Talk:Mongoloid

The Sino-Japanese word Mōko (蒙古?) meaning "Mongol" was recognized for its connotation of a "stupid, ignorant, or immature" person (c.f. Mongoloid), and the ethnic group is now called by the katakana Mongoru (モンゴル?). Shouldn't there be a specific wikipedia page for racism against Mongolians or Mongolophobia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the Chinese character 蒙 originally means "to deceive, to cheat, blind, dim sighted, unconscious, ignorant", and the Chinese have always used the word Menggu (蒙古) to refer to Mongolia. So, it's not actually something to do with the sentiment coming from Japan, they've merely inherited the usage from China. Folks might be interested in reading Graphic pejoratives in written Chinese. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

White people => white people (Caucasoid?) Black people => black people (Negroid?) Yellow people => mongoloid

just found that amusing96.55.155.242 (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's funny how Wikipedia even has such a redirect. In terms of nomenclature, old habits die hard for Western concepts. -Ano-User (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, how hilarious that Wikipedia would base their redirects on common language usage. I'm about as Liberal as they come, but some people seriously need to pull their heads out of their asses. Whether you like it or not, skin color is a primary racial indicator, and therefore people who want to actually get a point across tend to use words and concepts that the rest of humanity understands. Before you get all pissy about the word "yellow", perhaps you'd care to explain why a simple descriptor of color is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.246.67 (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You don't sound liberal at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.42.89.251 (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

From school i remember term Europoid rather than Caucasoid...--Aeorin (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The problem with this article is that it presumes there is such a thing called a 'race' of 'Mongoloids'. Dividing mankind up into three races is old thinking. Also, in the age of the human genome project, most of the methods used belong in a museum for anthropological theories. MrSativa (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just because you term it old thinking it is not incorrect. Scientiest like Charles Murray and others will disagree with you. Genetic methods can fairly accurately point to which race - or "regional subgroup" as some call it today - an individual belongs. I advice you to read the following piece which addresses some points of this debate: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11837 I also fail to see how it is racist to talk about different races. The article does not state that any race is superior to another. But well, if you want to call it racism, do as you wish. It will not change the facts or anyone's view on the matter. 91.49.197.89 (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Edge.org is not a reliable source.--Beneficii (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The copy & paste of generic Turkic culture is offtopic and has nothing to do with the Mongoloid typology. Likewise, the tables on the Out-of-Africa theory and haplogroups are synthesis and also have nothing to do with Mongoloid typology. Mongoloids aren't even touched on. East Asians are, but populations ≠ physical types. They are instead made up of various physical types, some more prevalent than others. Soupforone (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

The article says multiple times, that the usage of the term "mongoloid" is controversial at best in both public and technical usage, however it does not state the proper term to be used. How should one refer to this ethnic group? (IMHO such information should be included in an article like this) --Aeorin (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

It isn't an ethnic group, it's a physical anthropological type (cluster of craniofacial features, mainly) that is found in a huge number of entirely distinct ethnicities. For heaven's sake don't call it an ethnic group, that is exactly the kind of thing that puts people off using these terms. Generally "East Asian" will do just fine. But in technical literature you'll still often see "Mongoloid" anyway, I don't think most people really care.Megalophias (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I notice this article has a lot of photographs of private people, that is, people who are not famous or notable. I think this is objectifying, and I doubt each of those people gave their permission to have their image posted like they were objects to be studied. We're also invading their privacy by posting their image.

There is also a double standard, if you look at the articles Caucasian race and White people. The former has no photos of people at all (only sketches), and the latter does have photos of people but these are famous people who are notable on their own, and whose pictures are already widely available (i.e. they're not private people). This is less objectifying, because these people are famous for something they did.

All in all, we're objectifying the private people photographed in this article by using their image in ways they may not have intended, while in the white people article we only post photographs of famous, notable people, which is less objectifying. This is a double standard. Let's fix this.--Beneficii (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

If the photographer released the image copyright under a free licence and the photograph was taken within a country that guarantees photographic freedom within public areas by law, I don't see any problem with using photographs of private people. The idea of the images being "objectifying" is extremely subjective and is purely opinion-based; it's also an extremely Eurocentric way of perceiving things. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

User:Rantemario restored the photograph of Tina Manning and John Trudell with this edit with the edit summary "reverted wp:nor, rescued removed images, and rearranged images". I had removed that photograph in this edit, because its description says that it is a "Non-free" image and that "It is only being used to illustrate the article in question" which I believe would be either the Tina Manning or John Trudell article. Since that photograph is a "Non-free" image, I think that using that photograph in this article might be considered copyright infringement.--Ephert (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I have removed the picture. Presumably the picture belongs to the estate of John Trudell. Per WP:FREER we should not use this picture if it can "be replaced by a free version that has the same effect". Any picture of Native Americans could be used here, so we should not use this picture here. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Esteban Sarmiento et al. on page 223 of the 2007 book The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans published by Yale University Press said that the proportionately long legs of Sub-Saharan Africans make them naturally better runners than Mongoloids who Sarmiento et al. mentioned as having proportionately short legs. This is an interpretive claim made by Sarmiento et al. dealing with how proportionately short legs versus proportionately long legs affects a human's ability to run. The 2007 book seems to be a reliable source, and WP:ANALYSIS allows Wikipedia to include interpretive claims made by reliable secondary sources. In this case, Sarmiento et al. (2007) appears to be a secondary source as it "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources" as quoted from the WP:SECONDARY policy description, and the primary sources appear to be the finals of Olympic running events and the fact that Mongoloids have proportionately have short legs. In his own words, Sarmiento et al. (2007) said on page 223, "Although differences in body segment proportions may be associated with climatic differences, they also endow each of the geographic groups with different capabilities. For instance, the high lower-limb to body-size ratio makes sub-Saharan Africans much better natural runners than Mongoloids. Sub-Saharan Africans are thus much more commonly seen in Olympic finals in all the running events, despite the fact that Mongoloids currently make up a much higher proportion of the human population." I was thinking about adding this source into this article as, "Esteban Sarmiento et al. (2007) said that the proportionately long legs of Sub-Saharan Africans make them naturally better runners than Mongoloids who Sarmiento et al. mentioned as having proportionately short legs." Does any Wikipedia editor see an issue based on Wikipedia policy which would indicate that this contribution should not be included in this article?--Ephert (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

On second thought, since the Sarmiento et al. (2007) source is talking about race and sports, I think that it should go into the race and sports Wikipedia article and not this one.--Ephert (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The table insinuating that hair texture is continent based is erroneous. It is actually typology centered (i.e., Mongoloid, Negroid, Caucasoid [1]), and as such is transcontinental. The actual global hair texture distribution map makes this clear [2]. Soupforone (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Soupforone: In this edit you removed the Bhushan (2010) data table from the Mongoloid article, and this edit you said, "The table insinuating that hair texture is continent based is erroneous", and you also said in that same edit that hair texture is "transcontinental" due to actually being based on "typology" "(i.e., Mongoloid, Negroid, Caucasoid [3])". Are you claiming that the data table insinuates a continental basis for hair texture due to it using the word "Asian" instead of the word "Mongoloid"? If sources that use the word "Asian" cannot be added to the Mongoloid article, that would mean drastic changes would have to be made to the Mongoloid article. Many of the reliable sources already cited in this article use the word "Asian" instead of the word "Mongoloid" for race, so the removal of sources that use the word "Asian" instead of the word "Mongoloid" would mean removing lots of reliably-sourced content from this article which would greatly lower the amount of information provided by this article. The objection to instances of the word "Asian" due to the word possibly being misinterpreted to mean everybody in Asia, including Persian people for example who are of the Caucasoid race or Siddi people for example who are of the Negroid race, seems unreasonable. On the other hand, the word "Mongoloid" can also mean people with Down syndrome as in this text from 1955 where they talk about "a doll-like mongoloid child" to mean a "doll-like" child with Down syndrome. I am not saying that you are arguing against instances of the word "Mongoloid" in this article, but it would be similarly unreasonable to remove sources from this article that use the term "Mongoloid" for race due to the possible objection that the word "Mongoloid" might be misinterpreted to mean people with Down syndrome. Although I think it is unnecessary, perhaps a clarification could be added to this article to avoid misinterpretation of these two words if you believe such a clarification to be necessary. The clarification could say, "Instances of the word Mongoloid in this article are in reference to race and not in reference to people with Down syndrome. Please see the Down syndrome article for the latter usage. Instances of the word Asian in this article are in reference to race and not in reference to everybody in Asia. Please see the ethnic groups in Asia article for the latter usage." I feel that it would be a great loss to this article to decide to not include the Bhushan (2010) data table simply due to the fact that Bhushan (2010) chose to use the word "Asian" instead of using the word "Mongoloid" in the data table.--Ephert (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Mongoloid typology =/= Asian provenience. While Asian is indeed sometimes used as a euphemism for Mongoloid, that doesn't obscure the fact that not all the native inhabitants of Asia are Mongoloid; many are instead morphologically Caucasoid, Australoid or Negroid. The same goes for Africa, which is inhabited by populations with Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid phenotypes alike. Europe is the only continent with a single native phenotype, Caucasoid. The global hair texture distribution map reflects this. Anyway, in the mechanical properties table, since Asian is apparently a euphemism for Mongoloid, I've adjusted the labeling accordingly per WP:RELEVANCE. Soupforone (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

The tables on estimated continental divergence dates for the DNA of early human populations don't appear to have anything to do with the Mongoloid typology. This is perhaps understandable since the early human populations of the Out-of-Africa period had not yet evolved specialized morphologies, other than a few incipient traits. They were instead generalized anatomically modern humans. Soupforone (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Since they're a mixture of both the Australoid and Mongoloid mixture, they don't belong in either category and thus should be categorized as their own race since there are large populations of this type of new race which can be seen in various places such as, the Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:DF:8000:4701:0:2:54CB:6EDC (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please provide a source. The terms Australoid and Mongoloid do not refer to "races" in the sense of ethnic or genetic groups, but rather morphologically similar peoples, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not sure what "new race" you're referring to, either. 204.11.129.240 (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am sure Caucasians come top of the world population table because Indian Asians, Semitics, and generally "brown-coloured people" from Asia Minor and the Mediterranean are included in the figure. It is interesting to note that many White Northern Europeans don't count these people as Caucasians. If the category of "mixed race" was included, then that would probably come top, as who can prove that their entire DNA history is not the product of more than one race? Conclusion: every human person should be classified as mixed-race. 86.147.5.71 (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

User:VierraCerna made a 05:25, 10 August 2017 edit to a sentence which was cited to Montagu. In this edit, User:VierraCerna removed the description of Mongoloids as having broad faces in addition to making other changes. I have doubts that the broad-face description was a false characterization of Montagu's claims, because the broad skull description has been stated by other reliable sources. For example, in Table 1 of Blumenfield (2000), the data entry for the "Cranial form" of the "Mongoloid" is "broad" on page 5 of 16 of the PDF document. User:VierraCerna also made this 09:15, 21 August 2017 edit where they added the Ainu to list for the Meyers Konversations-Lexikon diagram. I looked at the image of the Meyers Konversations-Lexikon diagram, and I did not see Ainu in the list. I want to know the reasons for the changes User:VierraCerna made to the statement which is cited to Montagu.--Ephert (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

User:Montagu statement I think it safe if we also add Ainu into Mongoloid, their DNA is the closest to Tibetan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VierraCerna (talk • contribs) 14:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC) "According to genetic tests, the Ainu people belong mainly to Y-DNA haplogroup D2 (a haplogroup that is found uniquely in and frequently throughout Japan including Okinawa with its closest relations being Tibetans the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean." "Full-blooded Ainu, compared to people of Yamato descent, often have lighter skin and more body hair. Many early investigators proposed a Caucasian ancestry, although recent DNA tests have not shown any genetic similarity with modern Europeans. Cavalli-Sforza places the Ainu in his “Northeast and East Asian" genetic cluster." "Omoto has also shown that the Ainu are Mongoloid, and not Caucasoid, on the basis of fingerprints and dental morphology." — Preceding unsigned comment added by VierraCerna (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

In a 17:40, March 15, 2008, edit, User:DrMWSpanakos added "Because of this and the incorrect usage of the term "Asian" as a racial category another term was introduced by noted ethnologist Dr.MWSpanakos of New York City, "Mongolasian", and has gain great popularity." This statement was not cited to anything, and it was removed in a 00:03 March 19, 2008, edit, by an IP editor who used the edit summary "rm unsourced comment." In a 06:52, December 17, 2012, edit, User:DrMWSpanakos added "But the term Mogoloid is giving way to the more recent use of the term Mogolasian." This statement was again not cited to anything, and it was removed in a 19:30, December 17, 2012, edit by User:Ergative rlt with the edit summary "private terminology not suitable here." In an 18:41, February 15, 2018, edit, User:DrMWSpanakos added "In the early 2001 another term was introduced by noted ethnologist Dr.MWSpanakos of New York City, the usage of the term "Mongolasian", and has gain great popularity." This statement was again not cited to anything, and I removed it in a 21:16, February 17, 2018, edit with the edit summary "I reverted the inclusion of an unsourced statement." Please, User:DrMWSpanakos, do not try to add the term "Mongolasian" into this article again unless you can cite it to a reliable source.--Ephert (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

What's with the unexplained hidden content in the "Subgroupings" heading of the "Genetic research" section? I think we should remove it. Fortunatestars (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)!Reply

Regarding this,

No, it says nothing about it being alternatively referred to as "East Asian race". The author made a subjective claim by saying it would be better if it was referred to as "East Asian" instead as a modern term. Mongoloid is an obsolete term. Find a better source that actually shows that "East Asian race" has been used during the era the term was used. A registered user removed this information a few months ago and now I'm removing it again.

Ok, I don't get it, and you need to stop to talk to me via edit summaries. "East Asian race" redirects here, and we have good evidence that this term has been used as an alternative, because "Mongoloid" has unduly become associated with trisomy. You yourself say "Mongoloid is an obsolete term". Indeed. This is why people have proposed an alternative term. "Mongoloid race" is a somewhat antiquated term to what some people prefer to call, more self-explanatorily, "East Asian race". I am not stating that this is suddenly the primary, or preferable term, or to move the page, and you are free to still call East Asians "Mongoloids" as much as you like. I am merely mentioning it to accommodate the redirect. Please explain what you think is a problem here. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Find a better source that actually shows that "East Asian race" has been used during the era the term was used

um what? "Please find a reference that shows the modern term was used while the old term was also used"? How does this even make sense? Clearly this is not a reasonable request, and seems to suggest that less than good faith is involved here

I think I understand what is going on here. I apologize if I am mistaken, but I now have the impression people do not actually prefer the term "Mongoloid" but are trying to discredit the entire topic by insisting on using an obsolete term for it. If this is really the case, it would be extremely disruptive behaviour, basically "edit-warring by article name". Try to make a factual argument instead of playing semantic games please. --dab (𒁳) 08:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Due diligence: evidence that the term is in perfectly regular use:

in medicine: 2004, 2010

in political ideology (mostly 1930s China and Japan, so perhaps this satisfies the bizarre request "please show that both terms happened to be in use at the same time"): [4][5]

It is disingenious to suggest that the existence and widespread use of the term is unsubstantiated. But I am not going to take the trouble to work any of these references into the article until somebody condesceds to make a good-faith argument explaining what type of source is required and would be seen as adequate. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• That you can find the phrase mentione in two or three snippets without any discussion of what it is supposed to mean is not sufficient for introducing an attempt to shoehorn in an alternative statement into the definition. Much less so is the mention of the personal preference of an author in a book that is not about race, but about South East Asia. You need to demonstrate that the term has any actual currency by showing it used and explained in a study that is actually about Racial classifications. Mention of the phrase is perhaps enough for a redirect, but not enough to be a notable inclusion in the lead. Find a contemporary book about race and racial classifications that uses this term and explicitly states that it can be used instead of "mongoloid". The racial typological classification of "mongologoid" is itself a n outdated concept which is not redeemed by using a new word for it - but lending false credibility by pretending that there is a more current term for the same concept is misrepresenting the topic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are you somehow suggesting that the term "East Asians" is not applied to the racial category? In your world knowledge, does the US census use "East Asian" as a racial category, or does it use "Mongoloid"? The fact that "Mongoloid" is not an outdated concept but is in very contemporary use in specialist literature is well established in the article. It is also well established that the term has fallen out of use, and has been replaced by "East Asian" outside of specialist use. The term "consensus" as used on Wikipedia does not mean that I need your personal consent to present perfectly encyclopedic, perfectly well referenced facts into an article. If you want constructive debate on the facts, I am here for that, but so far you have just refused to acknowledge the reference facts. No constructive debate is possible if one side refuses to engage in it. --dab (𒁳) 10:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

What you are doing is a type of OR or synthesis. You are using the fact that a term is used in some cherry picked sources as evidence for the currency of a term in a specific sense. If you want to include a statement in the article that "East Asian" is widely or currently used as a synonym of "mongoloid" (i.e. as a racial typological category), then you have to demonstrate a (highly reliable) source that actually states this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well the "Mongoloid" racial category was defined by shared ancestry and the widely used "East Asian" racial, uh sorry ancestral population category is defined by shared ancestry, so I guess it's about as axiomatic as 1 + 1 = 2. But I guess you need a reliable source to inform the unwashed masses of the demonstrably obvious. Probably we also need a reliable source that "East Asian ancestry" is defined by ancestry. And I doubt sociologists would want to defer to to life-saving medics on any subject, saying something socially unfashionable about biology might jeopardise their champagne budget. Preferred Pronoun (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

No "mongoloid" was never defined by shared ancestry, it was defined by shared phenotype. Ancestral populations are defined by shared ancestry as define dby genotype, that is the entire issue. They are different things.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

"And how then is it to be explained? For either our explanations are idle and futile, or many properties which have been acquired by the parent are transferred to the offspring. Are they then so transferred? It would certainly seem so. Thus the father begets a son like himself in every way in form of body, expression of countenance, colour of hair, and sound of voice. The temperament too descends from the father to the son. So also peculiar marks long continue to distinguish the same family of men."

Blumenbach used various phenotypic traits to infer ancestry. See also "Kant, Blumenbach, and Vital Materialism in German Biology" for how Kant influenced Blumenbach to accept a genealogical theory of races. See also Darwin who certainly had a genealogical conception of race using the term "Mongol race", contradicting the claim that it was never defined by shared ancestry. But probably Darwin isn't a reliable source for what Darwin thought about race, and we should defer to Audrey Smedley. Preferred Pronoun (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can we not integrate the information in the criticism section into the rest of the article? --Beneficii (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

[6] There are several sources using Mongoloid or variations in a genealogical sense, e.g. Darwin. This is synonymous with East Asian ancestry which is in widespread modern use. Maunus's flat refusal to accept the facts presented here can only be considered WP:Stonewalling. Preferred Pronoun (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are tons of sources, recent, scholarly literature from the 2000s and 2010s, that use "Mongoloid" as a technical term in anthropology. Attempts to suggest the term is "historical" (as in, obsolete) are untenable.

There are tons of sources that use "East Asian" as a replacement for "Mongoloid" in other fields. This is even less "historical", it is a reaction to some fields (social sciences) objecting to the "-oid" suffix for some reason. It is just as untenable to deny that "East Asian" is used as a racial term, already because the US census does so.

In short, Maunus has no leg to stand on here, and the reverts are simply disruptive. Simply denying the existence of obvious, bona fide, scholarly, ubiquitous WP:RS does not make for a "content dispute".

I have tagged the article and will rest my case, imho this is a case for admin intervention, but I have no time for wikilawyering. --dab (𒁳) 13:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suggest an RfC to establish whether it is Ok to describe the usage of terms based on one's own survey of works and one's own estimate of what can be considered equivalent usage, or whether we require a source that actually describes the usage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

¨

• By the way it is a really extreme claim that because the US survey uses "east asian" as a racial category that means it is equivalent to "mongoloid". One can of course be "east asian" in the US surveyy and not present a single "mongoloid" anatomical trait. One can also have "mongoloid" anatomical traits and identitfy or be identified by others with a nother racial category in the US census. One can also be "east asian" in the US census and have predominant Euoropean ancestry. So no, the terms are not synonymous - mongoloid is a term that comes from anatomical racial typology (which is according to all reliable sources obsolote). "East asian" is a term that either describes geographic ancestry, or describes membership in the US racial group "east asian" - and which may or may not correspond with anatomical features earlier described as "mongoloid". You really need to up your game and present some actual sources that describe the use of racial terms instead of just cherry picking random works that use the words that to you seem to be equivalent.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Mongoloid came from Linnaen anatomical typology via Blumenbach but was then modified by Blumenbach himself into an ancestry based concept under the influence of Kant. Did you read the paper I referenced? The term was then used in an entirely genealogical sense from Darwin onwards. So therefore the more recent (last 150 years) uses of the term Mongoloid are synonymous with East Asian ancestry. It's transparent sophistry to pretend that because a term was associated with concept originally it must always be associated with the same concept. We could describe the evolution of the term in the article but then I suppose it wouldn't mislead people into thinking race categories were "obsolete", and we can't have that can we?

"Cherry picking random works" like Blumenbach and Darwin to establish the historical use of the term? What works have you presented? Zero as far as I can see. Unless we look at modern American sociologists who misrepresent the works they claim to represent to establish the history of biology. 31.205.66.133 (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply