Talk:Mongoloid (race)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Rsk6400 in topic Map based on Yuan et al.
Map based on Yuan et al. change
I deleted the map based on the study by Yuan et al. 2019. That study has not been peer-reviewed. They say it very clearly on bioRxiv. At semanticscholar.com they just make fun of it. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please stop engaging in vandalism and POV edits. Both references are reliable and SemanticScholars do not make "fun of it". Koji979 (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think I misunderstood you. As I see, your concerns are based on the preprint status of Yuan et al. and Chen et al.? I have excluded them now until Peer-review.Koji979 (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia rules matter, not my concerns. And peer-review is only the first step for a study to become a reliable source. It has also to be accepted by the scientific community. Wikipedia follows the consensus of the scientific community. Regarding the map: Since the map is based on various studies, it is original research. Regarding politeness: I don't like to be called a "troll" or being accused of "vandalism". Rsk6400 (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding making fun of the study: Just take a look at the comments at semanticscholar. Funny enough. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- The two "commentsc are not making fun of it. The first one is a link to a blog which support and or mention interesting evidences. (http://patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com/2019/10/another-paper-on-out-of-china-h-sapiens.html?m=1). The other is a link to another blog with varying opinions. Again not making fun of it. (what should that actually mean?). I have already mentioned that I thought that you are troll but corrected my opinion. Wikipedia accepts peer reviewed studies but must follow WP:Weight. In this case, both studies are currently not Peer-reviewed and thus not usable, as you said. Greetings.Koji979 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- At SemanticScholar there is a link called "Some strange stuff at bioRxiv lately" which is to this blog. And the blog has comments like "Or is comic relief acceptable at bioRxiv every once in a while?". But I was wrong, that is not on semanticscholar, but on a different blog. Sorry for making you search in vain. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- The two "commentsc are not making fun of it. The first one is a link to a blog which support and or mention interesting evidences. (http://patagoniamonsters.blogspot.com/2019/10/another-paper-on-out-of-china-h-sapiens.html?m=1). The other is a link to another blog with varying opinions. Again not making fun of it. (what should that actually mean?). I have already mentioned that I thought that you are troll but corrected my opinion. Wikipedia accepts peer reviewed studies but must follow WP:Weight. In this case, both studies are currently not Peer-reviewed and thus not usable, as you said. Greetings.Koji979 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think I misunderstood you. As I see, your concerns are based on the preprint status of Yuan et al. and Chen et al.? I have excluded them now until Peer-review.Koji979 (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Note that Rsk6400 has also deleted the map at Caucasian race.Naddruf (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- I deleted the map at Caucasian race for the same reasons: Following Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia readers (among them myself and - more important - my students) have a right to be informed according to scientific consensus and not according to fringe theories. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)