Talk:Mongoloid (race)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Rsk6400 in topic Map based on Yuan et al.
Map based on Yuan et al.
changeI 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 That study has not been peer-reviewed.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 In this case, both studies are currently not Peer-reviewed and thus not usable, as you said.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)