Talk:Multiracial people

Articles like this give Wikipedia a bad reputation

Article is unfocused, full of questionable claims with no citations or poorly selected citations which are neither reliable or relevant. The quality of this article is evidence for the failure of the Wikipedia experiment. Perhaps you really do need to pay experts to write an encyclopedia.

BEN KINGSLEY IS NOT MIXED RACE

Indo-Aryans and Europeans are both Indo-European And Caucasoid. Ben Kingsley is Multi-Ethnic, not mixed-race hence I propose his image shoud be deleted from the gallery . Indians are classd as marginally 'white' according to the current status of the whites article. If he is to be added in the galley then Richard Grieco, and Yusuf Islam (who self identifies as mixed race on his own website) should also be included, hec they both look pretty brown to me!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.195.244 (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Race is not a scientific concept. He's mixed race if he says he is. — LlywelynII 10:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Kingsley had self-identified as, alternately, 'mixed race' and 'Eurasian' in interviews during the early years of his career, but chose to stop when he felt interviewers were becoming too focused on his ethnic/racial background. But now and then he'd mention it, like so: In a 1989 Daily Express interview, he said that growing up mixed-race in the '50s made him "an oddity ... I was the darkie one." [1] Until Kingsley issues a public statement (on its own or through an interview), he's mixed race. In any case, I don't see what your comment - "look pretty brown to me!!" - has anything to do with the British classifications of ethnicity or race. 0zero9nine (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

multiracial people can't be racist?

Why doesn't this article mention the racism multiracial people have inflicted on whole blooded people. It is standard for mulattos in south america to put themselves above blacks. In America mulattos created the "Blue Vein" societies in order to exclude blacks. Then there is the perception in East Asia that eurasians are more beautiful than full asians. Why won't anyone mention this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources regarding that discusses racism and multiracial people, then you can add the information to the article. The article also does not say anywhere that multi-racial people cannot be racist. Kman543210 (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

racial purity

I believe there should be a seperate article for this. It was merged with this yet all mentions of racial purity have been removed. YVNP (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is a little biased

There seems to be a lot about african multiracial people but there isn't a single thing on Hispanics. Hispanics are a hugeeeee group of mixed races. How can someone not add an article about that? Asian-African relationships are very uncommon. I would like to see where the op got his stats from. Also someone needs to add the section on Japanese-Peruvians and so forth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioespino23 (talk • contribs) 21:38, November 19, 2008

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). BrainyBabe (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume this is the basis of the § tag, that Mariospino23 is the wikipedian in question, and that the concern has been addressed, as the text there is general and not mulatto oriented. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

definitions of multiraciality

As written, this section is heavily biased in favor of bounded notions of biological race, which is not at all in keeping with current mainstream anthropological thinking on the subject of race. I'm not entirely certain how someone trained in philosophy is qualified to make these statements about race, and I have to wonder why Levin is cited here at all. --24.18.226.50 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the statement that commercial genomics methods "determine the exact percentage of European, sub-Saharan, East Asian, and Native American heritage someone has" is worded poorly. These companies do an analysis of specific genetic markers, not a client's entire ancestry. Even the blockquote contradicts what is written here.

This section is so badly written that the article would be better off without it. --24.18.226.50 (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

See above. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of the image gallery?

I could propose new names, but first I need to clarify what the gallery is for. Is it to show what multiracial individuals look like as exactly as possible, thus ruling out historic figures for which we have only ilustrations (e.g. Mary Seacole)? Is it to show as many significant people as possible (e.g. Ian Khama)? Is it to showcase current entertainers, on the grounds that they will be most easily recognised by WP readers (then why not Bob Marley)? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Redid the "American Colonisation" section

After this article popped up on my watchlist recently, a snippet in the "American Colonisation" subsection caught my eye. That snippet read:

... thus establishing the First Philippine Republic was annexed and enslaved by the brainwashed[2] and at that time in history predominantly racist[3] American imperialists.[4]

(In the above, I've <ref>s with inline links)

The word time was wikilinked to Eugenics#United_States and the word history was wikilinked to Miscegenation. I think that was a bit slanted. I'm not sure precisely what the intended implication here was.

The so-called First Philippine Republic was, of course, not a government administered by the Americans at all. Rather, it was an insurgent revolutionary movement which styled itself as a national government, which issued a declaration of war against the United States, and which fought the Philippine-American War against the United States. That was a simple factual error.

The Philippines was annexed by the U.S.—true enough. The Philippine people were not, however, enslaved by the Americans. Though yellow journalism was rife in the U.S. during this period, as can be seen in the wikilinked supporting source, the people of the U.S. were not brainwashed.

Caucasians were in the majority in the U.S. during that time period and, from what I've read, that group generally exhibited a more white supremist attitude than than is the case today. Certainly that was true during the period of my own childhood. Even so, I think that it is a distortion to characterize even white Americans as a group (much less Americans in general) as "predominantly racist". The supporting source cited for that characterization is a dead link which is not available in the internet archive.

In the phrase "racist American imperialists", the words American imperialists were wikilinked to the Manifest destiny article and a source quoting President McKinley's Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation is cited. I think this snippet heavily overdid the characterization of America as an imperialist power (some may disagree with that, but the talk page of an article titled Multiracial is not the place to hash that out).

What does all this have to do with (from the article's lead sentence) "people whose ancestries come from multiple races", anyhow? Not much.

I've rewritten the portion of the "American Colonisation" subsection containing this snippet to focus the subsection more on the impact of the American presence in the Philippines on "people whose ancestries come from multiple races".

The following subsection, titled "Japanese Occupation" and beginning with the sentence, "However, large numbers of these people and the rest of the Philippines were ruined, raped and or slaughtered by the Japanese." could probably use some rewriting as well. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Madagascar

Madagascar, like India, is Multiracial by itself. Mongoloid Malays arrived to Madagascar 2,000 years ago, and since then there has been a complete mixture with African populations. Today the people of Madagascar is Multiracial. They still speak a Malay language (the same way as Dominicans speak Spanish) but are broadly African.--80.31.72.208 (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus - Flawed Article

I propose deleting entirely the section on Cyprus. The very premise of the section is flawed. For example, in its introductory sentence it points to photos taken as part of BBC interviews of Cypriots in London as evidence of what the author terms "Afro-textured hair", like this is some kind of scientific description. The author then goes on to cite a paper written by a Turkish author. The conflicts and in some cases hatred between Greek Cypriot and Turkish people is well known globally and this paper cannot be taken as anything but a hate-based, politically motivated paper. Moreover, this paper is not available online, nor can I find it cited anywhere other than in the additions to Wikipedia made by Olympic God (the original author of the Cyprus section) and we therefore have no reason to believe it is remotely credible. To cite one more example of the section's flaws, the author then goes on to cite a report in the Finish Journal of Ethnicity and Migration that he/she claims indicates Cypriots are "sometimes considered "multiracial"; described as "an 'in-between' location vis-à-vis being White and being Black." In fact, a quick read of this report makes clear that the author uses 'White' and 'Black' as the example of the two ends of the racial continuum to explain that immigrant Cypriot children in predominantly 'White' nations percieve themselves as being neither 'White' nor 'Black, but somewhere in between, much like Greek and Italian immigrants to Northern Europe, Canada and the United States felt during the first wave of immigration that occured to these countries. I can continue to note flaws in the article, but would rather conclude by opining that the author of this section appears to be highly biased, with an intent or desire to set out Cypriots as a multi racial people (I won't even get into the argument that all peoples are multi racial). I'm sure any member of the Wiki community would agree that the purpose of Wikipedia is to set out facts and opinions supported by credible evidence rather than serve political agendas. Finally, while it's not necessary, I'll point to the extensive online DNA database at thegeneticatlas.com that provides ample data indicating Cypriots share a dna footprint with other mediterranean peoples (from Iraq/Mesopotamia to the Levant, Crete, Peleponessos and the rest of Greece, Italy and Northern Africa - see haplogroup J2 and E1b1b1a) and also share some DNA with peoples of the more northern latitudes of Europe (see haplogroup R1). DNA analysis is by far the most advanced and credible approach to classifying peoples by 'racial' origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coasterby (talk • contribs) 00:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Article talks far too much about the Philippines

I think this article talks far too much about the Philippines ,I mean there are many other Southeast Asian countries just like the Philippines ,who are of mixed lineage.But this article is mainly about the Philippines.It needs to be kept logical ,accurate and simple.Which it is not we aren't suppose to talk about all the genetics genes of the Filipinos were suppose to talk about present day intermarriages not pre-colonial intermarriages.If you want to talk about all of,that you should talk about it on the History of the Philippines page not on multiracial=( --AkoDanielle (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Australia - Original Research and Non-NPOV

I have modified the passage on Australia, but is still not accurate. There are some bold claims made about the alleged ethnic diversity of Australia, which may seem like a great theory but are not supported by reliable sources. As I posted, the CIA World Factbook says that Australia is 92% white as of 2010, so saying that Australia is a haven of diversity is just silly. One article from a multicultural tv/radio station is not a good enough source to support these bold claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.178.126 (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It may indeed be going too far to classify Australia as a particularly diverse country, racially. But I'm sure the section means to say that the country is diverse ethnically, i.e. that White Australians are diverse, some being Anglo-Celtic, others Greek, others Italian, etc, and that there's much intermarriage among all of them. SamEV (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC); 04:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to relate to this March 2010 edit. If the removed section meant to say what is described above, that appears to be off-topic for this article. I mention that in 2012 in order to indicate that this particular Non-NPOV issue appears to be resolved. I have removed |POV=May 2010 from the {{Multiple issues}} hatnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Disputed May 2012

This edit added |Disputed=May 2012 to the {{multiple issues}} hatnote. I'm adding this section here to explain that the dispute appears to relate to an assertion in this edit by User:Nnemo as follows:

All scientists agree. Only “racist” or ignorant people still think there are several races in the currently living, and very young, human species. Dogs have several races, after many millions years. Humans don't have several races.

I have removed |Disputed=May 2012 from the hatnote because the dispute seems to be based only on that unsupported assertion, and it appears to me that such an assertion would need to cite verifiable reliable supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

All scientists agree. Only “racist” or ignorant people still think there are several races in the currently living, and very young, human species. Dogs have several races, after many millions years. Humans don't have several races. The genetic differences between human groups show that there are not several races. For instance, a black man and a white woman can have children together, and they do. Evolution has not made that particularly difficult, and groups have not evolved so separate that they wouldn't mate together. Unlike, in dogs, a chihuhua and a saint-bernard. When we study two groups that some call “races”, we observe that the genetic differences between two random people in one group are greater than the genetic differences characteristic between these two groups.

Some reliable sources, for example :

These two books and this Web page : www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/race-finished.

“Although biologists and cultural anthropologists long supposed that human races—genetically distinct populations within the same species—have a true existence in nature, many social scientists and geneticists maintain today that there simply is no valid biological basis for the concept.”

Jan Sapp, professor in the biology department at York University in Toronto, www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/race-finished, American Scientist.

--Nnemo (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not the best term humans have come up with ..but it is there....Moxy (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Pamela Balls Organista; Gerardo Marín; Kevin M. Chun (16 July 2009). The Psychology Of Ethnic Groups In The United States. SAGE. p. 178. ISBN 978-1-4129-1540-3.

Elise Lemire (8 May 2009). Miscegenation: Making Race in America. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-2064-3.

SanSan Kwan; Kenneth Speirs (1 October 2004). Mixing It Up: Multiracial Subjects. University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-292-74345-8.

Kathleen Odell Korgen (2 June 2010). Multiracial Americans and Social Class: The Influence of Social Class on Racial Identity. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-48397-1.

Yo Jackson (18 August 2006). Encyclopedia of Multicultural Psychology. SAGE. ISBN 978-1-4129-0948-8.

Donald B. Pope-Davis (23 July 2003). Handbook of Multicultural Competencies in Counseling & Psychology. SAGE. ISBN 978-0-7619-2306-0.

US bias

Lead and definition sections are completely based on American terminology of race. Also, according to United Nations and American Anthropological Association there is no distinction between 'race' and 'ethnicity'. FonsScientiae (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Jews, Habesha, Imazighen multiracial?

I've reverted this edit, which had the edit summary, (Removed the whole "Semitic Origin" section in the "Ethnic groups" list: Jews are not mixed race, neither are Habesha, same goes for Imazighen (who aren't even semitic to begin with).). I'm not a topical expert and I have no POV axe to grind here, but it seems to me that this ought to be discussed in the light of Semetic#Ethnicity and race. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Somali people are of mixed race

Somali people are of mixed race. This has been proivien with the Haplogroup T And J being found in Somalis. T and J are both non native Haplogroup in the Horn of Africa. I have taken the time to add them into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.215.206 (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that Dougweller i was unsure where to place Somalis. But Somalis are multiracial. Their Y DNA is 80% E1b1b, 10% T, and 5% J. Somalis are a mixture of themselves, Arabs, and Persians. Those numbers are not exact for all Somalis cause of ranges of mixture among them. This is clearly shown in the different features they have.

"Besides comprising the majority of the Y DNA in Somalis, the E1b1b1a (formerly E3b1a) haplogroup also makes up a significant proportion of the paternal DNA of Ethiopians, Sudanese, Egyptians, Berbers, North African Arabs, as well as many Mediterranean and Balkan Europeans. The M78 subclade of E1b1b is found in about 77% of Somali males, which, according to Cruciani et al. (2007), may represent the traces of an ancient migration into the Horn of Africa from Egypt/Libya. After haplogroup E1b1b, the second most frequently occurring Y DNA haplogroup among Somalis is the Eurasian haplogroup T (M70), which is found in slightly more than 10% of Somali males. Haplogroup T, like haplogroup E1b1b, is also typically found among populations of Northeast Africa, North Africa, the Near East and the Mediterranean."

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)