Talk:Mongoloid

Which sources to use

@AngelusVastator3456: WP prefers secondary sources over primary ones, see WP:PSTS. An old text about "race science" is a primary source, while an article from an encyclopedia written with the intention of summing up the "scientific" consensus of that time is a secondary one. I don't see why your sources should be "more reliable". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Ive decided to change things up and added primary sources that explicitly depict anthropologists trying to associate some east asian populations w/ caucasian race. it was real. AngelusVastator3456 (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

What was real ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus

@Tobby72: I really don't see why we should want to add your sources. All of them are older than the AAPA / AABA statement referenced in the lead. We are talking here about science, not about opinions. And the AABA is the leading relevant international (in spite of its name) organization. We could as well add the dissent of some professors at evangelical universities when writing about evolution. And I'd also like to ask you to use better edit summaries than just "add info". Rsk6400 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rsk6400:, I tagged the section for US-centrist bias because your preferred version of the section, titled "Current scientific consensus", only mentions the current prevailing opinion of scientists in the United States (and Western Europe), and ignores the prevailing opinion of scientists in China, Eastern Europe, and other parts of the world. On the other hand, as @Grayfell: pointed out here, it is debatable whether this section actually belongs in the article if scholars don't explicitly talk about the term "Mongoloid".

This information was removed:

Several studies have found that most American and Western European anthropologist rejected the idea that there are biological races within Homo Sapiens, while most Eastern European and Chinese anthropologists did not.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I think I already answered to your concerns (see above, 30 Jan). Please keep in mind that science is different from academic disciplines like history in so far as it doesn't depend on the scientist's cultural heritage. But what certain scientists publish may well depend on the academic freedom of a country (in China e.g. there is none). And please keep in mind that WP is absolutely no place for promoting pseudoscience or casting doubt on the results of science. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Tobby72, it appears you have misunderstood my point. This is an encyclopedia article about an obsolete racial grouping. Context about why this is obsolete is appropriate to this article. These sources you have cited repeatedly cite the work of Kaszycka, who herself emphasizes in her work that race is a social construct. For example, one of the sources quoted by Walsh includes this line in its summary:

It is time, perhaps, to agree on one point: the problem of human races has ceased to be an issue of biological knowledge. Race is a vague term that is impossible to define. In biological terms, enough arguments (above all, the genetic ones) have accumulated against the notion of human races as taxonomic units to consider the matter closed.

And again at the very end:

Hence, the struggle against the concept of “race”—in all of its connotations—is bound still to be long and arduous. Nonetheless, it is one eminently worthwhile to continue to undertake.

So to put it another way, the sources which say that 'other parts of the world' disagree with the mainstream consensus (from an academic in one of those parts of the world) also say that this is wrong in about as clear a language as you could expect to find in an academic study. If this quote is typical of how these sources presents Kaszycka's work, than they are being disingenuous. This all seems like a round-about appeal to the "mythical taboo" on race.

Incidentally, your citation to Science Wars (2017) is listed as being co-authored by Emanuel R. Piore, who died in 2000 and doesn't appear to be listed as one of the authors of the book. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The term "Mongoloid" is probably obsolete, but this article is about "Mongoloid" and for that reason we need a source that specifically speaks about "Mongoloid". See WP:SYNTH — Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

"Probably obsolete"? Sources are very clear on this.

My comment was about your initial edit, which you reverted to restore. Those edits misrepresented sources which didn't even mention the term at all. This is a WP:FRINGE issue and this article falls under Wikipedia:Contentious topics, as it involves both pseudoscience and the overlap between race and human ability. If you want to propose a better source, go right ahead. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know which side is right, as I'm not an expert, but I don't see a source anywhere in the section that explicitly talks about mainstream global scientific consensus, it only mentions the consensus of American anthropologists. The "Current scientific consensus" section seems to be the original research, see Wikipedia:No original research. We only report what reliable sources say, our opinions are irrelevant.

Note: This template was removed, see WP:WNTRMT. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Tobby72, I already said above that AABA is the leading relevant international (in spite of its name) organization, it's no specifically American organization. I'm not willing to get bogged down in an endless discussion, but you are of course free to start an RfC or seek other ways of conflict resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The American Association of Biological Anthropologists (AABA) has 2,200 members, including students and people with a professional interest in biological anthropology. I don't think they represent the majority of anthropologists, biologists, or geneticists from all over the world, that's just your original research. The source in the article specifically speaks about the consensus among American anthropologists. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that we use a different source, though - the one we currently rely on doesn't even use the term "mongoloid". That's why I added Demel, who devotes an entire chapter to that concept's origin. And the introduction to his book says Since World War II the concept of race has lost much of its social and political significance and undoubtedly its remaining appeal too. ... Race is currently no longer a central concept in either biology or in the determination of individual civil status, nor does it serve as a gauge of national standing. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

South Asians

I assume somebody will strike this out, but there should be some mention that Mongoloid hasn't been entirely replaced by "Asian" which in the Unites States census and UK culture includes the Indians and Pakistanis who are more closely related to Caucasoid races, and some Wikipedia articles on Indians go over the race of Indians. The term East / Southeast Asian would be more precise in categorizing the range of the Mongoloid phenotype. There should be some mention of nationalities like Chinese and Japanese which are the largest examples of the Mongoloid phenotype

I'm not happy with the idea that there is no such thing as race as it is common sense that the Japanese and Chinese are of the same race, and Koreans and Germans are of a different race and there should be some scientific terminology to distinguish phenotypes. A lot of race science is obsolete but races remain distinct from each other even though it is claimed there is no genetic difference or that genes vary more within a race than between them. There would be no reason to collect statistics on crime, education, or health or promote the welfare of certain races if race did not exist at all. There are lots of papers published that use the term "Mongoloid" with respect to things like intelligence and health.

In the United States census categories and United Kingdom culture, the term Asian race includes the south Asian Indians and Pakistanis who were not included in the Mongoloid races.Bachcell (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations, you seem to know more than the experts. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Disproof by modern genetics

Racial Racial History of the Chinese People chapter from The Beginnings of Chinese Civilization in Springer Nature from November 2020 only 5 years ago clearly uses the term Mongoloid as the scientific term for the race of the Chinese people, so the concept of a race that is the same for Chinese and Japanese but not Germans or Kenyans hasn't been disproven by anyone. The term Mongoloid itself may have fallen out of favor in favor of racial groupings like "Asian" in the US Census and education statistics, but include the South Asians and so cannot be applied to a more precise single phenotype like Mongoloid.

"Ever since anthropologists started classifying man as a natural animal the Chinese people have always been considered to be a branch of the Mongoloid race... from the time of Blumenbach down to Professor William Howells, who made his latest statement in 1961, the racial status of the Chinese in the eyes of specialists has remained very much the same: they are Mongoloid."

"physical anthropologists at present do not know very much about the origin and the evolution of the Mongoloid, although they have advanced a number of theories to interpret the physical characteristics of this particular branch of modern man... The characteristics of the modern Mongoloid man, it is often said, are revealed more by his face than any other part of his body."

"The particular facial appearance of the Mongoloid people had its origin, according to this theory, in the necessity of fighting against the bitterly cold weather during the last glacial age"

Terms like Asiatic and Oriental have fallen out of common usage for political and cultural reasons, so Mongoloid is really the only remaining commonly used scientific term for the peoples of East and Southeast Asia and similar looking peoples in North America.

It would be more accurate to state the some authoritative people believe that the very concept of 3 major races has been disproven, but that is really a political statement, and not universally accepted. Just because a few anthropologists say there is no such thing as race doesn't mean that many scientists don't still use the terminology and classification in a scientific context, and provide a basis for collecting statistics disaggregated by race for health, education, crime, socioeconomics, etc. Bachcell (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

WP follows mainstream science, and one chapter in one book doesn't prove that something is mainstream. I'm not going to discuss this any further. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The article Genetic history of East Asians essentially undermines the notion that genetics has disproven the existence of a Mongoloid race when genetics supports that the East Asian Chinese, Japanese and Koreans who are essentially the Mongoloids by a different name have a science-backed genetic history, and a link should be placed in the Also See section Bachcell (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with adding this link. Even though the "Mongoloid race" is an obsolete racial grouping today and modern genetics uses terms like East Asian lineages instead, scientists still study this specific geographic and genetic cluster. Adding a link to Genetic history of East Asians will give readers essential context on how modern science classifies these populations. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You are wrong, modern genetics doesn't use any term instead of "Mongoloid". This is pseudoscience, and we should not link from pseudoscience to science. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Modern genetics doesn't need to use a specific term "instead" of Mongoloid for these links to be relevant. No one is claiming they are direct synonyms.

But completely removing them in this revert just makes the article worse. According to WP:SEEALSO, this section should include related articles that a reader might wish to read in addition to the current page to get more context. Since our article explicitly says the concept was disproved by modern genetics, readers should be able to look at what modern science actually found about these populations. This is about navigation and context, not about validating an old term.

To make the distinction clearer and avoid confusion, we can use annotated links to give immediate scientific context (even if some lack full descriptions yet):

• Genetic history of East Asians
• Ancient East Eurasians – Ancestry of people living in the Asia-Pacific region
• Ancient Northern East Asian – Human archaeogenetic lineage

This is definitely an improvement because readers will see right away that these are modern genetic lineages, not a validation of the obsolete concept. Can we restore them in this format? -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I think these discussions have been going on long enough. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)