Talk:Mongoloid race

Untitled
What does an Austronesian have to do something with Mongoloid people. Geeze, some insecure White guys seems to enjoy vandalizing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.69.38 (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Name Change for this Article?
I suggest changing this article's name from Mongoloid race to simply Mongoloid. As "Mongoloid" should only apply to physical traits and not to modern or historic racial or social groups. And it IS an offensive term when refering to either those who may share the physical traits and actual Mongolians, ie those who live in Mongolia Unumbragach (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was referred to as the Mongoloid race when it was in use, so no, it should not be moved. See all other articles about these typological races. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Gail Kim?
most retarded pic ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.234.89 (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Centrum99, White supremacist or Orientalist User?!
Centrum99, I suspect you are an insecure white supremacist with rather sick fantasies that the Caucasoid race is "strong" and "maculine", and that Mongoloids are weak and feminine. Judging from your fantastic, non-sensical, unsourced, and unvarifiable edits that obviously stink of twisted racial prejudice! They are full of fantasies about Indo-European, or what you call neolithic Caucasoids, and their imagined "influence" in other populations. If you were to meet me in person, you would probably try to claim that I have some kind of unknown Causcasoid ancestry!

You should be suspended from this page and seek psychiatric assistance.

Le Anh-Huy (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I think you should at first read something about the topic. You obviously have no idea, what I am writing about. Centrum99 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also have no idea, where you took the claims you cite. I have never written anything about the influence Indo-Europeans on other populations. You must be a confused person. Centrum99 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whenever you edit on a taboo subject such as race, you run the risk of being labeled as a 'racist'. While I do think Le Anh may have jumped the gun, I would like to address why he may have labeled you as such, particularilly your edits on Asians having less sexual dimorphism.  Whether you are implying that Asian men are less "masculine", or Asian women as less "feminine", those are some pretty strong accusations, albeit supported with little sources.  First, you can help your argument by providing sources, especially since wikipedia has a strict 'no original research' rule.  Usually the biggest subject when discussing sexual dimorphism is the male and female differences between testosterone and estrogen, so I assume that is the subject you are addresing.  Since you are saying that sexual dimorphism is lower in asians, you are implying that males have less testerone then other races or females have less estrogen then other races.  Lets look at testoterone, since there is little research on Asian females and estrogen.  Probably the most complete study I found on testosterone differences between Asian men and Caucasian men is found here:  http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/91/2/687, which cumulates there own findings, with the findings of previous studies (which honestly there hasn't been a  lot of studies on, considering the controversial nature of the subject)  The results may surprise you:


 *  " Most investigators were unable to demonstrate a difference in serum concentrations of bioavailable testosterone between Caucasians and Asians, while one group, found even higher serum testosterones in Asian men compared to Caucasian men.  In contrast, de Jong and Heald found a slight difference consistent with our findings. "  Bioavailable testosterone, which is the amount of testosterone in the body, is probably the most important aspect of testosterone, it accounts for muscle building, aggresivness, and sexual drive, usually the only traits we want in testosterone anyway (although aggresiveness is debatable).  Most studies have shown no differnce in bioavaiable testosterone between Asians and Caucasians, and one said that Asians (typo in the source, it should say Japanese, perhaps there is an ethnic difference in testosterone levels between Asians) have more.  One study said that said that while the Chinese have less bioavailable testosterone then Caucasians, Chinese-Americans had same testosterone levels as Caucasians, implying that dietary factors play a role, since Chinese on a Western diet have similar levels to Westerners.  Only 3 studies have said Asians have slightly less.  One of these cited in the article only looked at Pakistanis (not Mongoloids), so this only leaves two.  The 2 studies only looked at Asians from mainland area, not Asians living in Western nations who ate a Western diet, and even then while the differences was statistically significant, it was slight.  This leaves open the idea that the studies that showed differences were due to dietary reasons.

--Jtd00123 (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: It is also significant to point out, that one of the 2 studies that painted an Asian (Korean) mean testosterone level as slightly lower then Europeans (in this case Sweedes), still gave a mean serum amount equal to Pakistanis, a Caucasoid ethnic group that is significantly hairy as well. This provides evidence that facial and body hair growth is a poor indicator of free testosterone levels.

Generalization
ILoveYou17 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)This article generalizes Mongoloids' physical appearances.Not all Mongoloids look the same.There's a huge difference between Northern Mongoloids and Southern Mongoloids.Non-projecting noses?Most Northern Mongoloids(except for Mongols) have high,narrow nose.Brachycephalic skulls?Source this or get rid of it.I read it in the Britannica Encyclopedia that only Koreans,Kazaks,and some people living in the Alps are known to have brachycephalic skulls."Mongoloids also are characterized by an absence or thinly distributed facial and body hair, and lesser sweat glands"?Please source this.Northern Mongoloids(again,except for Mongols) tend to have more body hair.The "black hair and dark brown eyes"thing is really stereotypical.There are brunette Mongoloids and even a few are redhead.There are Mongoloids with amber or hazel eyes.Somebody please edit that section about Mongoloid physical traits!

Definitely, and I wouldn't exclude Mongols from thos "northern Mongoloid" traits that you mentioned. Peopl I've met, from Mongolia, and others who claim such ancestry (like the Gurung of Nepal), always seem to be hairy and have full-noses. I am of Vietnamese descent, am hairy, yet I lack a projectile nose. Le Anh-Huy (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mongoloid admixture in India
I re-added the Mongoloid admixture in south, east and northeast India section which was removed by User:Pureaswater. User:Pureaswater argued that Central Asians had Mongoloid admixture too but there was no section on their Mongoloid admixture which User:Pureaswater considered to be biased. I remember suggesting that this user add a section on Central Asian mongoloid admixture rather than removing the Mongoloid admixture in India section, but this other user insisted that the India Mongoloid section be removed. I recall that they suggested I take a break. I have taken a break for a year. I would like to discuss this issue with User:Pureaswater if they are still around.Dark Tea &#169;  00:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The section concentrates heavily on 19th century sources positing heavy Mongolian admixture outside the Himalayas and Northeast, which is now known not to be true. Note the one modern source cited (Vikrant Kumar) confines itself to the Northeast.

Image:Rosenberg2007.png
 * Rosenberg's genetic clustering results (shown for N=7 here) that are already shown in Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia give a more realistic picture. --JWB (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe in the Mongoloid admixture in South India section, the article should mention that Rosenberg feels that there is negligible Mongoloid admixture in South India.Dark Tea &#169;  02:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article should reflect the modern scientific position by stating it explicitly and/or citing a preponderant number of sources. Historical views should be presented as historical. --JWB (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article organized sources by date, it would be helpful for readers to determine the reliability of the sources. In each section, the newest and most reliable sources should come first.  They should be followed by the older and less credible sources.Dark Tea  &#169;  02:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a reasonable idea. Or, could have separate current and historic subsections. --JWB (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A historical and current distinction seems to involve editors making an arbitrary distinction between historical and current sources.Dark Tea &#169;  06:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Headings, if any, could also just list time periods. Post-WWII mainstream sources generally have a modern perspective on race. More recently, genetics has also provided much data falsifying earlier hypotheses. --JWB (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think genetic and non-genetic information should be divided and listed chronologically. We could make a Post-WWII distinction too.Dark Tea &#169;  18:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

recent change
"The Mongoloid skull has proceeded further than in any other people." "The Mongoloid skull, whether Chinese or Japanese, has been rather more neotenized than the Caucasoid or European."  "The female skull, it will be noted, is more pedomorphic in all human populations than the male skull."   "Mongoloid races are explained in terms of being the most extreme paedomorphic humans."  "The intuition that advanced human development was paedomorphic rather than recapitulationary and accelerated was disturbing to many Eurocentric nineteenth century anthropologists."  "If juvenilization was the characteristic for advanced status, then it was clear that the Mongoloid races were more deeply fetalized in most respects and thus capable of the greatest development."

This recent change is probably more pertinent and more factually correct than this:

17th century anthropologist Christoph Meiners, one of the first people to define the "Mongolian race", characterized the "Mongolian race" as being "weak in body... dark...[and] ugly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.251.199 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of removing the Meiners' unsubstantiated opinion that the Mongoloid race is ugly; however, being "weak in body" and "dark" are objective statements. His objective statements should be kept.---Dark Tea  &#169;  21:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you show me the "proof" that he got that showed mongoloids are dark and weak in body? weak in body relative to what? to caucasians? why would caucasoid be used as a standard when comparing above other races? this BS should be removed.
 * Inhabitants of East Asia are weak in body because of chronic lack of nourishing food, especially proteins. It is not an inherent racial feature.  Skeletons of Asian people of the 14th century show no substantial difference in strength from those found in Europe.  Since that, significant attenuation can be observed.  Answering your question directly: they are weak in body relative to their own ancestors.  --Yecril (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Funny
The article changed quite a bit! It was as if it was written by a White supremacist before, but now it is as if it was written by an Asian supremacist. Not that it needs any change as everything is verifiable and comes from anthropology books and much recent than those of before.
 * Do you have any concrete suggestions that could be acted upon? --Gimme danger (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Praise
Well done to the contributor's of this article. I am pleased to see a genuine effort has been made to scientifically and anthropologically discuss the postulated origins and features of Mongoloid peoples; rather than waffling on about the 'evils' of attempting to categorise people in todays overly P.C. environment Hxseek (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Only Euro-centric sources??
I am in favor of removing the Meiners' unsubstantiated opinion that the Mongoloid race is ugly; however, being "weak in body" and "dark" are objective statements. His objective statements should be kept.---DarkTea© 21:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Both 'ugly' and 'weak in body' are unsubstantiated opinions in regards to the Mongoloid race. As a Caucasian man I've already witnessed many Mongoloids who are much larger in physique then either Caucasians or Negroid. Only a fool will not see the obvious racialist bias evident by simply visiting both Caucasian and Mongoloid pages at once.

I'm actually curious why no sources written by Mongoloids themselves in their own physical appearances have been cited. Are there seriously no sources at all - or does the writers of this page only wish to present a euro-centric point of view? It's no wonder we are classed as racists everywhere we go!

Righton2233 (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you show me the "proof" that he got that showed mongoloids are dark and weak in body? weak in body relative to what? to caucasians? why would caucasoid be used as a standard when comparing above other races? this BS should be removed.

Suggested expansion in Variation section
Was this section just added? In either case may I offer an expansion:

 Before:

Variation in traits between groups

Variation in traits can be rather considerable between certain groups due to climatic variation, the most apparent of these differences concern the shape of the skull, the constitution of the body and the colour of the skin.

 After:

Variation in traits between groups

Variation in traits can be rather considerable between certain groups due to climatic variation, the most apparent of these differences concern the shape of the skull, the constitution of the body and the colour of the skin. As a result many anthropologists have suggested different theories of possible subraces to classify the Mongoloid race more accurately.

A. Northeast Asian or Northern Mongoloid race (various subraces in China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan) B. Southeast Asian or Southern Mongoloid race (various subraces in southwest China, Indochina, Thailand, Myanmar [Burma], Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, the last four partly hybridized with Australoids) C. Micronesian-Polynesian race (predominantly Southern Mongoloid partly hybridized with Australoids) D. Ainuid race (remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan) E. Tungid race (Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos) F. Amerindian race (American Indians; various subraces)

Source: Baker, J. R. (1974) Race, Oxford University Press, New York and London.

There is also proposal of a Turanid race by either Baker, Coon, or Richard McCulloch, I'm not sure which. But it notes the genetic similarities between Mongolic and Turkic ethnics especially in regards to Haplogroup C3. I hope others can expand on this as my time is limited.

Righton2233 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

AINUS ARE NOT MONGOLOID!
WHY WON'T PEOPLE GET IT!? Just because their native Japan is surrounded by Mongoloids doesn't mean they are! And besides, just look at the picture of Asians: No. 1: Ainu. Does he have tan skin and an epicanthus? --67.80.57.142 (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)GooglePedia12 (Sorry I forgot to log in.)

Erm...not all Mongoloid peoples have "tan skin" (many Koreans, Japanese, Northern Chinese et al don't) and not everyone of Mongoloid "ancestry" have epicanthal folds such as many from Tibet for instance (just as some Caucasians populations such as Scandinavians, Uralic peoples, Slavs and Gaels can fairly commonally have epicanthal folds), but that is besides the point as having a certain skin tone or an epicanthus do not make one mongoloid...Mongoloid despite what this article seems to imply only really refers to those with the Mongoloid skull type, just as Caucasian and Negroid refer to the European/Western Asian/North African ("white"), and African ("black") skull types respectively. I have added the "white" and "black" just to make it clear what I mean, defining groups by colours is ridiculous as Caucasians and Mongoloid peoples range in skin tones to a very great deal. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Discredited" Inconsistency
It looks like this article is good at getting people pissed off, so at the risk of getting burned I'm going to throw a quick note into the mix. The abstract says that the term comes from "discredited theories," which is all well and good - maybe they are. But we need something to back that up, because the companion terms - Caucasoid and Negroid are both referred to as valid terms in physical anthropology in their articles, and they in turn reference the term Mongoloid in the same light. So, this needs some clarification. Jordanp (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That was a recent anonymous change . ps. new discussion topics go at the bottom of the page. Paul B (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with all these articles is that they conflate obsolete racial classifications with perfectly valid aspects of physical anthropology. The problem is that the terminology of scientific racism survives in physical anthropology today.

The article needs to be very clear whether it is citing historical literature (pre-1970s) or current-day literature (post-1970s). Pre-1970s literature should be confined to sections dealing with the racial concepts, and post-1970s literature using the same term should be confined to a separate section on contemporary usage. Of course, as long as the title of this article is "Mongoloid race", the non-racial stuff could strictly be considered off-topic and to be disabiguated. --dab (𒁳) 10:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

features section

 * 1, genghis khan picture is not an accurate representation of mongoloids as it was PAINTED by an artist with no training in anatomy


 * 2, the section reads like those racist parts of encyclopedia britannica in the 19th century when it treated africans like zoo specimens


 * 3, this "features" section is not found on negroid, caucasoid, or caucasian articles, and it is written exclusively by caucasian authors, yet i dont see ANYONEs commentary on caucasian or ngriod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.134.46 (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Being written by "Caucasian authors" does not disqualify any source as either relevant or reliable. The portrait of Genghis Kahn is not there to illustrate "anatomy", it is there to illustrate Genghis Khan. It was his activity as a conquerer, killer and prolific descendent-creator that led to the choice of the Mongols to name the racial category. Historical models of race need to be historicised not excised. Paul B (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Map of India
So half of India is Mongoloid? Interesting article, but needs a new map.

Mongolian Cuticle
There is an wiki article about this. See Accessory nail of the fifth toe. I suggest adding a link to that article where "Mongolian Cuticle" is, since there is no article on that. --Platinum inc (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That should have been deleted, which I've done. There is no evidence for something called the 'Mongolian cuticle', which is why the toe article was renamed from Mongolian cuticle. See its talk page also. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mongol / mongoloid as an offensive term
The article correctly documents the historical use of the term 'mongol' in the UK, originally as a neutral term for what we would now call Down syndrome, but subsequently as an offensive term for anyone with learning difficulties. Although 'mongol' is rarely used in that sense today, it has spawned the slang term 'monged' meaning to be temporarily incapacitated through excessive use of recreational drugs, particularly cannabis. This term is now in common use by people under 30 throughout the English speaking world. Most people who use it are completely ignorant of the etymology and are unaware that it could be considered offensive. Some reference to this would be appropriate. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/9344078.Councillor_s_tweet_angers_group_for_disabled/ --Ef80 (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Obsolete terminology
This article is using data from the Nazi era as well as obsolote racial terms.Some people seem to love the ideas of nazi era racialism. Its not so much the article itself, but the way other articles link to it. Honestly, its disgusting!--95.223.187.114 (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Guest3333
 * That is certainly troubling, as this article is not meant to address present day ideas about race, at least not those in mainstream academics. Could you give some examples so that we could try to address the issue? --Danger (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazara_people#Genetics The above article is using modern terminology such as "Eastern Eurasian" yet this term links here.I have not the means to research how many articles link to this page in similar manners, but I am sure wikipedian seniors do know their way around.There seems to be an agenda to create racialist * historical* articles and then link to them in a modern context, creating the impression on the public, that these are still in use by modern societies. I am sure you get the point.--95.223.187.114 (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Guest3333

I believe all these racial obsolete terms need to be less detailed, less quotes from that era, less craniometric measurements, less capoid, negroid, nordic, australoid, caucasoid, mongoloid terms, less nazi race comparison tables.Or there needs to be a clear bunderstanding that these are actually obsolete terms that have been debunked for the large part. Just enter East Asian, or Estern Eurasian or even Asian in the main search bar on the start page and it takes you here first.Almost every article that deals with race has these overtones and I also believe it is certainly troubling.--95.223.187.114 (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Guest3333

Stop mutually self-gratifying each other, like typical left-wing brainwashers. Race is a reality. It is not easily categorized,nor are some of the conclusions used in the past valid. However, phenotypic variabilty is apparent and obvious, and discussing it does not equal racism 121.209.233.94 (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is the term mongoloid offensive
I don't see how it is offensive, because most Asian look a like with minor differences such as skin colour it is only logical that they should have their own race —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.108.26 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC) However I know the term mong is offensive to people with down syndrome but I have never heard mongoloid being offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.108.26 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * mongoloid not is a offensive term; mongoloid = mongolia + oid = the race of ghengis khan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.198.4 (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please make sure that these are:
OBSOLETE RACIAL CLASSIFICATIONS !!! This article is ridiculous, because whoever has an interest publishing this sort of BS seems to have an interest, to make people believe that all these are still valid and much used terms. This wrong! and now this crap is even protected?95.223.187.171 (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Genetic Structure of Human Populations Studied Through Short Insertion-Deletion Polymorphisms http://www.laboratoriogene.info/Cientificos/Annals.pdf
 * Ask your teacher again! Centrum99 (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the above commenter is actually 100% right. This article is atrocious and literally horrific.  I am appalled that it even exists considering it is diametrically opposed to modern science.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.143.90 (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Neighbor-joining tree
http://www.museum.kyushu-u.ac.jp/WAJIN/113.html Assuming the tree was translated from Japanese from the Japanese website currently used as its citation, it was translated wrong. ネグロイド (Neguroido) clearly translates as "Negroid" not "African". コーカソイド　(Kōkasoido) clearly translates as "Caucasoid" not "Caucasian". オーストラロイド (Ōsutoraroido) clearly translates as "Australoid" not "Oceanian". アシアのモンゴロイド (Ashia no Mongoroido) clearly translates to "Mongoloid of Asia" not "East Asian". Lastly, even though it is not as important an issue, アメリンド (Amerindo), would translate to "Amerindoid".--Ephert (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Populations
Seriously folks, how can you write three screenfuls of misinformation on the subject of "Populations Included" in the "mongoloid race" ( however passe or discredited that concept may be),    and not mention Chinese, Japanese or Koreans  one single time ? This is supposed to be an encylopedia ! If someone looks to an encyclopedia to obtain some basic understanding of the nineteenth century scientific paradigm of the division of the world's people into "Mongoloids", "Negroes" and "Caucasians",  there are going to be seriously confused or misled by the information contained here.Eregli bob (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try to do searches with "Korean", "Japanese" and "Chinese" in combination with the word "Mongoloid" to try to find more statements that these three groups are Mongoloid.--Ephert (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

OLD and discarded theories presented as current
This is absolutely an absurd article. Modern scientists do not cotton to the idea of biological racial types, and yet this article and its companions are treated in such a way as to indicate that the majority of experts agree with the theory. Perhaps this was true 100 years ago, but now the only people shouting about Negroids and Mongoloids are literally racists. What is going on here, Wikipedia? Very troubling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.143.90 (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Where exactly does the article endorse race-based discrimination, or try to justify it? I can't find anything like that, or even close.
 * Carleton S. Coon's anthropological works did use the framework of race, but calling him racist for that alone would be silly. In medicine, forensics and other fields, the term "race" is still in use in basically the same traditional sense, for practical reasons, which does not make those fields racist. George W. Gill argues that race is a meaningful concept and not at all skin-deep (in fact, that skin colour has little to do with it) – it would be very offensive to call him racist for that.
 * It's true that it presents a racial classification as basically cutting-edge science and smacks of WP:SYN by adding genetic research into the fold, but I find it justified to some extent because, when you get to the heart of the matter, that research really concerns the same thing, it just tends to avoid the traditional race-based terminology. Still, calling it some different term ("ancestry", "North Asia-derived populations", or whatever) doesn't make it something completely different. Anthropologists have sure tried to get rid of the framework, but they keep finding themselves talking about the same issues that Blumenbach, Coon et al. already addressed. Does that make them covert racists – in other words, people who don't even know they're somehow being incredibly eeeeevil deep at heart? Is wondering about human variation and perceiving clusters and categories (as humans are wont to do, even when the borders are clearly fuzzy – that's an issue far from unique to human variation, and Gill even seems to say the borders are not really fuzzy on the skeletal level) a thought crime? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I do have to say that I find it amusing how people are ready to paint, in a knee-jerk reaction, anyone with the racist brush who even dares to seriously employ terms such as "Mongoloid" or "Caucasoid", without realising that eminent and influential scientists such as Franz Boas, Luca Cavalli-Sforza or Colin Renfrew are tainted by the same "crime" of "scientific racism" ...
 * Yeah, exaggerated political correctness is sure changing the world, and barking "racist!" at anyone who uses "bad" words will somehow magically get rid of racism in the real world. Or not, because actions speak louder than words. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The original poster is right. The article presents cherry-picked fringe views and completely disregards the mainstream viewpoint in anthropology that there is no such thing as continental racial groupings. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Presumably Maunus can back up his claim to the mainstream with sources? Go ahead punk (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you may presume I can. You could also look in any undergraduate introduction to physical anthropology published after 1970 and see how it treats "race".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Myth of the Polynesian "sub-race"
It was commonly believed that Polynesians form their own "sub-race" of Mongoloids according to Huxley and Sullivan (in the case of the "Samoans") during the 19th and early 20th centuries, but the picture is more complicated than that as far as physical anthropology and modern genetics are concerned. It can be said with confidence that Polynesians are not a "pure stock" of people or that they do not make up the out-dated concept of the "Malay race" (out-dated in my opinion). Indeed, some have claimed that Polynesians make up their own "race" altogether, but even that is falsifiable. I'd suggest finding more updated sources on the subject of Polynesians, and a similar discussion should be within the Australoid and Polynesian articles. -Ano-User (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)