Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:11, 25 September 2010

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

R & I mediation

I left a question for you in mediation . I want to make sure that you're satisfied. --Ludwigs2 15:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Nisbett

Anything to contribute to this discussion? I think who is considered a significant view is critical to this mediation. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

twin studies

Hey, I am hoping you can help me with a possible problem in the current R&I draft. It currently gives great weight to the adoption study by Weinberg, Scarr and Waldman. A colleague told me that the study is not only flawed in numerous ways, but that this is acknowledged by the authors of the study. If this is so I think it is important that we ensure that the article describe explicitly what those flaws are, at least (or especially) those acknowledged by the authors. But I don't have the study at hand, and am not as familiar as you are with the possible problems. I am asking if you can look at the article, see if you agree that the authors acknowledge serious flaws, and then either propose the appropriate edit to David Kane, or just make the appropriate edit after he has finished the next revisions.

Weinberg, R. A., Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). "The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A follow-up of IQ test performance at adolescence." Intelligence, 16, 117-135. (note 46 in the current draft; the section on child-rearing)

Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I, I see that this article is still given prominenc in the current revision. Have you had (or will you have) a chance to look at the article and see if it is as problematic as someone told me? I'd really welcome your input here. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been tied up with RL over the last couple of days so I've not been able to look into many of the problems. I'll give it a shot today. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thnks - I just think it is one specific and major weakness with the article and addressing it will make a diference. I appreciate your help, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

On Tuesday

could you see if this argument could benefit from your views? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your views are really needed ...

... here (Race & IQ) Slrubenstein | Talk 23:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

quality of data

I'd really appreciate your input here, especially regarding proposals by DJ and Captain Occam. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that in the place linked and many other times in the discussion (e.g. where you pointed out diferent numbers of standard deviations in data for blacks and for whites) you have pointed out major problems with the data. The problem is, these all seem to be your own criticisms. And even if you were right and if the criticisms are relevant and important ... we cannot put them in, it would violate NOR. Can't you find published sources that make these3 criticisms, that can be put in? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

would welcome comments from you ...

here Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ps: it concernt this edit diff:

Creation myths

Hi, there. Oddly enough, we seem never to have collaborated on any article before. Yet, your comment at Talk:Evolutionary origin of religions got me to look a few things up:

• "Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion." E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe", Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia (1974) p1007.

I've been trying to bring in some prominent published views about origins that run counter to the editorial trend at Misplaced Pages. Some call this "editing against consensus" and want to discourage it. Others argue that it is wrong to delete well-referenced information merely because it "advances a POV".

I just think our readers might be interested to know about theories other than those informed by methodological naturalism. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there are several alternate theories, but if they are not scientific, or methodological, then they are unlikely to achieve mainstream status in academia. For wikipedia purposes this means placing them in the proper context. I would like to know which specific theories you would like to include. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction:

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Race and Intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

I don't object to you reverting Occam's big addition to R&I. Prior to Arb Com, that is reasonable on your part. But you also reverted a bunch of small changes that he made to recent additions to the article, additions that were not really discussed. Would you object to me reverting those? Mostly this just makes the article look like it did two weeks ago. David.Kane (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) I don't have a problem with uncontroversial edits, but which ones are you referring to. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I don't suppose you'd be willing to adjust your evidence so that it comes in under the 1000 word limit? Even with your responses, you're significantly over. I appreciate that you may have a lot to say, but as you can see there is already quite a lot of stuff there for the arbs to read through, and it will help enormously if it's as clear, concise, and to-the-point as possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil 00:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC).

Generally speaking, yes, responses do count. But even without the responses, you're still well over the 1000 word limit. Keep in mind that the Evidence page is not for discussion of the topic or to debate with other editors, it's simply to make it as easy as possible for the arbs to get a feel for the situation. A lot of your responses are of the type where you appear to just be arguing against Captain Occam rather than presenting evidence for the ArbCom.

My usual suggestion in this case is that you should decide which parts of your post are core to your argument, keep them on the page, and perhaps post the rest on the evidence talkpage, with a link from the main page to the relevant talkpage section. Lankiveil 06:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC).

Understood, I do acknowledge that my evidence is heavy on Captain Occam, as I do view him as the major problem. I will try to adjust it to make it seem less personal. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your hello

Hello, yep had a letter published. It is fairly simple and straightforward and the authors also responded in a positive way. Concerning what affect the correspondence has on the "state of the art" the Cruciani et al article will probably eventually be cited by proponents of Militarev style theories of Afroasiatic being Eurasian. Personally I would find that unjustified because we are only talking about a very specific branch. But for now anyway this has not happened, and the Cruciani et al authors only see it as supporting the theory than Chadic comes from the north (long after Afroasiatic was already quite dispersed) and this appears a more reasonable conclusion given their interpretation of the data. They seem open to the possibility that Chadic may still have come from the East.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Funnily enough though I do not have online access to that, but of course I received a copy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Genetic ancestry in Rio Grande do Sul

Hello, Muntuwandi.

Maybe you will be interested in this issue. In Brazilians of Spanish descent, this paper, by Brazilian geneticist Andrea Rita Marrero, is used as a source for the information that "Gaúchos are mostly descended from Spanish ancestors, and less from Portuguese". As this runs contrary to mainstream knowledge about the region, it would be interesting to understand what exactly are the bases for the paper's conclusions. Another paper by the same scientist (in collaboration with others) gives more details about the subject. Could you please help us with this subject?

Thanks in advance. Ninguém (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Your name came up in a sockpuppet investigation

Here is the link. Wish we could have been informed.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like some paranoia. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Question at Mitochondrial Eve

Biophys has a question about an edit you made to Mitochondrial Eve a while back. I figured that you'd be the best person to ask. --Danger (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I also responded here. Biophys (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
• The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
  • Mathsci (by consent)
  • David.Kane
  • Captain Occam
  • Mikemikev
• Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

... and related

We're not going to make much progress unless we all agree to put the arbitration to bed, yes? I only came in at the tail end and quickly had more than enough of my fill (!). I suspect the same can be said for all. It will be difficult enough as it is to build back an atmosphere of good faith—not sure that ever really existed, but hope springs eternal. Best, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought the arbitration was put to bed until Captain Occam reappeared as Ferahgo. There is nothing I would like more than to put the whole fiasco behind me. I just thought that the community should be aware that an editor has gamed his topic ban. I will leave the issue to the community to decide and will not take it any further. Looking at Talk:Race and intelligence feels like Déjà vu, so I will probably take a break from the subject for a while. As for the atmosphere of good faith, as long as editors come to the subject with strong emotional views that originated outside of wikipedia, rather than a simple sense of curiosity, I doubt that there can be a peaceful editing environment. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Time will tell. Ferahgo's gotten advice on how not to be Occam. Hopefully semi-protection will cut the rest of the crap out for a while. Of course, as with many topics, "opinionated" is sometimes the product of being well informed, sometimes it's, well, just being opinionated. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

People tend to seek out information that affirms their prejudices and predispositions. Someone who believes in alien abductions is likely to be well informed on matters involving alien abductions. I think everyone involved in the dispute is well informed on the subject but we all have very different opinions on how Misplaced Pages should represent the controversy. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In which case one has to read all applicable sources, not just the ones which reinforce their opinion—and not just pick out spot quotes from online book and journal searches without reading the whole source and understanding what they are quoting in context. Some subjects, unfortunately, are more open to interpretation and abuse by personal "small 'r'" religion. There is too much arguing over exclusion instead of dialog over inclusion and positioning of genuine reputable scholarly viewpoints along some representative spectrum. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Typical of personal religion is the vociferous deriding of a source, followed by, "No, I haven't read it, and I don't need to." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

In the course of an AN/I thread relating to something else entirely that started on my talk page, here Captain Occam found another opportunity to plug his favorite cause. Hopefully this will remain a minor tangent. But I thought you might find this amusing. Slrubenstein | Talk

That may even qualify as a borderline violation of his editing restriction. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

-Sigh- if you really feel the need to start a second AE thread about me within the space of ten days, then I guess you can go ahead, but I really think it would just be a waste of everyone’s time. I’ve been paying attention to the precedent that exists for topic bans, and in most of the cases I’ve looked at, it’s been acceptable to refer to the topic-area of the ban in noticeboard threads about unrelated topics as long as I’m not saying anything disruptive or contentious about it. I think this thread would be an application of the same principle, since the thread is about whether Technofaye is editing in good faith, not about these articles specifically. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already mentioned that unless there is any egregious violation, I won't be filing any more requests. I have expressed my concerns about your conduct enough times, so from now on I will leave it up to the community. With regards to your comments, I am of the opinion that you are once again testing the limits of your restriction. Taken in isolation, the comments are not such a big deal, but if such a pattern were to continue, it would not be impossible for someone else to start an AE thread. Furthermore you should also consider that whenever you appeal for your ban, such incidents may be brought up when discussing whether or not your ban should be lifted. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

would love your collaboration

www.afropedea.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.48.62 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My race in biomedicine draft

Muntuwandi, I spent literally an entire day researching for this and subsequently writing it. I put a lot of effort into making it as neutral and balanced as possible, and was proud of what I came up with. Maunus specifically asked me to try rewriting this. If you want to point out specific POV issues or suggest additional sources, feel free.

But if the only way you're able to interact with me outside of the amendment thread is to follow me to various articles - articles you're not even contributing to otherwise - and make these distracting and downright insulting claims when I'm contributing productively, then I'm going to start an RFC/U about you. Your behavior is bordering on harassment again, and is actively impeding the overall quality of the encyclopedia with these tireless off-topic accusations that obstruct genuine content discussions. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this comment you made to the talk page as it is not constructive or conducive to a good editing environment. If you have a problem with the proposed version please adress how it could be improved instead of commenting on other editors. The issue with Ferahgo is being taken care of by arbcom untill such a time as arbcom should decide to impose restrictions she is as free as anyone else to work towards an improved article.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)