| Revision as of 16:41, 19 November 2010 editWeijiBaikeBianji (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,316 edits →History of the race and intelligence controversy is the more suitable link for this template.: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:11, 20 November 2010 edit undoSightWatcher (talk | contribs)495 edits →History of the race and intelligence controversy is the more suitable link for this template.Next edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| Insofar as the race IQ controversy is a topic that relates to human intelligence (and that is debatable by comparison with some of the other topics now linked on the template), it is my editorial judgment that the best available article now on Misplaced Pages about that topic is ] rather than any of several other articles in the same category. (The articles in that category are subject to ] following findings of edit-warring and POV-pushing by single-purpose accounts, with ] in the case (7 October 2010) coming just before the creation of this template (16 October 2010) by a newly registered wikipedian.) In light of the Arbitration Committee findings, I think it's especially important that our response to ], a general Misplaced Pages conduct guideline, include boldness in discussing and referring to sources as articles in the scope of the case are further discussed. Perhaps new editors are still getting up to speed with the long history of edit-warring on these topics, which I hope will be resolved by editors jointly referring to sources and discussing what those sources say. Because of the much superior sourcing of ], which is largely sourced to ] and has had substantial editorial attention from multiple editors working on it from top to bottom, I am changing the template here to link to that article rather than to other articles in the scope of the ArbCom case. This issue, of course, can be further discussed here. Referring to sources and to the overall weight of current reliable professional literature on the subject would be helpful in achieving consensus in accord with Misplaced Pages policy. (And of course all of the articles that might be linked here, just like most of the {{numberofarticles}} articles on Misplaced Pages, can be improved by further efforts to find good sources. Editors can look up sources and discuss what the sources say on this template talk page and on each article talk page.) -- ] (], ]) 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC) | Insofar as the race IQ controversy is a topic that relates to human intelligence (and that is debatable by comparison with some of the other topics now linked on the template), it is my editorial judgment that the best available article now on Misplaced Pages about that topic is ] rather than any of several other articles in the same category. (The articles in that category are subject to ] following findings of edit-warring and POV-pushing by single-purpose accounts, with ] in the case (7 October 2010) coming just before the creation of this template (16 October 2010) by a newly registered wikipedian.) In light of the Arbitration Committee findings, I think it's especially important that our response to ], a general Misplaced Pages conduct guideline, include boldness in discussing and referring to sources as articles in the scope of the case are further discussed. Perhaps new editors are still getting up to speed with the long history of edit-warring on these topics, which I hope will be resolved by editors jointly referring to sources and discussing what those sources say. Because of the much superior sourcing of ], which is largely sourced to ] and has had substantial editorial attention from multiple editors working on it from top to bottom, I am changing the template here to link to that article rather than to other articles in the scope of the ArbCom case. This issue, of course, can be further discussed here. Referring to sources and to the overall weight of current reliable professional literature on the subject would be helpful in achieving consensus in accord with Misplaced Pages policy. (And of course all of the articles that might be linked here, just like most of the {{numberofarticles}} articles on Misplaced Pages, can be improved by further efforts to find good sources. Editors can look up sources and discuss what the sources say on this template talk page and on each article talk page.) -- ] (], ]) 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :Um, why are you still doing this? At least three different editors are expressing a problem with switching the links and reverting you. I don't think that being "bold" applies when you have pretty much no one to back you and yet continue edit-warring about it (that's what it looks like you're doing at this point). Nor did you respond to my point at Sociobiology about ''why'' it's important to link to the main R&I article in as many relevant places as possible- it encourages other editors to get involved and help improve it. Wanting to get rid of links to that article because you don't like it (]) reeks of censorship mentality. If it's not well sourced enough for your sensibilities then please add more sources and allow other editors to do the same. | |||
| :I also disagree with your characterization of the arbcom ruling. From what I've read, pov-pushing wasn't the main issue from the SPAs and it wasn't just SPAs that got sanctioned, but also experienced editors who couldn't treat others civilly. More importantly, everything you just said about the arbcom ruling applies to the history article just as much as it does to the main R&I article. If you look at the arbitration findings of fact, you'll see that there are just as many diffs of misbehavior on the history article as on the main article, so the arbitration ruling is not a reasonable excuse for replacing links to one article with links to the other. | |||
| :I see you also added a link to ], and why you think a two-paragraph stub is relevant but not the main R&I article is truly beyond me.-] (]) 00:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:11, 20 November 2010
Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Misplaced Pages standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Has there been any editor discussion of the content or placement of this template anywhere?
I see there is this brand-new template Human intelligence, still being actively edited. I note that it links to and is being added to articles that are the subject of active Arbitration Committee remedies and I wonder if there has been any discussion of the content of this template before it was added (to the top, I might note) of several high-visibility articles here. I think there is sufficient instability in the article structure being linked to and sufficient continuing undue weight problems in several of the linked (or templated) articles that editor discussion of both the design and the use of this template is warranted. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, just go fix that article to your liking then. Woodsrock (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- On the basis of fixing problems here, I'll try to keep editing the template and also editing articles so that they may not include the template at all, or especially not at the head of the page. The articles all need a lot more work before links to them are put on a template that is so prominently displayed. (P.S. Am I to interpret your answer as saying that you didn't discuss this with any other editor before designing the template and posting it on several articles, or am I mistaken about that?) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this template? What is the source for its structure?
I'm curious about what this template is supposed to do for readers of Misplaced Pages that wasn't already being done by hypertext in each article or in the several templates that were already put on articles to which this template has been added. What is the editorial purpose here? Which goal of the Misplaced Pages project is being upheld by further use of this template? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see no other template for intelligence articles. Obviously a template about intelligence articles will help reader interested in intelligence to navigate. That is why Misplaced Pages have templates for similar articles.Miradre (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
"How many roads must a template walk down, before you can call him a man...?"
The template is for human intelligence articles. It contains intelligence articles. Thanks WBB for adding an article to it, I hope others add stuff too. Woodsrock (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
History of the race and intelligence controversy is the more suitable link for this template.
Insofar as the race IQ controversy is a topic that relates to human intelligence (and that is debatable by comparison with some of the other topics now linked on the template), it is my editorial judgment that the best available article now on Misplaced Pages about that topic is History of the race and intelligence controversy rather than any of several other articles in the same category. (The articles in that category are subject to active arbitration sanctions following findings of edit-warring and POV-pushing by single-purpose accounts, with the most recent enforcement action in the case (7 October 2010) coming just before the creation of this template (16 October 2010) by a newly registered wikipedian.) In light of the Arbitration Committee findings, I think it's especially important that our response to WP:BEBOLD, a general Misplaced Pages conduct guideline, include boldness in discussing and referring to sources as articles in the scope of the case are further discussed. Perhaps new editors are still getting up to speed with the long history of edit-warring on these topics, which I hope will be resolved by editors jointly referring to sources and discussing what those sources say. Because of the much superior sourcing of History of the race and intelligence controversy, which is largely sourced to reliable sources for medicine-related articles and has had substantial editorial attention from multiple editors working on it from top to bottom, I am changing the template here to link to that article rather than to other articles in the scope of the ArbCom case. This issue, of course, can be further discussed here. Referring to sources and to the overall weight of current reliable professional literature on the subject would be helpful in achieving consensus in accord with Misplaced Pages policy. (And of course all of the articles that might be linked here, just like most of the 6,929,961 articles on Misplaced Pages, can be improved by further efforts to find good sources. Editors can look up sources and discuss what the sources say on this template talk page and on each article talk page.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Um, why are you still doing this? At least three different editors are expressing a problem with switching the links and reverting you. I don't think that being "bold" applies when you have pretty much no one to back you and yet continue edit-warring about it (that's what it looks like you're doing at this point). Nor did you respond to my point at Sociobiology about why it's important to link to the main R&I article in as many relevant places as possible- it encourages other editors to get involved and help improve it. Wanting to get rid of links to that article because you don't like it (WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) reeks of censorship mentality. If it's not well sourced enough for your sensibilities then please add more sources and allow other editors to do the same.
- I also disagree with your characterization of the arbcom ruling. From what I've read, pov-pushing wasn't the main issue from the SPAs and it wasn't just SPAs that got sanctioned, but also experienced editors who couldn't treat others civilly. More importantly, everything you just said about the arbcom ruling applies to the history article just as much as it does to the main R&I article. If you look at the arbitration findings of fact, you'll see that there are just as many diffs of misbehavior on the history article as on the main article, so the arbitration ruling is not a reasonable excuse for replacing links to one article with links to the other.
- I see you also added a link to Dysrationalia, and why you think a two-paragraph stub is relevant but not the main R&I article is truly beyond me.-SightWatcher (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)