Talk:Mongoloid race/Archive 1

message: There seems to be at least one author who seems set on removing Southeast Asians from being Mongoloid, and who is trying to make Northeast Asians (or as it seems to be the more common term on various Wikipedias--East Asians) seem European.  Southeast Asians are definitely Mongoloid in appearance, and furthermore, are related to Northeast Asians (and are East Asians) genetically.  Northeast Asians may be slightly hairier than their southern counterparts, but not to a large extent, and not nearly as much as the average European.  With exceptions such as Manchurians, Northeast Asians are not particularly tall--they are around the same height  as Southeast Asians.  Indeed a common insult for Japanese (Northeast Asian/East Asian) during World War 2 was calling them dwarves.  This included Indonesians and other Southeast Asians who called them this.  Also, Southeast Asians are not especially more slender than their northern counterparts--both northerners and southerners can be fat or skinny.  Northern women tend to actually be  slender and of a slighter build  than southern women, who have more curves.  Also, the comment about some Northeast Asians having wavy hair while it is not as common amongst Southeast Asians is off.  If anything, wavy hair is more prevalent among Southeast Asians than Northeast Asians.  The disparities between Northeast and Southeast Asians seem about the same as between Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans, who are both considered Caucasoid.  In each case, the northerns tend to have lighter skin, while the southerners are darker.  The northerners tend to be hairier while the southerners are not so hairy.  Northerners, straighter hair; southerners, curlier. Noses: narrower and longer in the north, wider and flatter in the south.   Even in terms of eyes, both Northern Europeans and Northeast Asians tend to have smaller, squintier eyes than Southern Europeans and Southeast Asians respectively (consider "Spanish eyes").  Again, it seems as though an anti-Southeast Asian, European-esque wannabe Northeast Asian  has infiltrated this article.    For comparisons (select the pictures individually for a larger viewing):    
Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg‎ |  Southeast Asian.  
image:Sommerk.jpg| Southern European.    
Image:Parkchunghee-crop.jpg| Northeast Asian. 
image:Gudrun_Schyman.jpg| Northern European.   
Also, it should be explicitly pointed out that Negroid and Australoid are not synonyms.  IF Southeast Asians have some Australoid traits, that should be put into the article instead of them being a Negroid/Mongoloid mixture. Chiss Boy 10:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: "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)
thread_title: Racist Content

message: 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?
:Yangtze was a highly developed no matter how badly you don't want it to be.  First, the European civilization was based along the Mediterranean just like the Chinese Civilization was based along the Yangtze.  And plus, written records have been discovered, its just unsure if they were actually writing.  And if not actually writing, so what, Europeans adapted their writing from Middle Easterners. CanCanDuo 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yangtse was no civilization - claims only leftist proppaganda 

message: 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)
thread_title:  hair 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Races of human kind 

message: "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)
thread_title:  stoic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Transitional Mongoloid? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proof Against Legitimacy of this Racial Classification

message: 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)
thread_title: Copied from [[Talk:Mongloid]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possibliy not of mongol origin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Turks in Turkey 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Turkic Mongoloids Verifiable source request 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mongoloid Skin Colour can be Misleading

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  external links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merge with [[Caucasoid]] and [[Negroid]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Changing To Mongoloid Race

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Genetic history" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "The purest of Turks"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who wants to be a mongoloid 

message: 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)
thread_title: Hunsen vs. Southeast Asian dancer

message: Apparently on the Greek language Wikipedia South Asians are mongoloids.--Dark Tichondrias 02:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mongoloid in Greek language wikipedia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: East Europeans as partial Mongoloids

message: 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)
thread_title:  RFC: Source reliability, article layout, overall presentation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Population 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pointing out something