Jump to content

Talk:Mongoloid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Someone provide a source for the following line

[edit]

"With the rise of modern genetics, the concept of distinct human races in a biological sense has become obsolete." this claim has no citation, and is standalone. I attempted to remove it, but an administrator got offended and warned me and reverted the eidt, probably because he was unable to provide a source for the claim.

if you know of a reliable citation for it, please add it. I know of none.Kewlkha (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the reference mentioned by Doug Weller in his edit summary? Please omit the dudgeon next time. Acroterion (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it's referenced to this which is already linked from the article. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Biological races in humans. Alan R.Templeton. Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences Volume 44, Issue 3, September 2013, Pages 262-271 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.04.010. Moxy- 02:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion, Moxy, and Euryalus: thanks. @Kewlkha: you were warned before for the same edit. Doug Weller talk 06:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no it was a different edit same page. you are mistakenKewlkha (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise: While it was not exactly the same edit, it wasn't different, either. Both edits removed the word "obsolete", both had a wrong edit summary (yes, correct representation of results of science is not "biased language"), both broke the logical consistency of the lead section, both were pro-fringe. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources to use

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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