Talk:Mongoloid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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

An image used in this article, File:PC Analysis of Asian Genetics.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

removed POV tag

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

Quotes

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

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

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

An image used in this article, File:Plot 2B Genetic Diversity in Asia.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Plot 2B Genetic Diversity in Asia.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Mong" and "mongo" in Scotland.

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

Synthesis

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

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

Disputed/Undue/Outofdate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Yellow people"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finns and Saami as "Mongoloids"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slavs as mongoloids

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

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

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

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

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

History of the concept section

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

"said"

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

Eskimo

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

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

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