Talk:Multiracial people

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kwats37.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles like this give Wikipedia a bad reputation
Article is unfocused, full of questionable claims with no citations or poorly selected citations which are neither reliable or relevant. The quality of this article is evidence for the failure of the Wikipedia experiment. Perhaps you really do need to pay experts to write an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.144.169.85 (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

BEN KINGSLEY IS NOT MIXED RACE
Indo-Aryans and Europeans are both Indo-European And Caucasoid. Ben Kingsley is Multi-Ethnic, not mixed-race hence I propose his image shoud be deleted from the gallery. Indians are classd as marginally 'white' according to the current status of the whites article. If he is to be added in the galley then Richard Grieco, and Yusuf Islam (who self identifies as mixed race on his own website) should also be included, hec they both look pretty brown to me!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.195.244 (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Race is not a scientific concept. He's mixed race if he says he is. — LlywelynII  10:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kingsley had self-identified as, alternately, 'mixed race' and 'Eurasian' in interviews during the early years of his career, but chose to stop when he felt interviewers were becoming too focused on his ethnic/racial background. But now and then he'd mention it, like so: In a 1989 Daily Express interview, he said that growing up mixed-race in the '50s made him "an oddity ... I was the darkie one." Until Kingsley issues a public statement (on its own or through an interview), he's mixed race. In any case, I don't see what your comment - "look pretty brown to me!!" - has anything to do with the British classifications of ethnicity or race. 0zero9nine (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

multiracial people can't be racist?
Why doesn't this article mention the racism multiracial people have inflicted on whole blooded people. It is standard for mulattos in south america to put themselves above blacks. In America mulattos created the "Blue Vein" societies in order to exclude blacks. Then there is the perception in East Asia that eurasians are more beautiful than full asians. Why won't anyone mention this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can find reliable sources regarding that discusses racism and multiracial people, then you can add the information to the article. The article also does not say anywhere that multi-racial people cannot be racist. Kman543210 (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

racial purity
I believe there should be a seperate article for this. It was merged with this yet all mentions of racial purity have been removed. YVNP (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is a little biased
There seems to be a lot about african multiracial people but there isn't a single thing on Hispanics. Hispanics are a hugeeeee group of mixed races. How can someone not add an article about that? Asian-African relationships are very uncommon. I would like to see where the op got his stats from. Also someone needs to add the section on Japanese-Peruvians and so forth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioespino23 (talk • contribs) 21:38, November 19, 2008
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). BrainyBabe (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume this is the basis of the &sect; tag, that Mariospino23 is the wikipedian in question, and that the concern has been addressed, as the text there is general and not mulatto oriented. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

definitions of multiraciality
As written, this section is heavily biased in favor of bounded notions of biological race, which is not at all in keeping with current mainstream anthropological thinking on the subject of race. I'm not entirely certain how someone trained in philosophy is qualified to make these statements about race, and I have to wonder why Levin is cited here at all. --24.18.226.50 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the statement that commercial genomics methods "determine the exact percentage of European, sub-Saharan, East Asian, and Native American heritage someone has" is worded poorly. These companies do an analysis of specific genetic markers, not a client's entire ancestry.  Even the blockquote contradicts what is written here.
 * This section is so badly written that the article would be better off without it. --24.18.226.50 (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of the image gallery?
I could propose new names, but first I need to clarify what the gallery is for. Is it to show what multiracial individuals look like as exactly as possible, thus ruling out historic figures for which we have only ilustrations (e.g. Mary Seacole)? Is it to show as many significant people as possible (e.g. Ian Khama)? Is it to showcase current entertainers, on the grounds that they will be most easily recognised by WP readers (then why not Bob Marley)? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Recognizability my the most possible WP readers is not necessary. QleverSnippums (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Redid the "American Colonisation" section
After this article popped up on my watchlist recently, a snippet in the "American Colonisation" subsection caught my eye. That snippet read:

(In the above, I've &lt;ref>s with inline links)

The word time was wikilinked to Eugenics and the word history was wikilinked to Miscegenation. I think that was a bit slanted. I'm not sure precisely what the intended implication here was.

The so-called First Philippine Republic was, of course, not a government administered by the Americans at all. Rather, it was an insurgent revolutionary movement which styled itself as a national government, which issued a declaration of war against the United States, and which fought the Philippine-American War against the United States. That was a simple factual error.

The Philippines was annexed by the U.S.&mdash;true enough. The Philippine people were not, however, enslaved by the Americans. Though yellow journalism was rife in the U.S. during this period, as can be seen in the wikilinked supporting source, the people of the U.S. were not brainwashed.

Caucasians were in the majority in the U.S. during that time period and, from what I've read, that group generally exhibited a more white supremist attitude than than is the case today. Certainly that was true during the period of my own childhood. Even so, I think that it is a distortion to characterize even white Americans as a group (much less Americans in general) as "predominantly racist". The supporting source cited for that characterization is a dead link which is not available in the internet archive.

In the phrase "racist American imperialists", the words American imperialists were wikilinked to the Manifest destiny article and a source quoting President McKinley's Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation is cited. I think this snippet heavily overdid the characterization of America as an imperialist power (some may disagree with that, but the talk page of an article titled Multiracial is not the place to hash that out).

What does all this have to do with (from the article's lead sentence) "people whose ancestries come from multiple races", anyhow? Not much.

I've rewritten the portion of the "American Colonisation" subsection containing this snippet to focus the subsection more on the impact of the American presence in the Philippines on "people whose ancestries come from multiple races".

The following subsection, titled "Japanese Occupation" and beginning with the sentence, "However, large numbers of these people and the rest of the Philippines were ruined, raped and or slaughtered by the Japanese." could probably use some rewriting as well. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Madagascar
Madagascar, like India, is Multiracial by itself. Mongoloid Malays arrived to Madagascar 2,000 years ago, and since then there has been a complete mixture with African populations. Today the people of Madagascar is Multiracial. They still speak a Malay language (the same way as Dominicans speak Spanish) but are broadly African.--80.31.72.208 (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus - Flawed Article
I propose deleting entirely the section on Cyprus. The very premise of the section is flawed. For example, in its introductory sentence it points to photos taken as part of BBC interviews of Cypriots in London as evidence of what the author terms "Afro-textured hair", like this is some kind of scientific description. The author then goes on to cite a paper written by a Turkish author. The conflicts and in some cases hatred between Greek Cypriot and Turkish people is well known globally and this paper cannot be taken as anything but a hate-based, politically motivated paper. Moreover, this paper is not available online, nor can I find it cited anywhere other than in the additions to Wikipedia made by Olympic God (the original author of the Cyprus section) and we therefore have no reason to believe it is remotely credible. To cite one more example of the section's flaws, the author then goes on to cite a report in the Finish Journal of Ethnicity and Migration that he/she claims indicates Cypriots are "sometimes considered "multiracial"; described as "an 'in-between' location vis-à-vis being White and being Black." In fact, a quick read of this report makes clear that the author uses 'White' and 'Black' as the example of the two ends of the racial continuum to explain that immigrant Cypriot children in predominantly 'White' nations percieve themselves as being neither 'White' nor 'Black, but somewhere in between, much like Greek and Italian immigrants to Northern Europe, Canada and the United States felt during the first wave of immigration that occured to these countries.  I can continue to note flaws in the article, but would rather conclude by opining that the author of this section appears to be highly biased, with an intent or desire to set out Cypriots as a multi racial people (I won't even get into the argument that all peoples are multi racial). I'm sure any member of the Wiki community would agree that the purpose of Wikipedia is to set out facts and opinions supported by credible evidence rather than serve political agendas. Finally, while it's not necessary, I'll point to the extensive online DNA database at thegeneticatlas.com that provides ample data indicating Cypriots share a dna footprint with other mediterranean peoples (from Iraq/Mesopotamia to the Levant, Crete, Peleponessos and the rest of Greece, Italy and Northern Africa - see haplogroup J2 and E1b1b1a) and also share some DNA with peoples of the more northern latitudes of Europe (see haplogroup R1). DNA analysis is by far the most advanced and credible approach to classifying peoples by 'racial' origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coasterby (talk • contribs) 00:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Article talks far too much about the Philippines
I think this article talks far too much about the Philippines ,I mean there are many other Southeast Asian countries just like the Philippines ,who are of mixed lineage.But this article is mainly about the Philippines.It needs to be kept logical ,accurate and simple.Which it is not we aren't suppose to talk about all the genetics genes of the Filipinos were suppose to talk about present day intermarriages not pre-colonial intermarriages.If you want to talk about all of,that you should talk about it on the History of the Philippines page not on multiracial=( --AkoDanielle (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Australia - Original Research and Non-NPOV
I have modified the passage on Australia, but is still not accurate. There are some bold claims made about the alleged ethnic diversity of Australia, which may seem like a great theory but are not supported by reliable sources. As I posted, the CIA World Factbook says that Australia is 92% white as of 2010, so saying that Australia is a haven of diversity is just silly. One article from a multicultural tv/radio station is not a good enough source to support these bold claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.178.126 (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It may indeed be going too far to classify Australia as a particularly diverse country, racially. But I'm sure the section means to say that the country is diverse ethnically, i.e. that White Australians are diverse, some being Anglo-Celtic, others Greek, others Italian, etc, and that there's much intermarriage among all of them. SamEV (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC); 04:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This appears to relate to this March 2010 edit. If the removed section meant to say what is described above, that appears to be off-topic for this article. I mention that in 2012 in order to indicate that this particular Non-NPOV issue appears to be resolved. I have removed May 2010 from the Multiple issues hatnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Disputed May 2012
This edit added May 2012 to the multiple issues hatnote. I'm adding this section here to explain that the dispute appears to relate to an assertion in this edit by User:Nnemo as follows: "All scientists agree. Only “racist” or ignorant people still think there are several races in the currently living, and very young, human species. Dogs have several races, after many millions years. Humans don't have several races."

I have removed May 2012 from the hatnote because the dispute seems to be based only on that unsupported assertion, and it appears to me that such an assertion would need to cite verifiable reliable supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All scientists agree. Only “racist” or ignorant people still think there are several races in the currently living, and very young, human species. Dogs have several races, after many millions years. Humans don't have several races. The genetic differences between human groups show that there are not several races. For instance, a black man and a white woman can have children together, and they do. Evolution has not made that particularly difficult, and groups have not evolved so separate that they wouldn't mate together. Unlike, in dogs, a chihuhua and a saint-bernard. When we study two groups that some call “races”, we observe that the genetic differences between two random people in one group are greater than the genetic differences characteristic between these two groups.
 * Some reliable sources, for example :
 * These two books and this Web page : www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/race-finished.
 * “Although biologists and cultural anthropologists long supposed that human races—genetically distinct populations within the same species—have a true existence in nature, many social scientists and geneticists maintain today that there simply is no valid biological basis for the concept.”
 * Jan Sapp, professor in the biology department at York University in Toronto, www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/race-finished, American Scientist.
 * --Nnemo (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the best term humans have come up with ..but it is there....Moxy (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jan Sapp, professor in the biology department at York University in Toronto, www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/race-finished, American Scientist.
 * --Nnemo (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the best term humans have come up with ..but it is there....Moxy (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * --Nnemo (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the best term humans have come up with ..but it is there....Moxy (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

US bias
Lead and definition sections are completely based on American terminology of race. Also, according to United Nations and American Anthropological Association there is no distinction between 'race' and 'ethnicity'. FonsScientiae (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Jews, Habesha, Imazighen multiracial?
I've reverted this edit, which had the edit summary, (Removed the whole "Semitic Origin" section in the "Ethnic groups" list: Jews are not mixed race, neither are Habesha, same goes for Imazighen (who aren't even semitic to begin with).). I'm not a topical expert and I have no POV axe to grind here, but it seems to me that this ought to be discussed in the light of Semetic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Somali people are of mixed race
Somali people are of mixed race. This has been proivien with the Haplogroup T And J being found in Somalis. T and J are both non native Haplogroup in the Horn of Africa. I have taken the time to add them into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.215.206 (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that Dougweller i was unsure where to place Somalis. But Somalis are multiracial. Their Y DNA is 80% E1b1b, 10% T, and 5% J. Somalis are a mixture of themselves, Arabs, and Persians. Those numbers are not exact for all Somalis cause of ranges of mixture among them. This is clearly shown in the different features they have.

"Besides comprising the majority of the Y DNA in Somalis, the E1b1b1a (formerly E3b1a) haplogroup also makes up a significant proportion of the paternal DNA of Ethiopians, Sudanese, Egyptians, Berbers, North African Arabs, as well as many Mediterranean and Balkan Europeans. The M78 subclade of E1b1b is found in about 77% of Somali males, which, according to Cruciani et al. (2007), may represent the traces of an ancient migration into the Horn of Africa from Egypt/Libya. After haplogroup E1b1b, the second most frequently occurring Y DNA haplogroup among Somalis is the Eurasian haplogroup T (M70), which is found in slightly more than 10% of Somali males. Haplogroup T, like haplogroup E1b1b, is also typically found among populations of Northeast Africa, North Africa, the Near East and the Mediterranean."

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Source citation to support assertion that Israel is multiracial
Re the edit and revert seen here -- apparently there is some disagreement about whether or not some info contained in the source is true and correct. Putting WP:DUE aside for the moment, It might be better to support the assertion that Israel is a multiracial with a source which doesn't provoke such reaction. Some googling turned up the following, which might be a better choice to support this particular assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

USA Latinos
When it gives reasons why the USA's multiraical population might be far great due to "unknown lineage", the article should also mention the fact that a large % of Latin Americans are multiracial, and the Latin American % of the USA is more then 15%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B23Rich (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Increased racial awareness and influence and testability
"In the United States, the 2000 census was the first in the history of the country to offer respondents the option of identifying themselves as belonging to more than one race. This multiracial option was considered a necessary adaptation to the demographic and cultural changes that the United States has been experiencing."

Genome identification will give people a greater understanding as to what is true about their genetic makeup and what is true about what people thought they were but is only part of what they accepted along the way as an influence on their lives and practices. It is not enough to say that I am such and such but also to recognize that such and such is a part of my life but genomes tell me such and such. That should also be included.66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

More About Multiracial Vs. Single-Racial
I wish the Multiracial article from Wikepedia could have talked about the problems that multiracial face against pure-blooded single-racial groups. This would give the readers a better understanding about what the multiracials need to go through and how their identity is defined by other ethnic groups. Also, I would suggest to give more examples of famous multiracial celebrities.

Other than that, here is an article about multiracial in America. This article includes lots of demographics, done by Pew Research Center. Some of them includes demographics of the multiracial population, multiracial having been faced racial discrimination, and the rising number of multiracial babies.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/06/11/multiracial-in-america/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.206.150 (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Multiracial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090204144216/http://www12.statcan.ca:80/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&CATNO=97-562-XCB2006007&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=0&IPS=97-562-XCB2006007&METH=0&ORDER=&PID=92334&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=&StartRow=&SUB=&Temporal=2006&Theme=80&VID=&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF= to http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&CATNO=97-562-XCB2006007&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=0&IPS=97-562-XCB2006007&METH=0&ORDER=&PID=92334&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=&StartRow=&SUB=&Temporal=2006&Theme=80&VID=&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Multiracial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214223039/http://hpgl.stanford.edu:80/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Multiracial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/files/MRSF-01-US1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002234040/http://www.csupomona.edu/~mreibel/2000_Census_Files/Allen-Turner.doc to http://www.csupomona.edu/~mreibel/2000_Census_Files/Allen-Turner.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Multiracial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605145510/http://www.racesci.org/racescinow/genetics%2Crace%2Cand%20ancestry/6.html to http://www.racesci.org/racescinow/genetics%2Crace%2Cand%20ancestry/6.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100421022826/http://www.newenglandancestors.org/research/services/articles_gbr77.asp to http://www.newenglandancestors.org/research/services/articles_gbr77.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813130545/http://www.multiracial.com/ to http://www.multiracial.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819024953/http://www.ameasite.org/ to http://www.ameasite.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Multiracial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813130545/http://www.multiracial.com/ to http://www.multiracial.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813110446/http://www.ameasite.org/ to http://www.ameasite.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100204100412/http://blendedpeopleamerica.com/ to http://www.blendedpeopleamerica.com/
 * Added tag to http://www.mosaicequalities.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Specific races that have been mixed
I think we need to add info and what they are mixed with Foxhound03 (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikicop33 Photo Dispute
Hello, all! I'd like to open up a hopefully brief and civil convo regarding a small editing war that Wikicop33 and I are having here. We disagree on the content of the photo he has posted as the primary photo for this article. I don't feel that it is at all a good representation of this article as I do not feel that there should be one, singular, defining photo for an article that covers a broad range of people. Besides that, Wikicop33's photo appears to be a random, cropped pic pulled from someone's social media feed. (I sincerely mean no offense to the person in the photo itself.)

Wikicop33 is concerned that the photos in the article should be more representative of people from other countries besides showing examples from "the Americas". Specifically, I understand that he would prefer to see more people from Asia in these photos. However, the purpose of these photos is to show people of different races, not necessarily people from specific countries.

If that is the main concern, then why not post a photo of a multiracial person who is well-known from Asia? (Some fantastic examples would be: Dia Mirza, Isabella Leong, and Mylene Jampanoi.)  In any case, it would be more in-line with the flow of the article's text to have photos shown in the lower part of the article, not as primary feature.

Additionally, I would like to note that Wikicop33 posted the hashtag #asianlivesmatter in the article editing comments and this is not appropriate as it does note serve a neutral viewpoint.

Note to admins: please don't chalk me up as having gone against the 3-revert rule. ☹️☹️☹️ In fact, I was trying to revert my latest (third) edit when he beat me to it. Cof fee sweet  (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear, all! She exclaims "(Some fantastic examples would be: Dia Mirza, Isabella Leong, and Mylene Jampanoi.)", Wikipedia is not what she feels fantastic about it or not, I firmly believe I didn't violate any laws, she is certainly biased towards her fellow Americans. I did ask her to add another picture that represents an Asian, but she just ignored and undid my edit again. She writes "However, the purpose of these photos is to show people of different races,..." the article is about mixed races, not one specific race, my point is to represent a neutral perspective without mentioning someone's name or promoting an individual, she also writes "Some fantastic examples would be:  Dia Mirza, Isabella Leong, and Mylene Jampanoi..", like how she used the word "fantastic" may she likes these people and that's why she wants to add them instead, I firmly believe she hates the person in the picture though she writes "...no offense to the person in the photo itself.)." If she is so hateful to this person in the picture, she can go ahead and change the picture to some other neutral Asian person, or just remove it, I understand she hates Indian race from this discussion, otherwise, there was no need for her to go with the 3-revert rule" Do the justice. Wikicop33 (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I am going to completely ignore all your hateful remarks about me personally except to say that I do not hate anyone from the Indian race. I tried to open a friendly conversation here, but I can see that you are unwilling to speak with a civil tone.    Cof fee sweet   (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have changed the photo to Dia Mirza. I don't know exactly which Indian race she is, but I think it is safe to leave the photo description as the person being of "Indian ancestry."  (As an example, just because she was born in Hyderabad that doesn't necessarily mean she is Dravidian.)  Or, if anyone would like to clarify or edit, feel free.   Cof fee sweet   (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you added a person who looks less Indian, Indian race looks mixed with African, Asian and Caucasian ancestry, I can send you a lot more sources, you definitely hated that person a lot(please note Wikipedia doesn't allow you to edit and change the pictures of the people you love/find them fantastic). Moreover, just because of what's written in Wikipedia about Dia Mirza doesn't make it credible, there is no birth certificate published nor any photos, it could be all bogus, you added her picture since a lot of people told you that you look like her, and yes you really hated that person that you removed the picture of, shows how racist you are, admins please note,thanks! Hope you feel that you won! (You have not, try to be tolerant) Wikicop33 (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear admins and people, This lady added her favorite movie star to represent a mixed race(no verifiable source except for her self-claiming to be so) Please, refrain adding people of your choice, I am firm that I've not broken any rules. I am not promoting any person by mentioning their name, and how she claims to be a "perfect" example show her preferential bias towards the person she added. Wikicop33 (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikicop33, the image you keep trying to add to the article is very low quality and has been disputed. It is necessary that you obtain consensus for its inclusion; at this point you do not have consensus and therefore are edit warring to restore it. If you call another editor racist, here or on any other talk page, I will block you account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Confusing opening paragraph
The opening paragraph states this: ''Many terms exist for people of various multiracial backgrounds. Preferred terms include mixed race (or simply mixed), multiracial, biracial, multiethnic, polyethnic, half, half-and-half, Métis, Creole, Dougla, mestizo, mulatto, Melungeon, Criollo, quadroon, zambo, Eurasian, hapa, hāfu, garifuna and pardo. Some of the terms are considered insulting and offensive.''

Should this read: ''Many terms exist for people of various multiracial backgrounds. Preferred terms include mixed race (or simply mixed), multiracial, biracial, multiethnic, polyethnic, half, half-and-half, Métis, Creole, Dougla, mestizo, mulatto, Melungeon, Criollo, quadroon, zambo, Eurasian, hapa, hāfu, garifuna and pardo. There are various other terms used that are considered insulting and offensive.''

Large split and merge discussion at Talk:Miscegenation
The proposal would split the existing 150K character article, creating a new article ‘History of Multiracial People’, and would merge content into Multiracial and Multiracial Americans. Join us here. LaTeeDa (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The original proposal has been modified, and would now create several new articles, such as Multiracial people in Africa. LaTeeDa (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Change from 'multiracial' to 'mulatto' and 'mestizos'
I reverted this edit, and then reverted my revert. Here are my reasons for the original revert:
 * 1) In the first paragraph, Minketorn moved the term mulatto from a list of terms described as 'sometimes offensive', to a list of terms that are 'often used'.  When used in English, the term 'mulatto' is archaic and sometimes considered offensive:    .  Per WP:NPOV and WP:MODLANG, the article should provide context for this word and use it carefully.
 * 2) Substituted 'mestizos' for 'people with multiracial people backgrounds' in the second paragraph. The original term 'multiracial' is much more common in English. Because mestizos is used specifically about Latin America, I don't feel strongly about this change.
 * 3) In the second paragraph, substituted 'mulatto' for 'multiracial people'. Reverted as per #1 above.
 * 4) In the caption for Barak Obama, substituted 'first mulatto president' for 'first multiracial president'. Reverted as per #1 above.

Are there any objections now to reverting these four changes? LaTeeDa (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the use of multiracial in lieu of mulatto in the instanced you’d describe for 1, 3, and 4. The mulatto article has multiple RSes (e.g. OED) describing that it is often considered derogatory, so there is no need for WP voice to use them. — MarkH21talk 19:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅  provided no justification for the changes, and with some support here for reverting the use of mulatto when used for WP voice, I'll go ahead and revert the instances described in 1, 2, and 4 above.  LaTeeDa (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Move article from 'Multiracial' to 'Multiracial people'
I think this is pretty straightforward. Multiracial is an adjective, and per WP:NOUN, articles should be titled with a noun or noun phrase. The article content is all about multiracial people as far as I can see. LaTeeDa (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not comfortable making a move to an article like this with no discussion, so opening a formal WP:RM. LaTeeDa (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 05:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Multiracial → Multiracial people – Multiracial is an adjective, and per WP:NOUN, articles should be titled with a noun or noun phrase. The article content is about multiracial people. Proposed title would have same construction as similar titles like White people and Black people. LaTeeDa (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency with similar article titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 10:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. buidhe 00:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revision
This article needs a serious revision by specialist. It is U. S. biased, with wrong definitions of some concepts: 197.255.132.133 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) “Multiracial” is not the same as “mixed race”. “Multiracial” means “lot of races”. We have multiracial societies in the U. S., South Africa, etc. A mixed race society is a society in which the majority of its population results from miscegenation.
 * 2) “Race” is not the same as “ethnicity” (or “ethnic group”). Only in the U. S. they are used interchangeably. Race is about physical characteristics. Ethnicity is about cultural affinities (language, religion, traditions, etc.).

"Multiracial Australians" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Multiracial Australians and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 16:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Multiracial discrimination
Discrimination not only happens to those in foreign countries where black is considered as an insult to societys beauty standards it happens to those who are mixed races and it affects them severely and could be recognised as xenophobic attacks41.116.150.42 (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree 41.116.150.42 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent article of note
This may be of some interest as a source here: Summary: Americans (especially of mixed ancestry) change their ethno-racial self-identification all the time, especially to align with their politics, and this has considerable implications for the future of the US Republican Party. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Original research in Taiwan section
Taiwan is listed under the section "regions with significant mixed race populations". The section goes on and on about the Siege of Fort Zeelandia, but this appears to be almost entirely POV and OR. There is nothing in any of these sources that suggests a significant genetic contribution to Taiwan, or that these inter-mixings produced any meaningful number of children. The closest to that is the folklore that red or auburn hair in Taiwanese people today stems from Dutch prisoners -- but that is a matter that should be held to WP:MEDRS standards, and still wouldn't imply that there is a significant mixed race population in Taiwan, even if it were true (it probably isn't).

Taiwan is considered a monoracial country, in spite of its aboriginal minority population. I cannot find a single genetic study to support this section's insinutation that there is a significant mixed race population in Taiwan. The most comprehensive genetic study to date reported no evidence of European admixture in Taiwanese Chinese people. And I hate to go off on a tangent, but red hair is occasionally found in Taiwanese aboriginals, and genetic research suggests that a gene associated with red hair is found in some 70% of Taiwanese aboriginal people.

Tldr; historical cases of interracial mixing does not add up to a multi-racial population. There's no evidence that Taiwan has a significant multi-racial polulation, and to insinuate that based on isolated episodes of admixture with a small number of people, which apparently left no genetic trace in Taiwanese people, is original research. 173.198.130.67 (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Mixed generally means black and white
Mixed should not be used as an umbrella term for eurasian/hapa/wasian or mestizo groups as it generally means black and white. Multiracial or Multiethnic are more accurate terms for the various ethnic combinations. Sociology In Action (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes mixed is more commonly used to describe individuals who are black and white because there are more of them compared to other multiracial identities. It is still correct to refer blasians, wasians etc as mixed. There is no hierarchy in mixed identities. Bigbotnot2 (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Multiracial discrimination
Could there be a section on the racism and xenophobia that mixed people face? Bigbotnot2 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)