600:8014:D8B6:B260:511F (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC))

Many groups have intermixed but they still have their own racial classifications and genetics. You're using pseudo-science sources. Uyghurs for example range in phenotype to Mongoloid to Caucasoid unlike Bengali who all look like typical of India, Pakistan. DerekHistorian (talk) 8:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm using pseudoscience sources because this article is about a pseudoscience topic. What else am I supposed to use? This whole article is about a pseudoscience topic, the vast majority of the sources listed on this page are pseudoscience sources. Also, I'm not a Bengali but you may be surprised by what you learn about them if you actually took the time to read about the genetic history of the Bengal region. Not to mention the diversity in their apperance, they don't all look the same (It's actually quite interesting). (2001:8003:4E67:F600:8014:D8B6:B260:511F (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC))

Posting to an old thread, I would like to correct the IP that [7] is not an ethnic Bengali person. He is of Manipuri and Tripuri tribal descent. It should be noted that a lot of tribals were influenced by the Bengali culture including Manipuris and Tripuris. As for genetics, admixture tests depend on individual calculators. According to one 23andMe calculator, all typically South Asians including Bangladeshis scored most 98+% of "South Asian" with fractional percentages of foreign origin. As for other tests, the 'Bengalis' are actually BEB samples of Bangladeshi Muslim Bengalis from Dhaka, taken from 1000 genome project. It should be noted that since Bangladesh uses "Bangalee" as a nationalistic term, they can be from other sources too. Even among ethnic Bengalis, there is a sharp difference when east Eurasian component is concerned. The Bengali Muslims of Bangladesh typically average around 12 percent in Harappa, Lazaridis, and recent calculators, similar to Burushos or a little higher than Tajiks. The Hindu Bengali Brahmins and Bangaldeshi low-caste hindu Bengalis show much less, ranging from less than 1 to 5 percent in Harappa, averaging around 3-4 percent in a recent calculator, similar to Khatris, Rors, Jats; less than Kashmiri Pandits, Khos, Kalash and Jammu Brahmins. I can provide the reports. It should be noted that the classification of eastern south Asians is similar to that of eastern Europeans, Baltics in the 19th - early 20th century based on brachycephaly and supposed east Eurasian admixture, as a ploy to call them inferior. The British time classification were not just pseudoscience, they were a political tool as well to befriend new groups and alienate other ones. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay I stand corrected in regards to your first sentence. As for the rest of your comment, I don't know what you're trying to achieve. It's a fact that Bengalis have East Eurasian admixture (which you are obviously also aware of and you literally mention in your comment), all this other stuff you're talking about however looks to me that you aren't exactly fond of it and are trying to downplay it. For what reason? I don't know why but Wikipedia is not the place to be having discussions on your feelings. (101.182.40.99 (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC))

This thread seemed very much forumish when I stumbled upon it. I'm not interested in pseudo-scientific crap but when people bring genetics and incorrectly labelled pictures in the midst, I had to talk a little. I'm not downplaying anything, just that I don't like exaggeration of things, a narrative propagated by some 19th pseudoscientists that east Eurasian is only restricted to eastern India. Similar to what people presume when they talk about eastern Europeans, Balts and some Scandinavians. It is a fact that East Eurasian is notable throughout the northern South Asia (Indo-European speakers) and is significant in the populations that I explained above. Since you talked about AAA component, in a test, the BEB (Bangladeshi Muslims from Dhaka) showed it at 17.2%, PJL 1 (Pakistani Punjabis in Lahore) 17.3%, GIH 1 (Gujaratis from Houston) 13.8, Telugus in UK 16.5 to 20.7 %, Sri Lankan Tamils in UK. 17.8%. The Bangladeshis didn't show any elevated levels of AAA compared to other geographically distant groups in South Asia. In another research from the same lab, Santhals showed 64% AAA. These ancestral components like AAA ATB are artificial constructs based on proxies from modern populations. Birhors for AAA and Jamatias for ATB, for whom the numbers are fixated. It gets inherently flawed when we take living samples to simulate ancient DNA. When used with real aDNA like "LAO LN La364" (ancient samples from Laos) as a proxy for Austro-Asiatic used in modern G25 calculator, these very samples showed much lower for example PJL (Punjabis from Lahore) 1.67, BEB (Bangladeshi) 4.17. Even Austroasiatic Santhals only 20% and even Birhor 20.83%. Ironically fully ATB Jamatias showed 30+ percent LN LAO. Contrary to what you said, the east Eurasian in major South Asian population is mostly of Indo-Tibetan origin (NPL Chokhopani) (aDNA from Nepal's Chokhopani). For all these groups above, viz Khatris, Rors, Jats, Kashmiri Pandits, Khos, Kalash, Khos, Jammu Brahmins, Bengali Brahmins, Burushos, Pathans, Bangladeshis, Burushos, Tajiks, Gujaratis, etc. It likely entered in the genepool at the time when Buddhism was spreading, Indo-Greeks, Mauryan Empire, Pala Empire, etc or might have come as part of steppe migrations. Personally I'm not fond of samples taken from 1000 Genome, since these are not diverse, not to mention, the Gujarati, Tamil and Telugu samples were taken from non-resident south Asians, which is likely to bring more inaccuracies. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Map from the Horniman museum is correct

Dear user: Rsk6400 ! Why do you call the map outdated? The Caucasian , Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid groups of races exist accoriding to the genetic distances of various ethnic groups based on autosomal genetic researches.--Liltender (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see my reply at Talk:Negroid#Map_from_the_Horniman_museum_is_correct Rsk6400 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Article should be deleted or heavily revised. Scientific racism has no basis in reality.

It has been established for a long time these race scientists were a bunch of low-life idiot conartists. The far right white supremacist basement dwellers who edit these pages to make them look like credible shouldn't have any right to be involved with the editing of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.215.74 (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC) But if I misinterpreted the point of this article and this talk page please revive some of my deletions. I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.215.74 (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur. This article, and all other racial typological articles, should be deleted (and not revised). They serve little purpose other than to remind the public about concepts that would otherwise be forgotten, and for good reason. The American Anthropological Association has gone to great lengths to stress that these "races" have practically no genetic significance, and that their persistence is socially harmful. Giving them an encyclopedia article is an affront to the scientific consensus that race is a social construct, and that the differing appearances of regional populations do not manifest themselves as special or sub-special genetic evolution. It also promotes social alienation, at a time when the Western world is experiencing yearly mass murders, motivated by racism, "Human Biodiversity" and other related hobbies. The four major "races" should be summed up in one or two paragraphs on the American Anthropological Association article, and anyone who wants more info can go buy the 20th century books written by people like William Ripley and Carleton Coon on their own.--Hunan201p (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Same here! I was shocked to find this page without any kind of signifier or disclaimer that this is race-science nonsense that hasn't been taken seriously in over a century. I signed up for Wikipedia just to comment on this. Policyvote (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see the article heavily revised, not deleted. That would mean removing all the stuff about modern scientists declaring certain peoples as "Mongoloid" or describing the physical traits of "Mongoloids". The historical scientists (or pseudo-scientists) like Coon can remain, while making it clear that this has not been taken seriously for the last 60+ years. My idea is having a first sentence like "Mongoloid race is the name formerly used for some East Asian and American peoples by Eurocentric anthropologists in the context of a now-outdated model of dividing humanity into different races favored by white supremacists." - an adaption of the first sentence of the Hamites article, which was the result of a discussion there. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Policyvote and Rsk6400: as it clearly meets our criteria for an article it won't be deleted. I've had a go at the lead, I'm not sure that we can copy Hamites without a better source. I really dislike these articles as they need a lot of time, which I never have. I'm afraid Hunan (above) got himself in trouble and may not be editing for 3 months (ie he's blocked). Doug Weller talk 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you've started the much-needed revision of this article, Doug; I've reordered the sentences in the lede for logical order. I've been watching the edit-warring on this page myself, but hesitated to get involved because, as you say, such articles need a lot of time, which I'd rather spend on other things. Carlstak (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I deleted some of the passages that are most obviously problematic. Planning to continue. @Policyvote and Doug Weller: thanks for taking the initiative. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Subraces should not be presented chaotically

@Sapah3: you asked why I focussed on Kroeber. The reason is simply that Kroeber is the only one of whom there is a consistent representation. I'd gladly present Kroeber and Coon or Coon only (who is the most notable scholar), but I don't know where to find a good list of Coon's subraces. The version of the section that you restored is simply chaotic - small pieces of different scholars' concepts from three different centuries without even a chronological order. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Okay I understand but if it's "chaotic" then we must work to make it less chaotic. To remove a whole section of information from the article is preventing a proper thought-out discourse on the article's content. There is a map of Coon's races to the side of the page yet information from Coon has been deleted from the page. There are some important details mentioned in the text that was deleted and that needs a place on this article, whether that's in a separate section or the same "sub-races" section. There needs to be a new section I believe that discusses the prevalence of the now outdated "Mongoloid" race. In that section we can include the information that was deleted, laid out in a coherent manner, because all of that information illustrates the wide range of regions that were inhabited by Mongoloid (mixed or full) origin. We could make it more coherent by dividing the section up into geographical regions and placing all of the information into their respective subsections. What do you think? (Sapah3 (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC))

@Sapah3: I started working on this article as a consequence of this discussion. One problem of this article is that some editors have included information based on the notion that there is or was a "Mongoloid race", describing "Mongoloid" people as a reality having certain physical features. Another problem is that many paragraphs did not meet the policies laid out in WP:NOTEVERYTHING, especially WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Now, I didn't quite understand your words "regions that were inhabited by Mongoloid origin". While Mongols obviously exist, "Mongoloids" never had any existence outside the heads of certain scholars. I'm also confused by your use of the word "information". Scholars like Coon are no source for information about the biology or history of human beings, which is quite natural given that they had no access to the knowledge provided by modern genetics. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: The concept of "Mongoloid" is rooted in scientific racism. In fact, the whole concept and the other related terms like "Caucasoid", "Australoid" etc. are considered pseudoscientific terms. They have no meaning in modern genetics. Yes you're right, "Mongoloids" never existed. I should have worded it better. What I was trying to say is that maybe we can have a section that discusses the areas of the world that scholars of this bygone era believed were inhabited by the so called "Mongoloid" race. The article's lede states that various people indigenous to East Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, North Asia, Polynesia, and the Americas belonged to this oudated racial grouping so a section that speaks about who was considered part of this outdated racial grouping, including some of the information deleted, could be added to this article. I'd also like to add that the way you have re-written the article is really good.(Sapah3 (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC))

@Sapah3: Thank you, seems that we both dislike racism and pseudoscience. I have no problem with your suggestion, only I feel that the information I deleted is incomplete. E.g. Coon "claimed the partial Mongolian ancestry of the Sinhalese people had most likely originated in Assam." If you want to present that small piece of information in the article, there should be some context, e.g. what Coon said about all the other peoples he called Mongoloid, or an explanation why this example is important or representative for Coon's theory as a whole. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Yes we both dislike racism and pseudoscience. Thank you for discussing this with me. I understand what you're saying about Coon's information. I shall leave the other pieces of deleted information out and shall try to think of a way to weave that piece of information from Coon into the article by finding some other information from Coon. Maybe something about how the so called Mongoloids, Caucasoids and Australoids "intermixed" at junctions in Eurasia could be a possible way of including it. Not really sure, I'll think about it though and see if I can find a way to include it. Thanks again for the discussion and for making all of those changes to the article. (Sapah3 (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC))

@Sapah3: That's wonderful. I was planning to search for some information on Coon's theories, but now I will gladly leave that to you and procede to the other parts of the article. Thanks to you, too. Good discussions are always enriching both participants. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of neoteny section

I don't see how RSK's reasoning disproves the fact that this racial type, specified by previous anthropologists, has among the highest amount of neotenous features of any race. The article being 'about a historical race concept' doesn't mean anything. @Rsk6400:

Nightsculpture (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe the scientific consensus now, rather than, say, 1956, is that "the whole enterprise of ranking groups by degree of neoteny is fundamentally unjustified", as Stephen Jay Gould wrote in !996. Carlstak (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the scientific consensus has not changed as it is still recognized that people in this racial type exhibit the most neotenic features out of any other type. Numerous features were given as examples, if you didn't read before. I also should add that the features listed on this page almost directly coincide with the list of features in the 'Neoteny in humans' page.

Nightsculpture (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This article contains enough well sourced material showing the current scientific consensus to be that "people in this racial type" simply don't exhibit anything, since races in the biological sense don't exist in humans. Of course, the historical discussion about neoteny in Mongoloids can be presented here, but it has to be done from secondary sources and with some context to be of encyclopedical value. A search for "Mongoloid neoteny" at JSTOR didn't produce helpful results. --Rsk6400 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't show material disproving the fact that racial types (which are just groupings of human phenotypical difference) do not exist, as that would literally go against human eyes. This racial type/grouping of phenotypical traits has been noted numerous times to be one of the most neotenous, as again it has features listed that are almost exactly the same as the ones listed in Neoteny in humans page. Numerous sources have also noted the fact of neoteny in the native peoples of Central, East, and South East Asia (the 'Mongoloid' race) well into modern times, like this text from 1989.

Trying to deny the fact humans exhibit phenotypical differences on a wide scale won't change the reality that this group of people on average displays the most neonatal features.

Nightsculpture (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I changed the number of colons preceding your comment, because that is the right way to indent - makes it easier to follow a discussion.

If you want to criticise modern scientific consensus, WP is not the right place for that. If you want to add information about a real genetic and phenotypical difference in humans, this article is not the right place for that, because this article is about an obsolete concept, not about real human beings. A good article for that might be Neoteny in humans. But let me add that in fast-developing genetics and related fields 1989 is closer to medieval than to modern times. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not edited a Wikipedia talk page before this, so I wasn't aware.

It's not criticizing modern scientific consensus, as modern scientists (except ones that pretend neoteny does not exist for an ulterior motive) still recognize this phenotypical group as having this phenotypical group of humans/race as having the most neotenous features, averagely speaking. Genetics is not even needed to make the observation of neoteny as they are physical traits, which is why 1956 anthropologists, 1989 anthropologists and people living in 2020 interested in this field agree on this matter. You should read the Neoteny in humans article by the way, and see how much the traits coincide with eachother. I do not think you're neutral on this.

Nightsculpture (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Nightsculpture, you obviously haven't read that ancient paper from the Yearbook of Anthropology you refer to. Shea reviews the evidence for "the claim that neoteny, or morphological juvenilization resulting from dissociation and retardation of ancestral rates of shape change, has played a key role in human evolution" and finds it lacking:

Page 88: "In sum, detailed analyses of craniofacial development and morphology appear to provide little support for pervasive neotenic mechanisms in the evolution of modern human skull form. Our relatively large neurocranium and relatively small face superficially resemble the juvenile stages of our close relatives (Creel, 1986), but this similarity does not appear to be particularly informative in developmental or evolutionary terms."

You could have just scrolled to his assessment in the last paragraph on page 98:

"It will be interesting to see where the neoteny hypothesis of human evolution stands after the next several decades and following the collection of more data in the areas discussed in this paper. My assessment is that physical anthropologists in general will view neoteny as a concept that has contributed more in the way of obfuscation than clarification to the analysis of the processes and patterns of evolutionary change in the human lineage." Carlstak (talk)

He is just claiming the only reason 'Mongoloid' people are considered neotenous are their smaller body size on average, which is not true at all. Peoples of the Arabian Peninsula and the Melanesian islands are inches shorter than East Asians but are much less neonatal in features than them, for example. The statement he makes about East Asians not having arrested growth is also wrong as it has been noted previously by researches, including Japanese and Korean ones, that East Asians taper off height growth in adolescence much earlier than Europeans. I can find those for you, if you'd like.

The neoteny hypothesis hasn't changed much at all as there have been numerous papers in the last 15 years still mentioning and considering this theory viable, for example, and another. 1989 is not 'ancient' in the slightest regarding anthropology. It would be an exaggeration even calling Gould's paper 'ancient'. Nightsculpture (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be just making stuff up, Nightsculpture. Shea's paper doesn't contain the word "mongoloid", and doesn't mention "arrested growth" or "East Asians" (or even "Asia"). It's a bit strange to cite a paper in support of your contention, then when someone points out that it doesn't support your claim at all, but rather, contradicts it instead, you turn around and say it's wrong about this and that. Carlstak (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Mongoloids are often cited as the most neotenic of all human races [...]" You must have missed tha? Since you say the parody doesn't even include the word.. Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I missed your post, Firejuggler86. Yes, I was wrong, the paper mentions "Mongoloids" on pp. 83–84 in the text: "Mongoloids are frequently cited as the most neotenic of human groups, yet a careful consideration of various criteria of skeletal, dental, and pubertal development reveals no evidence of delayed maturity or prolonged growth in this group... and again there is no evidence for prolonged growth and delayed maturation in Mongoloids or Asiatics... It is also worth reemphasizing in this context that most of the paedomorphosis taken as evidence of neoteny in Mongoloid or Asian groups probably reflects allometric correlates of small size", all of which still contradicts Nightsculpture's spurious claim. Carlstak (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

People who say that have not met the San people (Bushmen) of Africa. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:BDC9:8604:9335:2DB5 (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Controversial reasoning and missing sources

What English word should be used to replace "Mongoloid"? What English word should be used to replace "Mongoloid"? The article does not say the English word "Mongoloid" cannot be used, and it does not suggest alternatives. It would improve the article if this could be addressed. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:520:2CCF:9987:9583 (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC) The word can still be used when talking about racism and its history. But since the concept of "Mongoloid people" has been debunked by modern science there is no replacement when talking about real people. It's a bit like the word elf. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Have you got any reference about "debunked by modern science"? I mean if you mean by modern science, the science of chemical genetics, then there is just the one human race. However, I don't think there is seriously anyone out there who say a black man is identical to a white man and is identical to a "Mongoloid" person. There are not races of men (Homo sapiens sapiens), but tribes of human sharing (or not sharing) certain traits not found in other tribes certainly exist. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:BDC9:8604:9335:2DB5 (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC) He doesn't, because he will just change the definition of the word 'race' to suit whatever he wants. Nightsculpture (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC) @Nightsculpture: You might want to read reference no. 2. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC) @Rsk6400: Reference no. 2 is nonsensical on its face. We are talking about a geographically and genetically distinct lineage of humans who outwardly posses similar phenotypes which differentiate them unambiguously (as a collective) from most or all other human groups. This very clearly delineates a "race" according to the classical definition. Any so called debunking is just hamfisted politiking. It is a disservice to all peoples to deny their provenance and the ancestral struggles which have shaped their collective genetic and cultural uniqueness, the "diversity" that we are ostensibly expected to celebrate. Testitoutnow (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC) The Article is a victim of hate speech and missinformation The Mongoloid is a race of people with genetical qualities and have to be oriented as such, therefore this article has to have only scientific knowledge and in no way should be talked about racism and other unobjective non-neutral information that serves no purpose for Wikipedia or any person who comes here to gain intelligence about the topic. This topic has to have the racial qualities of Mongoloid race, the origin that should consist of Proto-Mongoloid origin hypothises, if possible, and other objective information that defines Mongoloid race and different subgroups of a race. This is very depressing to see such a violation of anthropological encyclopedia on this site, compared to the knowledge we posses about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1370:8111:162B:2920:475:41FE:A1CB (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yellow is reductive, derogatroy and outaded

Could we specify that yellow people don't exist and that the term is reductive, derogatroy and outaded. We don't want people to think that this synonym is ok. TudorTulok (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Bizarre

Sorry, but this article is just bizarre. The idea that it is not useful for biologists to have a term describing infrequently interbreeding populations that have - on average - observable phenotypic differences is a total nonsense. Darwin would turn in his grave.

As for the Templeton quote, you can't use a quote from a single scientist to claim consensus. Especially one that is clearly wrong - of course races exist. If I put an aboriginal Finn, an aboriginal Ugandan, and an aboriginal Korean in front of you'd know which is which. The fact that races are not discrete is neither here nor there. Dawkins talks about this in The Ancestor's Tale.

Perhaps it would be better to focus on why "Mongoloid" is not a useful racial classification. Or indeed why the endeavour of trying to classify human races is futile, instead of pretending they don't exist (which obviously they do). Nealokelly (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Templeton is an excellent source, but it is not the only one given in the article. Darwin is of course also excellent, but there has been some progress in science since his day. WP is based on WP:RS, and you didn't provide any. I won't reply to you any more. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

What? Richard Dawkins is not a reliable source? What a silly thing to say.

No idea who Templeton is, but one scientist does not a consensus make. And indeed, it's not necessary or relevant to discuss here whether human races exists (there are other article for that), just whether "Mongoloid" is a useful racial classification (and if not, why not). Nealokelly (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you think, in your opinion, that it is useful to reply to something that was not directed at you, without reading what you're saying carefully, to say that you don't want to continue having a conversation with the person you replied to, based on something you did not read correctly the first time. how is that contributing meaningfully to the article's accuracy. (i will ignore anything anybody says in reply to this message) 67.233.144.189 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the entry, "In 2019, the American Association of Biological Anthropologists stated: 'The belief in 'races' as natural aspects of human biology, and the structures of inequality (racism) that emerge from such beliefs, are among the most damaging elements in the human experience both today and in the past.'" This seems wildly POV. It is a statement of opinion used to bolster this article--which is itself a statement of opinion, and not in line with more academic Wikipedia entries. The article on Kennewick Man, for instance, uses the term Mongoloid in outlining the historical debate over the skeleton up to 2017. Playerpage (talk) Playerpage (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Please make yourself acquainted with the concepts of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. You might also profit from reading WP:FRINGE. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there something fringe about the view that there are infrequently [comparatively] interbreeding populations of Homo sapiens that have - on average - observable phenotypic characteristics? Sounds pretty mainstream (orthodox indeed) to me. Nealokelly (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Have removed the nonsense assertion that race is not a useful concept in biology. If you want to re-instate it, find a source that says it is useful, not one that finds it sociological uncomfortable. Nealokelly (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nealokelly: The American Association of Biological Anthropologists is the most respected international (sic !) association of scientific anthropologists. You may not like their statements, but it will be hard to find a better or more reliable source. WP is based on WP:RS, so please stop edit warring. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, it is not settled view of the American Association of Biological Anthropologists. It is the view of ONE scientist that submitted one paper to ONE symposium of the American Association of Anthropological Biologists.

It's obviously not true. And if you don't think a Professor of Zoology (and later the Public Understanding of Science's) view is relevant then I am at a loss.

Moreover, it's not even relevant to the subject-matter of the article.

What will it take for me to have this egregious, false, and irrelevant statement removed? Happy to jump through whatever hoops required. Guide me through the process. Nealokelly (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the relevant statement from the AABA that contains the quote you don't like. It is not the view of one scientist. "The statement was unanimously accepted by the AABA Executive Committee at its meeting on March 27, 2019 at the 88th Annual Meeting in Cleveland, Ohio.". Doug Weller talk 11:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Doug. But I believe that pertains to: "The belief in 'races' as natural aspects of human biology, and the structures of inequality (racism) that emerge from such beliefs, are among the most damaging elements in the human experience both today and in the past."

That is not the assertion that is in dispute. This one is: "With the rise of modern genetics, the concept of distinct human races in a biological sense has become obsolete."

Does anyone have a source? Because, as far as I can see: it is unsourced; untrue; and irrelevant to subject of the article. Nealokelly (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)