Talk:Mongoloid

Keratin

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

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

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

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

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

Sunburn and wrinkles

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

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

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

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

Eastern Eurasian listed at Redirects for discussion

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

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)

Original research

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

Quote from the Cosmossscholars reference (the third reference):

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

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

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

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)

Mongoloid admixture?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finns and Sami

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

This reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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