Talk:Mongoloid

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mongoloid article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 9 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Mongoloid. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Mongoloid at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ethnic groups Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 12 November 2018 for a period of one week.

Someone provide a source for the following line

"With the rise of modern genetics, the concept of distinct human races in a biological sense has become obsolete." this claim has no citation, and is standalone. I attempted to remove it, but an administrator got offended and warned me and reverted the eidt, probably because he was unable to provide a source for the claim.

if you know of a reliable citation for it, please add it. I know of none.Kewlkha (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the reference mentioned by Doug Weller in his edit summary? Please omit the dudgeon next time. Acroterion (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's referenced to this which is already linked from the article. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biological races in humans. Alan R.Templeton. Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences Volume 44, Issue 3, September 2013, Pages 262-271 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.04.010. Moxy-

02:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion, Moxy, and Euryalus: thanks. @Kewlkha: you were warned before for the same edit. Doug Weller talk 06:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no it was a different edit same page. you are mistakenKewlkha (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise: While it was not exactly the same edit, it wasn't different, either. Both edits removed the word "obsolete", both had a wrong edit summary (yes, correct representation of results of science is not "biased language"), both broke the logical consistency of the lead section, both were pro-fringe. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]