Jump to content

Talk:Mongoloid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Someone provide a source for the following line

"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

@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]