Talk:Mongoloid race

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Racist Content 2 Yangtse was no civilization - claims only leftist proppaganda 3 hair 4 Races of human kind 5 PC world 6 stoic 7 Transitional Mongoloid? 8 Proof Against Legitimacy of this Racial Classification 9 Sinoid 10 Unsourced addition 10.1 Copied from Talk:Mongloid 11 Native Americans 11.1 Nasal Bridge Height 11.2 Possibliy not of mongol origin 12 Turks in Turkey 13 Turkic Mongoloids Verifiable source request 14 Eye Colour 15 Mongoloid Skin Colour can be Misleading 16 Very well written 17 external links 18 Merge with Caucasoid and Negroid 19 Changing To Mongoloid Race 20 "Genetic history" section 21 "The purest of Turks" 22 Mongoloid Origins of European examples might be Imagined 23 The german anthropological names are better 24 Global acceptance of concept 25 Who wants to be a mongoloid 26 Hunsen vs. Southeast Asian dancer 27 Mongoloid in Greek language wikipedia 28 East Europeans as partial Mongoloids 29 South Asian Mongoloids 30 Altaic eye colour 31 Retarded and offensive section needs to be removed 32 factual accuracy, cleanup 33 RFC: Source reliability, article layout, overall presentation 34 Picture? 35 Population 36 Pointing out something 37 Far East People 38 article quality

[edit] Racist Content

"Mongoloids (or Mongolids as the exact definition for the four Mongolid human races: Tungid,Sinid, Palaungid, Nesid ) are stated to be more pedomorphous both psychically and physically what could explain that they have only created one autochthonous civilization (Shang culture)in contrast to four autochthonous Europid civilizations (cf. Martin-Saller-Knußmann manual,unparalleled in Anglo-American anthropology , setting the world standard since 1914, 4.rev.ed. 1996; John Randal Baker, Race ,Oxford University Press, 1974)."

This passage is clearly racist and irrational.y The term "Pedomorphous" is a derogatory adjective. Essentially it's saying Mongoloids must be inferior since they've only created one original civilisation whereas Caucasoids have created four. It's irrational because even if it is true that Caucasoids have created more civilisations it does not logically follow that Mongoloids must be inferior. According to this "logic", the Negroids must be even more "pedomorphous" for they did not even create a single original civilisation. Comment: Negrid mean IQ 70 (Lynn): Irrational thinking ? You are "magian" irrational men, while we are taking over the internet with real science at the moment.

Mongoloid actually have 2, but if you counted the highly developed culture and sometimes said to be civilization in southeast asia before indianization or sinicification, it could number 3. As for the IQ thing, mongoloid east asian average 100-110, while southeast asian average 90-100.

John Randal Baker is an academic racist. And he is also out of touch (he wrote the book in early 1970s), the parallel Yangtze River civilization (Hemudu, Liangzhu, Majiabang, etc) has been discovered since the mid-1970s.

You could theoretically call anyone racist who doesn't take an "anti-racist" point of view. Stop using the R word as a substitute for real critical thought, please. Sorrowek 16:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yangtse was no civilization - claims only leftist proppaganda

1.The For Zhu, the museum historian, the discovery of written records would be a dream come true, unlocking hidden knowledge about how the mystical ancient inhabitants of the area lived and what their thoughts and feelings were.“We don’t know if they actually did invent writing. Maybe they did, but they used a material that has not survived to this day. It would be major, major step forward if we found written records,” she says.

2.Baker even claims the Shang culture to be an uncertain civilization on a significantly lower level than Europid civilizations.

3.Bronze melting significantly later than Shang (s. e.g. wiki articles)

4. Unimportance of Yangtse River clear because it was not directly recorded like the Shang culture

5. Probably not autochthonous, relative near to Shang culture

Cultural status as a non-civilization clear long before 1974. Any questions left ?

what are you saying?

[edit] hair

I always thought "mongoloids" had less body hair e.g. chest hair. just think about bruce lee

Bruce Lee, being from Hong Kong, would be considered a "Southern Mongoloid", though he had facial hair in some of his movies though no or little chest hair.

I'm not sure, since they said Bruce Lee is not full Chinese, he is 1/4 German?!?! Any one help me check on that?! MeowKun 04:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mongoloids do have less body hair. When was the last time you've seen a Asian or Amerindian "mongoloid" needing to shave their chest or back? Never ever. The person who said the "typical Northern Mongoloid" is relatively hairy is ridiculously wrong. He probably thought of the "hairy Ainus" who in reality aren't that hairy at all: the men did not shave their facial hair and Ainu women frequently tattooed the area around their lips which may appear as if they had facial hair. 208.54.95.129 16:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Who the heck keeps saying that Northern Mongoloids are relatively hairy?? If you really think they are hairy, please give an example! Sour pickle 05:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Races of human kind

Is it controversial or questionable to suggest any one "race" is more "intelligent"?

Yes!

Comment: Nevertheless, it is true, or do you think "God" gave every race exactly the same capabilities ?

I agree with the user who did not leave a signature. Pages such as this one should not state Asian people, Asian American, or Mongoloid or whichever group is under discussion are either less or more intelligent because it would be best discussed on its relevant page. --Dark Tichondrias 04:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. Maybe northern mongoloids have slightly more hair, apparently genghis khan could grow a beard? But has anyone witnessed mongolian wrestling? Those mongolian men have the smoothest legs I have ever seen. I have seen some japanese and korean with hairy legs but perhaps this is due to some ainu (or related group) admixture? Amerindians, who are thought to have branched off of northern mongoloids have little or no body hair AT ALL. Typically the hairier amerindians you might see have some european admixture. So I don't think there is a whole lot of evidence proving that northern mongoloids are any more hairy than others ie. southern mongoloids. I know some vietnamese who have very hairy arms and koreans who compeletely lack arm hair. --75.13.249.17 01:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Y'all -- the word "Mongol" (which came later to describe a "race") originally described a small tribe...the name was then borrowed and bought to promulgate the status that came from being attached to the heritage of the rulers, Genghis Khan et. al. So in the medieval era whole groups, tribes and kingdoms that in fact had nominal or no Mongol heritage per se (in terms of a single, tiny tribe) took on this nomenclature to be with the "in" crowd.

[edit] PC world

yes....in the Politically Correct world we live in...definitely not kosher.....but lets not forget that race is not really an idea or concept for that matter......goes back to the whole discussion of evolution or creation??? whichever you choose the theories both subscribe on race are full of holes.....in either case.....who cares??? thanks to globalization and global warming....now we are all in the shit storm together

[edit] stoic

"stoic, taciturn, unaggressive demeanor." I don't think this is NPOV and it only reflects the traits Westerners associate with East Asians. If it is OK to list non-negative traits "associated" with East Asians(such as being stoic and taciturn), why shouldn't we list negative, racist traits along with them, such as East Asians supposedly being cunning or deceitful? We might as well add that they are associated with being inscrutable and mysterious. As for the high intelligence thing, it's questioned within the article and there is a link to another article discussing it further, so I think it should stay.

My feeling is that Mongoloid and similar articles like Caucasoid should be about anthropology and paleontology. Cultural and political stuff should be in other articles and linked as needed.--JWB 19:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transitional Mongoloid?

This topic page is most interesting. But if there really is a "distinction" between Northern and Southern Mongoloid types, is there also such thing as a "transitional Mongoloid race" of people. I am aware that any discussion about this would be merely almost speculation, and a "quasi-science" (too deep into physical anthropology to be of any relevant observation). From my travels in Asia-Pacific, and from my own observations, i really do see a "continuum" of appearances. I find that in China and in Vietnam, that continuum is the most pronounced. The peoples of central-eastern and southern China and Vietnam, to me at least, have a dominantly "northern" general appearance, but they have "southern" hair and body types (according to whatever this page describes them). I know close to nothing about anthropology or anything in the like; so if any knowledgeable person in the field could raise their opinions into this fascinating topic, it would be most good.

I don't think anyone maintains there are pure races. Types like N and S Mongoloid are patterns of traits, that might be a close fit for most people in some areas, but not necessarily all. There is certainly a continuum between N and S Mongoloid, but trying to define boundaries of the transitional zone would be drawing yet more lines and might be difficult.--JWB 19:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proof Against Legitimacy of this Racial Classification

The Human Species a physical anthropology textbook supports this statement. It was copyrighted in 2003, so it is based on the most current knowledge. It is used as an introductory course at the prestigous University of California, Irvine. This university in California is part of the UC system, a number of research universities which use modern data.

This discussion is in Validity of human races and should not be repeated in every article touching on race.--JWB 15:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sinoid

After Googling, I don't think this term has any currency at all outside of Wikipedia and derivatives, and is a neologism. It could also be seen as Chinese-centered. (The one use I found was by "Chinese Nationalist Alliance".) I vote to get rid of it. --JWB

Excuse me, but what the f**k is up with the statement that Asians have the characteristic of "high intelligence"? As if every Asian is smarter than every white or a person of any other group for that matter? Just take the phrase out. And don't call me a "politically correct" Marxist either. The largest studies (there were 12 of them you know) of Chinese and Japanese Americans put the mean slightly below 100, read Flynn's book Asians- Achievement Beyond IQ, they're cited in there. Also look at the article Greek IQ, in which it was found that Asians and whites did not differ in psychometric g. (It's on the website of Dienekes Pontikos) You can put, though, that Asians outperform other groups in school grades and on the quantitative portions of standardized tests, such as the SAT and GRE. I'll put in in there if you want me to, babe.

Peace out. --Teth22

[edit] Unsourced addition

This addition:

"Some populations of Northern Europe and Eastern Europe have Mongoloid ancestry as well."

...needs to be properly referenced. Please see WP:CITE. Jkelly 07:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Kalmyks are clearly Mongoloid and arrived recently. Other populations only have small amounts of Mongoloid admixture.

I think it would make more sense to just say that much of northern Eurasia is a transitional or clinal zone where peoples show varying degrees of Caucasoid and Mongoloid traits. --JWB 19:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from Talk:Mongloid

hey JKelly. That comment seems like it is referring to the northern europeans(whites) whom have mongoloid ancestry. You can change the commment by saying there are asian immigrants in northern europe and eastern europe and they have mongoloid ancestry.

ok —preceding unsigned comment by 72.140.235.202 (talk • contribs)

I think that you have me confused for an author of the article Mongoloid. I have never edited that article except to revert vandalism there. You should address your question about sources, which are always very important, at Talk:Mongoloid, where they will be seen by more editors. This is a redirect. Jkelly 03:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Native Americans

I've never seen a single native-American that looks Japanese. Neither have I ever noticed Koreans having tall nose bridges--on the contrary, they seem to have flatter noses than Japanese, northern Chinese and all other northern Mongoloids.

Ever seen the movie windtalkers? when the navajo dressed up like the japanese army guy and asctually passed for a japanese? My uncle is Native American and gets mistaken for an asian constantly. I am native american and I have single eyelids. Youre opinion seems to come from limited exposure.

That's quite true. I've also seen Windtalkers. I am from Canada and the majority of Native Canadians I've met totally look Japanese or otherwise North Asian. But I find Natives in the States tend to have a different look, unless they are Cree or Mohawk. User:Le Anh-Huy.

That could be because most Native Canadians descend from the last migration (5 thousand years ago) to enter the Americas but relegated only to the northern-most regions of the continent (which entered after the North Asian type had been established).

Even in Canada a distinction is made among Native Canadians. Not all Native Canadians are First Nation. It is the First Nations that belong to the earlier migration 20,000 years ago, and these are related to all other Amerindians of the Americas which entered the continent in that period. Al-Andalus 18:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Nasal Bridge Height

On the issue of Koreans having high nasal bridges, I also think this is an absolutely false assertion. Perhaps the person that added that meant to say that among Mongoloids, the Koreans have a relatively higher bridge, but I doubt even this. In my humble experience with hundreds of Koreans, I have never come across a single Korean with a high nasal bridge (except for a couple of Eurasians). What I have noticed is that the nose is much more slender among Koreans, giving it an appearance (when viewed from the front, not profile) of not being as flat and close to the face, when in fact it is closer to the face, and actually with a lower bridge than say a typical Han Chinese.

You are right. Northern Han Chinese have higher nasal bridges (but larger noses) than Koreans.

High nasal bridges are really the domain of New World "Mongoloids" (ie. Native Americans), that is, in the instances when they are considered Mongoloids (many definitions do not classify them as such because of their 20,000 years of isolated evoluion; except of course the Inuit, Aleut, etc. which are indeed relatively recent arrivals to the Northern-most New World, and are not actually Amerindians).

On profile, New World "Mongoloids" do indeed tend to have high nasal bridges (in some cases extremely high bridges, higher than many Caucasoid noses), with hooked columellas to top it off, in addition to lacking epithantic folds and possessing strong chins, making the profile look quite non-Mongoloidish, and appear somewhat Caucasoid. However, the frontal view is quite different. The noses is not slender, which makes it appear flat on frontal view, when in fact it is not. Furthermore, in a frontal view the high cheekbones become evident, as does the flatish face (although not as flat as old world mongoloids) and brachycephalic cranial morphology (again, not as found headed as old world mongoloids).

I have also seen many Koreans with higher nose bridges. I think all this talk about disimilarities between Amerindians and Old World Mongoloids is purely superficial. I see old world mongoloids and Native americans having alot more in common than say, the Swedish with their distant (but much more closely related than Asiatic people and Amerindians)cousins in Iran. I think for possibly up to 40,000 years separating the two population they have maintained a relatively similar appearance. I have seen many Amerindians from the Amazon Rainforest looking incredibly similar to people throughout Asia. Example: http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/3443/02512a2tq.jpg a Yanomami Indian from the jungles of Venezuela having lived in as many as 30.000 years of separation from the populations of Asia and still has maintained much of her "Mongoloid" traits, and yet is not considered a Mongoloid by many? Furthermore, much genetic evidence has pointed out that Koreans and other "Northern Mongoloids" are more closely related to Amerindians than to the Han Chinese and other "Southern Mongoloids". Yet, few ever argue that Koreans and Han chinese should be classified as different races. 69.209.133.116 10:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Many Chinese from Ningxia province (northwest China) fit your description of New World Mongoloids to the T.

Furthermore, there is also the assertion in the article that Koreans exibit a less-rounded face, when again, it is in Koreans that the roundest faces are found among all Asians. It is from this that the pejorative terms "moon face" and "blockheads" are directed specifically at Koreans. Al-Andalus 18:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC).

haha i sense the anger from the chinese on this sensitive issue! it is a proven fact that korean generally have higher noses compared to most other east asians, and if you have actually compared chinese with korean, its so easy to tell that koreans have more elongated and narrow faces compared to chinese. just to let you know, i deal with many international students and this is my neutral point of view, coming from a non-asian 202.37.68.21 09:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking, Koreans have the roundest, softest most neotenic (childlike) features of all east Asians. Japanese and especially Han Chinese have more elongated heads with broader and taller bridged noses. 82.45.34.168 13:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said and discussed in my earlier post, that Koreans have the roundest faces of all East Asians. To say that the Japanese and Han Chinese have elongated heads with taller nose bridges is also far fetched. However, if you're saying this in comparison to Koreans, then maybe. But 1 extra millimetre of nasal projection (if there is that extra milimitre) from one mongoloid to the next doesn't qualify the nose as "long", the bridge as "high" or the head as "narrow". They are still round heads, small noses, with low projections and bridges. Al-Andalus 17:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion going on here is not being objective. Is their any reputable anthropological evidence that states Koreans have rounder/longer face shape and higher/lower nose bridge than their neighbors?

Not citing anything here, just commenting from my own experience. I gotta say, a lot of Native Americans, be they from the Pacific Northwest or far reaches of the Southernmost Andes, look Asian. Sure, some less than others and the traits aren't uniform, but I don't understand why the author(s) make such an effort in seperating them from Asian and Arctic Mongoloids. A lot of Latinos I know resemble Eurasians. They might be darker considering their Caucasian heritage (as much if not more than their Mongoloid heritage), but beyond that the physical distinction is minimal if at all existant.

The article is based on antiquated data. American Indians have little in common with Asian Mongolids; they come from the Central Asian Cro-Magnid Q-lineage and are the closest relatives of European Cro-Magnons both in the paternal (Q) and maternal (A) line. They dwelled around the Altai mountains until ca. 20 000 BC, and then a part of them headed north-east through Siberia to America. They partly mixed with Mongolid women and this is the reason, why they posess some Mongolid features. But they should be actually considered a separate racial group, a stabilized racial mixture. It is true that Na-Dene Indians, who came to America several thousands of years later, come directly from the Mongolid C-paternal lineage, but they are a relatively minor component that largely acquired physical features of neighbouring tribes. Centrum99 02:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibliy not of mongol origin

what evidence is there that they original came from Mongolia

None. "Mongoloid" means "like Mongols", not "from Mongolia" or "of Mongols". Same with Caucasoid, which means "like Caucasians" (people from the Caucasus), not "from the Caucasus" or "of the Caucasians". Al-Andalus 18:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Turks in Turkey

Are you saying that Turks were originally Mongols? What is the source for this?

• Turks in Turkey have an amount of Mongoloid features that is related to the amount of actual Turkic ancestry present in the individuals considered.

This is POV.

• This is variable in Turkey due to the varied ancestry of most of the population. While many scholars explain the variablity of the physical characteristics of Turkic Mongoloids as the result of intermixing with Caucasoids, some propose that there may have at one point been a distinct Turkic Mongoloid group, with particular and distinct physical characteristics.

And some propose that Turks originated in the west and they are Caucasoids. Please add the sources and attribute the claims to the their owners. AverageTurkishJoe 06:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkic Mongoloids Verifiable source request

What is the verifyable reference for the change In the mongoloid article

From: Turkic Mongoloids n Central Asia, the Uzbeks, the Uighur, the Kyrgyz, and the Kazakhs are Turkic Mongoloid, the Western cousins of the Mongolians. Historically, the Huns and the Tatars have been considered to belong to the Mongoloid family. The Turkmen, while are still Central Asian, Turkic-Mongoloids, have mixed heavily with Caucasoid neighbours to the west, and most of the even more westerly Turkic-speakers of Turkey and Azerbaijan appear to have little or no Mongoloid ancestry.

To:

In Central Asia, the Uzbeks, the Uighur, the Kyrgyz, and the Kazakhs show strong Turkic Mongoloid elements, which would make them the Western cousins of the Mongolians. However, among them, and especially among Uzbeks and Uyghurs in particular, one may notice a continuum of physical types that ranges from Mongoloid to Europoid Caucasoid. This tends to also be true among the modern Tatars (Bulgars) and Bashkirs. Historically, the Huns and the ancient Tatars have been considered to belong to the Mongoloid family. The Turkmen, while are still Central Asian Turkic-Mongoloids, have mixed heavily with Caucasoid neighbours to the west, and many of the even more westerly Turkic-speakers, such as those in Azerbaijan appear to have little or no visible Mongoloid ancestry, although many may have less visible Mongoloid features. Turks in Turkey have an amount of Mongoloid features that is related to the amount of actual Turkic ancestry present in the individuals considered. This is variable in Turkey due to the varied ancestry of most of the population. While many scholars explain the variablity of the physical characteristics of Turkic Mongoloids as the result of intermixing with Caucasoids, some propose that there may have at one point been a distinct Turkic Mongoloid group, with particular and distinct physical characteristics AverageTurkishJoe 06:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the sentence that is claiming:

Turks in Turkey have an amount of Mongoloid features that is related to the amount of actual Turkic ancestry present in the individuals considered. since no verifiable source is presented. AverageTurkishJoe 04:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please respond with your views here. I am planning to do more substantial edits but I'd like to hear fromt he proponents of the "Existence of a Turkic-Mongol race" or whoever claims that this information is verifiable. AverageTurkishJoe 04:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

some propose that there may have at one point been a distinct Turkic Mongoloid group, with particular and distinct physical characteristics. Who proposes? This is a Weasel word if the outhor does not give reference for this claim. I am removing this phrase. AverageTurkishJoe 04:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eye Colour

Among Asians, it seems only Central Asians and possibly Mongolians could have naturally occurring blue eyes, as if it were a continuum from Caucasians. My grandmother was of East Asian descent (Vietnamese), and had brown eyes with blue rims, and I have seen several exmaples of Asians with "hazel eyes with a green rim". I am also of East Asian descent, but I have brown eyes. Does this mean my grandmother had Altaic or Central Asian origins? User:Le Anh-Huy

Eye Colour <- Go to the bottom Talk page of this topic, since I have the same the concern as you do, you I've post my question on the page. My eyes is golden brown while my mom have one of those "hazel eyes with a green rim". Also my hair is not black, its dark chestnut brown.

---

No, M112 doesn't trace it's origin to south-west China. This assumption is based on the fact that it is most diverse in the south-west, but it disregards recent migrations to this area. Should be edited.

---

Dark chestnut brown? Wow sounds pretty black to me, my eyes is golden brown = brown eyes hazel eyes with a green rim = brown eyes, rims dont count stop trying to be unique

[edit] Mongoloid Skin Colour can be Misleading

I think dinstinguishing Mongoloids by skin-colour is an erroneous assumption used by non-Asians who essentially have difficulty telling them apart. We have to remember that "light skin and "dark skin" exist in all Asian populations, and that social occupation and sex are often the real variables here: as Asians, farmers and males are typically darker than the urbanites and the females. Many people (almost always non-Asians) don't realize that Asians all have the same skin colour when they are light, it's when they tan that the skin tones look different. And so, the Vietnamese are not any "darker" than the Japanese, as they really have the same tone: yellowish-red when they are tanned. I find that northern Mongoloids are red when they are dark, and Southeast Asians seem to be have a "greyish" skin colour when they are tanned. So I really think we have to depend on the body structure (nose, facial hair, or something?). And among continental Mongoloids, the Hans can range from extremely light (stereotypically, the central eastern cities) to extremely dark (rural north-central Han males can have a peculiar red-purple skintone). That makes the Chinese both the lightest and the darkest among the continental Mongoloids. Le Anh-Huy 09:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very well written

Why can't the "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" article be as good as this. --Digitalseal 23:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Then you should help make them better. The Negroid page was good but people had it edited beyond recognition. Le Anh-Huy 02:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external links

Thoughts on whether the link to the Skulls page at http://kennethomura.tripod.com is appropriate for inclusion? --Lukobe 21:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot find the link to the Skulls page from this website it is here: Asian Skulls--Dark Tichondrias 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This external link should be on this page because the website discusses the skulls of East Asians and Southeast Asians which the Mongoloid page deals with because it talks about skull type. The Mongoloid page has a picture of a typical Mongoloid skull, but does not show different skull types present on Mongoloids. This website discusses variation in skull types among Mongoloids, so it adds to the page.It greatly adds to the information provided because it goes into depth in a specific aspect of the human eye which this page cannot go into depth about. Its devotion to a single Mongoloid topic is similar to a page which devotes itself only to the Mongoloid spot. Since this Wikipedia webpage cannot go into depth about all Mongoloid topics, external links whose expertise and specificity lie in one subject should be allowed to be on the external links list. Removing it from Wikipedia, would be very detrimental to Wikipedia being a comprehensive provder of free knowledge.Dark Tichondrias 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Caucasoid and Negroid

Dark Tichondrias... Isn't this term considered obsolete? Same as Caucasoid, and Negroid? It is not a widely used term in the science community today although it remains in the history books and sopme still tend to cling to this racist term.--Gnosis 14:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to say that native Americans resemble Koreans and Japanese. On the other hand, some Han Chinese, Tibetans and central asians could pass as native American due to the less neotenic features, lesser subcutaneous fat, rounder eyes and stronger jaws. 82.45.34.168 12:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It says that natives of the American continent's Arctic regions (Alaskan natives, Inuit, Aleuts, etc.) resemble the Japanese and Koreans. They are one of two peoples who are considered natives of the American continent, the other being the Amerindians who stretch from non-Arctic central Canada all the way down to South America. The Arctic Americans' great resemblance to New World mongoloids is due to the fact that they are in fact recent arrivals to the American continent (by recent I mean only 5,000 years ago), where as Amerindians arrived far earlier (as much as 40,000 years ago) and have evolved independantly since then. Language groups and cultural practices of these two mega-groups are vastly different. All the languages spoken by Amerindians across the Americas are supposedly derived from one common ancestor, and thus ultimately make up a mega language family of their own. Al-Andalus 17:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Arctics, while considered "Natives" for political reasons, are very recent arrivals. They are racially Mongoloid, and the Inuit (Eskimos) are also found in Asia. --JBull12 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing To Mongoloid Race

There is an article already dealing with some of the other uses in a "Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid" article. Like the Caucasian Race article it makes more sense to classify this as "Mongoloid Race" since it is different from the other article that talks about Mongoloid in its other uses. Zachorious 03:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Genetic history" section

This looks dubious to me, particularly the statement that:

East Asians generally are more genetically similar to the South Asians than to Southeast Asians, because the Far East and the Indian Subcontinent are members of the Eurasian branch while Southeast Asians (including south Chinese) are members or the Oceanic branch.

I believe this is based on cluster analysis of Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroups and possibly Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups. In some other ways, East and Southeast Asians resemble each other more than they do South Asians.--JWB 00:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Shouldn't someone make note of that then? That's a pretty big glaring mislead otherwise..

This still needs to be addressed. The section prominently references the textbook Human Species (2003) but does not say which genetic markers are being used or other methodology. Both the choice of genetic markers and choice of clustering algorithm can lead to different results, including ones that have SE Asians closer to E than S Asians. Hopefully whoever is referencing the book can add this information. BTW, many research papers which are primary sources are also available online. --JWB 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The purest of Turks"

I have invited user JBull12 to expand on his contribution which alleges certain Turkic-speaking populations are "geneticallly...the purest of Turks". I would like to see some references to the genetic claim. Also, it would be good if the genetic claims could be substanciated by something more authoratitive that the opinions of one historian, Lev Gumilev. The fact is, Lev Gumilev was well known because his works were largely wild, unorthodox, unrecognised, & discredited in his own field of study by fellow historians, so let alone should we elevate his views in the field of genetics. Al-Andalus 02:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that you're missing the point. The point is that he IS a source, and what you think about him means nothing. Phenotypes of the Western Turks appear Caucasoid, and all you have to back yourself up is your own claims. So, it is you that needs to provide more information. When you do that, I'll be happy to go find more that substantiates MY claims. But for now, its JBull12 1, Al-Andalus 0. --JBull12 17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate, if claims about genetic purity are to be made, they must come from genetic researchers, or institutions dealing with genetic research. If they are included at all, the opinions of historians (especially if the historian in question was largely unorthodox and his views largely discredited) must carry caveats. Moreover, they person/s quoted should not be used for claims outside their own field.

Now, with the hopes of this debate progressing, I would just like to cut and paste some content from a few articles of various Turkic ethnicities found in this encyclopaedia.

From Turkish people:

"While the majority of Turks do bear a common brunette Mediterranean appearance similar to that of neighboring countries, there are large visible exceptions that are a testament to the legacy of population movements into the region. People walking in a Turkish street or watching a Turkish movie can see Turks of most physical types prevalent in the country, from the blond haired and-blue-eyed to Asiatic-looking individuals."

For there to even exist such a visible gradient of Caucasoid to Mongoloid among the general population of modern Turkey, there must obviously be great admixture. Of all the Turkic-speakers, the Turkish people would be among the most genetically mixed.

From Azerbaijani people:

"genetic analysis of mtDNA, Azerbaijanians are more closely related genetically to their geographic neighbors in the Caucasus and not to their [Turkic] linguistic neighbors elsewhere."

Meanwhile, "analysis of Y-chromosome shows a closer genetic relationship with the Near East".

"...previous analysis of mtDNA variation in the Caucasus found that Indo-European-speaking Armenians and Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians were more closely related genetically to other Caucasus populations (who speak Caucasian languages) than to other Indo-European or Turkic groups, respectively."[1]

From genetic studies of the Azeri population:

"...Both [the earlier mtDNA and now Y Chromosome] studies have shown that Armenians and Azerbaijanians are more closely related genetically to their geographic neighbors in the Caucasus and not to their linguistic neighbors elsewhere. In addition, both studies have demonstrated that Caucasian populations are genetically intermediate between European and Near Eastern populations, but that they are more closely related to European than to Near Eastern populations. The [Y Chromosome] genetic results thus suggest that both the Armenian and Azerbaijanian languages represent language replacements in the Caucasus. The origins of the Armenian language are obscure, but the Azerbaijanian language was probably introduced in the 11 th century AD by central Asian nomads (Johanson 1998). A common mechanism of language replacement is elite dominance (Renfrew 1991), whereby the language of a small invading group is adopted by the larger resident population, either because it is imposed by force or because it is considered socially desirable to speak the language of the invaders. If the invading group is primarily male, then one might expect patterns of Y-chromosome variation to retain some trace of the invaders."[2]

Neither the Y Chromosome nor mtDNA of the Azeri genepool show any general input from Turkic sources, instead, they are an amalgam of indigenous Caucus and Near Eastern genes. Any relationship of Azeris to other Turkic-speakers is a linguistic relationship, not a genetic one. Whatever small genetic affinity of Azeris there may be to other Turkic-speakers is in the form of extremely mild admixture in tiny segments of the Azeri population.

If these people are all "genetically...the purest of Turks", then something is wrong. The Turks of Turkey and the Turks of Turkmenistan are no doubt descend from the original Turks, but there is a great difference among the average Turkish and the average Turkmenistani. Either the Turkish Turks are pure (although even among themselves there is great variety, grading from mongoloid to caucasoid, but averaging more caucasoid) or the Turkmeni Turks are pure (averaging more mongoloid), but both cannot be "pure" because of the mere fact of the difference between the average Turkish and average Turkmeni. The Azeris, meanwhile, are not even genetically Turks. Al-Andalus 14:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This page should avoid lengthy discussion of these Turkic issues and leave the detail and debates to the corresponding linked pages. I vote for deleting the whole "Turkic Mongoloid" section or moving it to another page. BTW, the Chinese government does not officially designate the Uighurs as either white or Caucasoid.--JWB 17:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Turkic Mongoloid" is not a widely used and accepted term anyway. Most of the relatively few google hits are to Wikipedia mirrors. --JWB 17:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mongoloid Origins of European examples might be Imagined

If Francesco Guccini- an Italian- has Asian origins, what about some Russian Slavs such as Mikhail Fradkov, who looks even more "Asian" than even some Asians? How relevant is it to assume that just any white person with a "big, round" head is of Asian ancestry? Le Anh-Huy 06:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of any population known to be descendants of originally Mongoloid peoples should be discussed. However, sources must be presented. If traced back far enough, Finns and Hungarians are descendants of invading Asiatic peoples. If this wanted to be discussed, it could be, because it has history to bacl it up, and I'm sure genetics could prove there is admixture. But to present a "fat-headed" Italian as evidence of a Mongoloid European is a joke. There is no historical suggestion that any current Italians are desccendants of any Mongoloid invasion, and genetic evidence supports that the most significant non-Caucasoid element to be found in Italians is genes of African origin. Without any genetic data or known historical events to support suggestions, they cannot be presented.

The Turkish people are discussed becuase they are Turks, and Turks are known to be originally from Central Asia. It is known that they speak an Asian language, and it is known that they are relavitely recent arivals to Anatolia. Further, the presence of true Mongoloid "throwbacks" among the Turkish people (or other increasingly easterly Turks where this appearance is more commonplace) is not because some Turkish person happens to have a big head, but because indeed there are genes and there is a hirstory of this people being originally from Central Asia.

As for the Khoisan of Africa, that is a very good inclusion to the article. Kudos to Dark Tichondrias for adding that. It didn't even pass my mind. We should develop more detail on the article on the population on other continents not actually related to Mongoloids, yet have evolved the anatomical features which are defined as Mongoloid, and which in forensic analysis are defined as such. As far as I'm aware, there is no genetic connection between "true" Mongoloids and the populations who share their characteristics in the African continent (appart from the ancient connection we all have to Africa). I'm not sure about calling them Mongoloid though, but rather people who have Mongoloid features, or something like that, since no source has been presented to corroborate a conection between them and the Mongoloids, unlike there is for Turkic peoples and New World natives. Al-Andalus 13:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Language and race are unrelated, as language can be learned. The viewpoint that they are related is outdated and now often considered racist. The Turkic language group should not be discussed at all in this article.

The Indo-European language family also came from Asia or close to Asia; so taking the language = race viewpoint to its logical extreme, all Europeans are Asian except perhaps the Basques.

The Khoisan are not Mongoloids, and it is irresponsible to assert this. This section has to go too.--JWB 15:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, language can be learned, and this is exactly how Azeris are today Turkic-speakers, though genetically they are not descended from the original Turks. The Turkish, Turkmeni, Uyghur, Uzbek, and so on (the further easterly, the less caucasoid admiture) are Turks not only in language, but also in ancestry. I agree that we shouldn't limit this to "Turkics", and that's why the section now reads "Central Asians". As for the Khoisan, there is nothing "irresponsible" about mentioning them. The article specifically says that they have not been proven to be genetically related to Mongoloids, but they do posess features that classyfy them as such in the field of forensics, especially when skeletal remains are the only thins that are available to be studies. This is discussed in other articles on this encyclopaedia. Al-Andalus 08:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It is misleading to just say the Khoisan have not been proven to be genetically related to East Asians, because DNA evidence has proven they are not particularly closely related. It has shown that all non-Africans form a related group with common origin, and the Khoisan cannot be more closely related to a particular part of this group. If there are craniometric similarities, they should be stated as such, and not suggested to imply common ancestry. Could you add sources for craniometric similarity? I have never heard this assertion before.

The Uzbeks and (Indo-European speaking) Tajiks have the same appearance and were only separated into separate linguistic states in the Soviet period. Again, there is no particular relation between language group and race. The arguments about Turkic "race" have more to do with 20th century racial ideology in Turkey and belong in historical / political articles. To discuss it in such detail in this article gives the impression there is a connection. It is also unbalanced to concentrate so much on one language group. --JWB 18:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The german anthropological names are better

Mongoloid = Mongolid

Caucasoid = Europid

Negroid = Negrid

, also english speakers may find them much more less offensive. --Digitalseal 23:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You think we should use German anthropological names in an English-language article? (And you think people who are offended by the English terms will find the removal of the "o" to be that important?) --Lukobe 00:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Disregarding the sillyness of the german proposal, Europid wrongly implies Caucasoids are only to be found in Europe. Al-Andalus 21:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

Does Mongoloid imply that Mongoloids are only to be found in Mongolia? -- Himasaram 12:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your right, lets name them slanteyeoids —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.175.28.248 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Global acceptance of concept

I think most of this new section applies to the term "Asian" etc. rather than Mongoloid which is restricted to physical anthropology.--JWB 07:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The term Asian includes either E, SE,& S Asians, or E Asians, or E & SE Asians, or S Asians, but not indigenous Americans or Pacific Islanders. The question of how much E Asians, SE Asians, Indigenous, and Islanders are considered the same people does not belong in the Asian article, because obviously indigenous and islanders are not Asian not having origins from Asia. This is the article where they are considered the same people. --- Dark Tichondrias

The use of "Asian" is certainly imprecise and differs by region, but nevertheless it (and similar terms like "Asian Pacific" are the terms used. There is no public discussion about "Mongoloid" people. --JWB 20:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I find this section to be incredibly offensive. How would Native Americans' classification as "Mongoloids" in anyway undermind their struggle as a people? Native americans, reguardless of global race origins and/or racial classification are the indigenous people of America. Millions of Native Americans were killed, and their cultural significance greatly diminished, and their land taken, regaurdless of what race they may happen to belong to. Genocide is the mass murder of any ethnic group of people. Jews are caucasoid but how would the fact that there are many more caucasoids other than jews in the world today take away from the fact that they were victims of genocide? This section is incredibly biased, unfounded and irrelevant! I think it should be removed or edited drastically! --69.216.103.85 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, the author was probably not himself minimizing the suffering of Native Americans, but describing others who may be using this argument. (On a related topic, note the Kennewick Man controversy where the identification of ancient Americans with one race or another on other continents has become a political football.) But I agree this section is poor. Many of the assertions appear speculative or in one case plain wrong. Also, such racial politics arguments are never phrased in terms of the word "Mongoloid", which has gone out of most use other than describing older ideas in physical anthropology. I think this article would be better limited to the latter, and the other content moved to "Asian" articles. --JWB 02:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who wants to be a mongoloid

Someone needs to add something about how the term "mongoloid" is an often offensive term to describe asiatics. I think it should go near the top. I can't figure out where to put it. - Abscissa 21:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it is offensive unless they themselves consider it offensive. We should not speak for other people. Furthermore, while it may not be politically correct, there is no statement to describe an entire race that will be correct. In truth, the term "asiatic" is not accurate either, because Arabs are not considered Mongoloid people, but they inhabit Asia. Therefore, there is a different connotation when Westerners describe Asians than when speaking of other people. In general, Mongoloid seems like the best termto me because it gives the connotation that one is describing the oblique eyes of the Asian peoples you're talking about, and not people who inhabit the Asian continent. — Hizrael 17:25, 08 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hunsen vs. Southeast Asian dancer

I agree with User talk:Al-Andalus that the Hun Sen picture is better than the Southeast Asian dancer to represent Southern Mongoloids, because it is clearer especially at smaller sizes because it is just his face as opposed to his whole body. He also has a more indigenous-equator-person physical appearence than the dancer, because he has dark skin, big lips, and a wide nose. --Dark Tichondrias 00:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but not only that. Hun Sen is an adult, with fully developed facial and body features; plus the picture is clear and only of his face, like you said. Le Anh-Huy 22:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD PHOTOS TO THE NEGROID AND CAUCASOID PAGES AS WELL

[edit] Mongoloid in Greek language wikipedia

“

που κατοικούν μέχρι και σήμερα.Οι φυλές αυτές διαιρούνται σε δυο μεγάλες ομάδες: την ευρωπίδα (άσπρη φυλή) και την μογγολίδα (κίτρινη φυλή) που κατοικούν στις βόρειες περιοχές της ηπείρου ενώ στα νότια κατοικούν φυλές που έχουν πιο σκούρο χρώμα, ιδιαίτερα στην περιοχή των Ινδιών και στην Κεϋλάνη. Στην περιοχή, όμως των Φιλιππίνων και στη Μαλαισία ζει η νέγρικη φυλή.

”

“

that they live until today this races are divided in two big teams: the eyrwpj'da (white race) and the moggolj'da (yellow race) that lives in the northern regions of continent while in the southerners they live races that have darker colour, particularly in the region of India and in the Ceylon. In the region, however the Philippines and in Malaysia lives the ne'grjki race.

”

Apparently on the Greek language Wikipedia South Asians are mongoloids.--Dark Tichondrias 02:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Two separate language translators gave the same English language statement.--Dark Tichondrias 03:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like it is saying that Europids and Mongolids are one "team" (ομάδες) and the southerners (presumably S and SE Asians) are another. --JWB 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Europeans as partial Mongoloids

Apart from "Osteuropid", wasn't there also the term "Dinaric" that 19th and early 20th century anthropologists used to describe East Europeans who have Asian-like features? There seems to be no wikipedia page on either of the concepts. Le Anh-Huy 03:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There's Dinaric race. I don't know what would be Asian-like about them other than brachicephaly, which seems like a very narrow criterion, if you'll pardon the expression. --JWB 04:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Asian Mongoloids

I think there should be some talks about the mongoloids in India. Some of them are the Bodos, Nagas and Gurkhas. Are they related to the southeast asians or to the Tibetans? Sonic99 03:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the Gurkhas are half way between the Tibetans and the Burmese, and the other two groups are just Burmese in origin. And don't forget the Gurung, who are Mongols who settled in the Himalayas. Le Anh-Huy 18:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Munda are partially mongoloid, but they are wholly absorbed by caucasoids.

[edit] Altaic eye colour

Among Asians, it seems only Central Asians and possibly Mongolians could have naturally occurring blue eyes, as if it were a continuum from Caucasians. My grandmother was of East Asian descent (Vietnamese), and had brown eyes with distinct blue rims, and I have seen several examples of Asians with "hazel eyes with a blue rim". Her eyes were very deepset and had a prominent nose, making her look very "northern" for an Asian. I am also of East Asian descent, but I have medium-brown eyes.

There is a so-called "Tat-C" or "TC" gene which is said to be the missing link between people of European descent and people of Asian descent. ie. if a full Asian had somewhat "Western" features, or if a full European had a somewhat "Asian" appearance, that they would have had some common distant ancestry. You find these appearances all over Eurasia, from Eastern European and into Altaic Asia and even northern China and in Japan. Does this mean my grandmother had Altaic or Central Asian origins? Le Anh-Huy 19:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me strangely that people of malay descent resemble caucasoid people, besides their pigmentation. It may be stranger that the so call proto-mongoloid, the ainu have caucasoid features may provide a link that mongoloids may have evolve from caucasoid?

[edit] Retarded and offensive section needs to be removed

World Mongoloids) were characterized as having a formality in thought, hidden emotions, low appearance of aggressive gesticulations, low occurrence of laughter and great sadness in song. The New World Mongoloids had more of a reserved mental type. Wallace considered the Malay people to be a Negroid-Mongoloid mix with a greater degree of Negroid mental characteristics such as loudness, violent movements, and excitability.[11] Jacob van Flossen considers the Japanese soldiers who stayed in their burrows for up to thirty years after World War II proof that Mongoloids have a greater innate self-motivation than other races.[12]

This is not only offensive to blacks and malays, but its some what un-proven. Malays, a negroid mongoloid mix is true, but farther from teh truth then he made it seem. Malays couldn't possibly be more then 10% australoid, and as for negroid being loud is totally out of line.

The first guy up there/ You are forgetting the most representative mongoloids who conquered and built the biggest country in the human history. If you call them "reserved mentalics", you're making a big mistake. I didn't read through the original text in the wikipedia, but any article should consider that the characters of each individuals are developed by their own culture and the surroundings, not by their racial factors..

That only have somthing do with the culture, but obviously not race. Please cut that. --MeowKun | Meowi Talk 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bigger than the British Empire??? Not by a long shot...

Much Much bigger than the birtish empire. Its called the Mongol Empire. CanCanDuo 03:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WRONG - Mongol empire was second in size to the British Empire, fool! [[3]]

My mistake, I thought you meant only the island of Britain. However, following your link, its seems that the inclusion of artic areas in the British Empire may make it larger than the mongol empire, but neverless its what westerners think. CanCanDuo 22:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] factual accuracy, cleanup

I think much of this article needs to be revamped, in particular the section on "Mongoloid variation." It needs to be made clear that much of the stuff in there is from 19th century anthropologists whose views are generally not supported by the scientific community today. Lapps being "a lesser evolved form of Caucasoid which retained its previous Mongoloid characteristics" or Tibetans representing "a transitional Mongoloid which was more racially evolved than other Mongoloids" should not be presented as fact. Maybe an article about outdated racial theories could be created and this content moved there, since I think it's interesting to read about what people used to think - but I don't think the "Mongoloid" article itself should be a place for that.

That content should be erased, classical european scientific racism, also erase the part about mongoloids being racially superior.

I think the article was much better in its previous state, before the addition of the opinions of 19th century racial theorists. I don't see the point of including theories that modern science largely disagrees with. Suggest a cleanup or reversion to a previous state. The current Negroid article could also be used as a model for this article. --Pravit 06:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think people who oppose racial classification of any kind are attempting to make these terms look as arbitrary and ridiculous as possible. Using discredited ideas and anthropologists from the 19th century is their primary M.O. in doing so. -- Gerkinstock 03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, why don't we take the Caucasoid and Mongoloid articles and make them like the Negroid article? Everyone seems to be happy with the way that article is An article filled with discredited ideas is not a good WP article, and WP articles shouldn't be used to advance anyone's opinions anyway. Let's discuss this for a while; if noone is against it, I'll go ahead and change the Mongoloid article to a disambiguation page. -02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Many of the sources in here link White pride or other racist and unscientific websites. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, in particular the section on partisan, religious, and extremist websites, and the section on peer-reviewed scientific publications and community consensus. I'm going to start cleaning up the bits citing obvious extremist websites; the bits from Nazi researchers and 19th century anthropologists(which are hardly accepted by modern science) will go later unless you can prove their merit. Remember that just because you find a website that agrees with your point of view, it doesn't make it a good source. --Pravit 08:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please consider rewriting the 19th c views into a proper historiography section. I believe it is a discredit to WP to purposefully ignore the racist theories of the colonial authorities. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good compromise to me. Could you give some examples of historiography sections in other articles I could use as a model?

Here one example: Austro Hungarian Empire#Historiography. You might find something more to your liking amoung this however. Honestly I think this whole article is really a "historiography" article. I don't think that there is really a modern idea of a "Mogoloid race." --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The term "Mongoloid" is still used in some anthropology textbooks and I feel that the views of 19th century anthropologists should not be mixed in among modern definitions.

Modern definitions are non-existant. The fact that Sforza has hijacked a term once consigned to craniofacial anthropology as a label for the East Asian genetic cluster is the exception. The 19th century anthropologists who measured physical type were completely accurate in their description of physical type.--Dark Tichondrias 23:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the descriptions of physical types are valid. Outdated theories of the evolution of these proposed groups are not, and should be clearly labeled as such rather than woven throughout the article. Random things you find on the internet(such as the South African Mongoloid page by M. Stewart) should not be included, even as opinion, because they are irrelevant and extreme minority views(see WP: Reliable sources). -Pravit 23:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"classical european scientific racism, also erase the part about mongoloids being racially superior." Please tell me you did not contradict yourself in the same sentence. Its funny how europeans can be racist against themselves, dam that makes sense. If you believe in evolution than theres no way you can refute the fact that not everyone has equal brain sizes. Different peoples developed different skulls for their environment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.175.28.248 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] RFC: Source reliability, article layout, overall presentation

I feel that the M. Stewart page used as a source for the "South African Mongoloid" section is not reliable. From what I can tell, M. Stewart is not an expert on the subject, and the entire page seems unscientific. The Klevius page sourced in that section also seems rather unscientific, and is notably anti-Islamic. Klevius does not seem to be an expert on the subject either. Please see the WP:Reliable sources section on partisan, religious, and extremist websites. I feel that these two minority opinions should not be included in the article unless more reliable sources are found. Though included as opinions, their mere inclusion implies at least some endorsement by Wikipedia. I don't think we should include everything we find on the net in a WP article. Although I am not suggesting any users working on this article have done this, it would be very easy for someone to erect a few pages on Geocities with their views, then include them in a WP article as sources.

There appears to be some dispute over the article layout. Once again, I agree that the descriptions of physical types provided by 19th century anthropologists may be valid, but their theories on the evolution of these types are clearly outdated and should not be presented as modern opinions. For this reason I have moved them to a seperate historiography section as recommended by BirgitteSB in a discussion on the WP: Reliable Sources page. Certain users have reverted these changes without any explanation.

This article and the Caucasoid article need a lot of cleanup and more opinions. The Negroid article is merely a disambiguation page. I would not be against turning the Caucasoid and Mongoloid articles into similar disambiguation pages.

Also, concerning the entire article, we seem to be in a bit of a grey area. I am of the opinion that "Mongoloid" is a more of an outdated historical term than anything else, but it is presented as a modern term in the article.

If we define Mongoloid strictly as a modern craniofacial type, like Dark Tichondrias suggests, information on their suppposed origins, migrations, or how they have spread around the world should not be included - since this implies that they are some group of people related to each other, or a historical "race." However, not including this information would be a discredit to Wikipedia: the term "Mongoloid" has been used in history to refer to some supposed "race", and many people might come to this page looking for information on which groups of people it historically defined. However, these historical definitions have changed over time.

BirgitteSB suggested that the "Mongoloid" article should really be a historiography page. I think this would be an excellent idea; much like the Historical definitions of race article, we could include views of various anthropologists and theorists of the past, but at the same time make it clear that these are not modern views. I also support renaming the article "Mongoloid (historical definition)"; its current name implies that it is still regarded as an actual "race". -Pravit 20:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture?

Is that picture really appropriate for a modern encyclopedia? I thought we were past the pseudo-science of measuring skulls. The last time I saw a picture like the was at an exhibition about racism and human categorization.

Overall, this article needs to be revamped to emphasize that the term 'mongoloid' is obsolete and offensive. I support the renaming of the article to "Mongoloid (historical definition)". Flexxx 16:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Really, the term 'Mongoloid' is very useful. It is necessary in some ways to be able to categorize humans, for example in the science of forensics. Without being able to categorize the shape of the skull and bones, many murders would most likely have gone on unsolved. Just my opinion, of course.

[edit] Population

The population of people being described as mongoloid seems incorrect mainly becuase I followed the link to the information and it states australoid people form 4% of the world population. If 4% of 6 billion or so is 240 million people, way too much for tribal population of australia, asia and melanesia. There are less than a million aborigine in australia and still too large for melanesia and tribes of india put together. The relevance here is that if that was incorrect, this is likely to be also incorrect. CanCanDuo 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointing out something

quote : "Mongoloid" loosely applies to physical traits and not to contemporary or historic definitions of racial or social groups. Some current terms for the latter are Asian, East Asian, Southeast Asian, and Oriental; however the range of Mongoloid does not correspond exactly to any one of these. In regards to "Asian", it can be said that North Asians, East Asians, and Southeast Asians are physically Mongoloid. Many Central Asians are Mongoloid, such as the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and Uighurs, but many are a generic mix of Caucasoid and Mongoloid. South Asians are predominantly Caucasoid, with the exception of Tibeto-Burman speaking peoples living in the northeast, such as the Nagas. West Asians (Middle Easterners) are classified as Caucasoids, though some Turkish people have Mongoloid traits, proof of their Central Asian heritage .

Its essential to point out that if southeast asian can be said as physically mongoloid, so can central asians because the two share admixtures from other group types. Southeast asians have a generally visible australoid admixture, mainly in the eastern islands of indonesia. Central asians and even Mongolians have a visible caucasoid presence. CanCanDuo 20:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Far East People

It may be less "offensive" to catagorize people by their location, rather than genetic background. I am not saying that we shouldn't admit there are genetic difference, just that I would rather be characterized as "Europid" rather than white.

Seeing as most people categorize themselves by their ethnicity, than by their nation, I would highly doubt this is a popular worldview. Globally, almost all people consider their ethnicity before their nationality. If they did not, we would not have so many internal conflicts in countries today.

[edit] article quality

This article needs to be improved like the Negroid article, or alternately merged into Asian (people) like Caucasoid was. I have removed some unreliable internet sources(Geocities kook websites used as references by certain editors), but the other internet sources cited in the article need to be replaced. The entire article seems to be reflecting the opinion of one editor.　 -Pravit 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)