Talk:Mongoloid
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Rsk6400 in topic Someone provide a source for the following line
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mongoloid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 260 days  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Mongoloid. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Mongoloid at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
 | This article was selected as the article for improvement on 12 November 2018 for a period of one week. |
 | Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Acroterion, Moxy, and Euryalus: thanks. @Kewlkha: you were warned before for the same edit. Doug Weller talk 06:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
no it was a different edit same page. you are mistakenKewlkha (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- 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)