Misplaced Pages

User talk:Stonkaments: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:06, 8 June 2021 editStonkaments (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,023 edits →The R&I parody material: r← Previous edit Revision as of 20:05, 9 June 2021 edit undoFerahgo the Assassin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,664 edits →The R&I parody materialNext edit →
Line 345: Line 345:
::Hey Stonkaments, since several editors who’ve objected to these recent changes are already here, it might be useful to try and have a discussion here on your talk. We might be able to figure out what's an effective way to address to the problem of unverifiable material in the article and the FAQ. All of the attempts to raise this issue on talk pages and noticeboard have quickly been shut down (most recently ), so I think a user talk page might be the best place to discuss this. Would it be okay with you if I ping some of the other people who have raised these objections, and if we have this discussion in your user talk? -] (]) 00:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC) ::Hey Stonkaments, since several editors who’ve objected to these recent changes are already here, it might be useful to try and have a discussion here on your talk. We might be able to figure out what's an effective way to address to the problem of unverifiable material in the article and the FAQ. All of the attempts to raise this issue on talk pages and noticeboard have quickly been shut down (most recently ), so I think a user talk page might be the best place to discuss this. Would it be okay with you if I ping some of the other people who have raised these objections, and if we have this discussion in your user talk? -] (]) 00:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
:::Sure, no problem. ] (]) 14:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC) :::Sure, no problem. ] (]) 14:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
::::Thanks. There are two points in particular I'd like to hear from other editors about:

::::{{ping|Berchanhimez}} in some of your past comments, you've indicated that you felt that those of us who were raising objections had not done so in an effective way. However, you weren't specific on what approach you thought would be effective. Could you please elaborate on that?

::::{{ping|DGG}} in your comments , you advised against requesting an arbitration case, and suggested waiting for more sources to be published before raising the issue again. However, at this stage I think it's clear that's no longer a viable strategy, for three reasons.

::::*The new FAQ clearly is intended to preemptively reject future sources that go against the current consensus of Misplaced Pages editors. This is most evident in its arguments that the field of psychometrics should be discounted, and this field accounts for about 80 percent of published scholarship related to race and intelligence. When there is a permanent notice on an article's talk page rejecting the reliability of most of the published scholarship about the article's subject, it probably won't be possible for the publication of new sources to have an effect on the article's content.
::::*The recent objections raised by {{ping|Sesquivalent}} and Stonkaments show how in the present editing environment, the ''substance'' of one's arguments makes very little difference, because these sorts of arguments inevitably are shut down without receiving a meaningful response (and as Gardenofaleph pointed out above, this has also happened when editors tried to raise these issues at noticeboards). This eliminates the possibility that anyone could successfully argue against the approach to sourcing prescribed in the FAQ. This could only be improved by something that changes the editing environment (such as an arbitration case), not by new sources being published.
::::*If things continue along their current trajectory, the editors who've objected to the approach prescribed in the FAQ will gradually or forget about the issue, and then this approach to sourcing will be assumed to have consensus because there is ]. Since this approach includes misrepresenting sources and using blogs as sources (as summarized ), that can't be an acceptable long-term result.

::::{{ping|Gardenofaleph}} {{ping|Nerd271}} {{ping|Bonewah}} Any additional input on these or related issues would be appreciated.

::::I recognize that any action we take runs the risk of making things worse, but they are virtually ''guaranteed'' to get worse if we do nothing, especially because of what I mentioned in my last point above. It isn't my intention here to argue for arbitration specifically; my argument only is that waiting for more sources to be published is no longer a viable strategy. Do any of you (especially Berchanhimez and DGG) have suggestions about what ought to be done instead? -] (]) 20:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:05, 9 June 2021

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please continue to participate in the optimization of the TSLAQ page as it clearly has several ongoing disputes - some more legitimate than others - and we need more voices to be heard. QRep2020 (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Stonkaments, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Stonkaments! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk).

Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

23:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


“U. S.” In basketball and American football infoboxes.

These infoboxes don’t use US after City, State unless the subject’s nationality is something different (e.g. a German citizen born in New York City). The parameters for infobox person don’t extend to every infobox. The template documentation for Template:Infobox basketball biography states this. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok sorry, I didn't realize that. Thanks for the heads up. Stonkaments (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, we typically dont have separate links like ], ] per MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Anyone who clicks on the city page can get to the state page, if needed. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Tesla, Inc.

Hi there, tread carefully with the Tesla, Inc. edits. Can you discuss the edits first on the Talk page? QRep2020 (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Why do you think it's important to discuss the edits first? Other editors have recommended me WP:BRD, rather than discussing every proposed edit beforehand. I'm trying to be fair and thoughtful with my edits, and I didn't feel that any of them might be controversial--they were all straightforward, well-sourced factual corrections or removing obvious promotional and biased content. Springee, I see that you've been active in related discussions - do you have any thoughts? Stonkaments (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
BRD works best with focused chunks. I'd stop attempting edits for now and instead go on Talk: Tesla, Inc. and address the changes you want to make for each section. The process can be slow and annoying, but at least this way you record what you think the article should say and then if no one addresses particular points, you can keep harping on them so the other editors look as if they're trying to distort the dialog. QRep2020 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm still not sure I fully understand your concern. Are you worried that I'll upset editors who are pro-Tesla, which would potentially make future editing more difficult? So far all of the edits I've made have been accepted without any controversy (except one quote I deleted that seemed overly promotional, and there we seem to have found consensus by removing the most promotional and irrelevant sentence and leaving the rest in). I'm focused on making minor edits to improve the article's quality and neutrality, so it seems like that should be ok to continue, and discuss any reverts or disagreements if/when they come up? Stonkaments (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved Martin Tripp content to TSLAQ

Feel free to supplement the new section I created. QRep2020 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

How do we determine the market capitalization of Toyota versus Tesla?

Hi Stonkaments,

I see you reverted my addition to the Tesla, Inc. wikipedia page with the comment: "Undid revision 961809225 by ReferenceMan (talk) - Toyota market cap is ~$216 billion, cited source is wrong."

What are your sources for Toyota's correct market capitalization?

How do you know your sources are correct, and the cited source is wrong?

I see two different sets of numbers. One set supports the $185 billion number:

A different set supports the $215 billion number:

The only phone number I have found for Toyota's Investor Relations is in Japan, and the recording on that phone number is in Japanese, and it's too early for them to answer yet. ReferenceMan (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

To interject here, it looks like different "schools" of valuation are at play. Why not mention this fact about the opposing valuations in the article and then wait to see if one or the other is accepted globally? QRep2020 (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The ~$215 billion set is correct.
You can calculate it yourself, per Toyota's official website, they have 3,262,997,492 common shares outstanding - https://global.toyota/en/ir/stock/outline/
3,262,997,492 times closing price of 6905 yen = 22,530,997,682,260 yen, which at current exchange rates is >$210 billion.
Ah yes, sorry, I missed the marcap part, how I can't say. Stonkaments, I would make the edit again and leave a note about it on the Talk page. There are always issues with these "moving target" facts. QRep2020 (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm OK leaving the article as it is (no reference to Tesla being larger than Toyota). I believe the $215 billion is the correct market capitalization based on going to Toyota and Tokyo stock exchange websites. But I am curious as to why there are two sets of numbers. I have spoken with a Toyota Investor Relations person in Japan, and have sent him an email. He will research why there are two different market capitalization numbers, and get back to me when he has more information. I suspect there are preferred shares or some other set of shares which are not available to the New York Stock Exchange. ReferenceMan (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This article is behind paywall, but it looks like the most in-depth look at the market cap question - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-15/so-is-tesla-bigger-than-toyota-or-not-well-it-s-complicated - according to the preview, it sounds like it has to do with whether you count "treasury shares" (Toyota owns 14% of its own shares, worth ~$30 billion). Stonkaments (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Article says: "As of 11 a.m. New York , Toyota's $171 billion valuation less its treasury stock trailed behind Tesla’s $175 billion valuation." So, yes, it appears treasury shares is select factor. QRep2020 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree it's probably the treasury shares that makes the difference. Yesterday (June 15), I received an email back from Toyota Investor Relations person: "We've been conducting investigation since last week, but please wait for a while for an answer. Probably it seems that there is a difference in whether or not to count treasury stocks, but there is a point to check a little more. We'll get back to you within a few days, so thank you for your understanding." ReferenceMan (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I heard back from the Toyota Investor Relations person. He said:

"Market capitalization is calculated by multiplying the number of shares by the stock price, and the difference in market capitalization displayed on each website is considered to be due to how the number of shares is handled. When calculating the number of shares, two patterns are often used; 1) the total number of common shares issued, and 2) the total number of issued common shares minus the number of treasury shares. We assume that the email you sent uses $215 Billion for 1) and $185 Billion for 2). It should be noted that the slight difference in 2) is probably due to different detailed definitions such as the timing of the numerical values used (quarterly, year-end, etc.).

"Each vendor calculates the market capitalization daily based on the data provided by the stock exchange and the published materials of each company. It seems that the 1) group calculates based on the market capitalization based on the definition of the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and the 2) group independently calculates the treasury stock. Regarding 2), it is based on publicly available information, and it seems that there are cases where treasury stock is not deducted due to disclosure systems and business practices of each country. For example, even for Bloomberg, one of the vendors most used by investors, 1) for Japanese companies and 2) for US and European companies are used in the calculations. In other words, Bloomberg calculates the market capitalization of Japanese companies daily based on the data obtained from the Tokyo Stock Exchange in 1).

"It can be summarized that it is not absolutely correct to use either 1) or 2), but the calculation method changes depending on the disclosure system, business practice, etc. in each country. On the other hand, for the purpose of calculating corporate value such as valuation as so-called acquisition value, it is likely that market capitalization is often calculated at 2). With respect to the reason for deducting treasury stock, it is not necessary to evaluate the treasury stock as a company value because it has no voting right or dividend right and is deducted from the net assets section of the balance sheet in accounting, it is thought that, etc. is in the background.

"In Japan, the acquisition of treasury stock was restricted until the Corporate Law was revised. Therefore, in Japan in the past there was virtually no difference between 1) and 2), so it is not necessary to consider treasury stock in the calculation of market capitalization, and the practice of calculating by the method of 1) continues (there is a possibility)." ReferenceMan (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Protesting Tesla employee

Hi there. Have you seen any follow up information pertaining to the gentleman who got the termination notice from Tesla and thought it had to do with his protesting? Is he still employed? QRep2020 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

He tweeted that he was fired - https://twitter.com/S3LFL3SSALLDAY/status/1273399064793513984
I haven't seen an update anywhere else. Stonkaments (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 17:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Planet Fitness".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

SuperGoose007 04:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm Doug Weller. Misplaced Pages is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Black Lives Matter seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your post put a swing on what happened that doesn't reflect what the Mayor has said since. It's your responsibility to make sure that you are using up to date information. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

3RR

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Black Lives Matter shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

This is your fourth revert today. Also, it is not "original research/biased language", it's straight from the source which says: "In contrast to previous work that relied on the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Reports that were constructed from self-reported cases of police-involved homicide, this data set is less likely to be biased by police reporting practices. ".

Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 21:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Black Lives Matter. Template:Z189 Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

What vandalism? I removed a single unsourced claim that detracts from the article. Stonkaments (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Bullshit. You removed a very well-sourced comment that didn't hew to your views. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Where does your source say that right-wing commentators used the study to attack Black Lives Matter? And how does that fact add to the article, given that the next sentence already goes on to say that the authors retracted the article due to its "careless" conclusions being misinterpreted by the media?
Please stop with the profanity and ad hominem attacks. Stonkaments (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The whole point of the cited article is that right-wing commentators were misusing the study. The whole reason for retraction by the authors was that right-wing commentators were attacking BLM in a way that was not supported by the study. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The article mentions one conservative political commentator, Heather MacDonald, citing the study. That does not support the claim that the study "was used by right-wing commentators to attack the Black Lives Matter movement." Stonkaments (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
It's all verifiable, satisfying WP:V. This source says Mac Donald comes from "right-leaning" Manhattan Institute. She's a hard-line police authoritarian and she's fighting against BLM which makes her anti-anti-racist, so where do you think that puts her on the political spectrum? Right. And the PNAS study was cited many times by others after her. Science Mag says "The finding was picked up by major media outlets and rebounded across the internet". Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I still disagree with your characterization of MacDonald and other right-wing critics using the study to "attack" BLM. That isn't supported by the source, which only says "MacDonald pointed to the study as evidence that Black people are not more likely to be shot by police due to racism". Maybe we can say something like: "The study was used by right-wing commentators to dismiss claims made by Black Lives Matter of systemic racism by police."?

Suggestion

As a new editor you need to be careful around some topics. I do find that at times some Wiki editors are very quick to label something as a heretical idea that's the end of the discussion. I don't know what was said on the BLM page but much like the Trump page I suspect that is a page where many good editors fear to tread. In general on such pages it's always best to propose an edit on the talk page before changing the article. Be VERY cautious about reverting. No one can fault you for a good faith WP:BOLD edit. They can fault you for repeating the same edit once challenged. Certainly some editors have strong opinions and I've certainly seen cases where edits from some editors appear to be to vilify/sanctify vs provide a wider range of opinions on a subject. That's just part of Misplaced Pages. If you charge headlong into a fight with what it is you will be shown the door. If you accept and work with the system (it helps to just ignore the current, hot politics articles) then you are likely to build some knowledge and understand how to help make things better. Springee (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the advice. That makes a lot of sense. Mostly I was upset to see that valid, civil discussion and argument was deleted from the talk page (for being "white supremacist talking points"). That type of censorship feels like a much larger problem than just a biased edit, which is why I felt it warranted a dispute. Stonkaments (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest letting semi-sleeping dogs lay here. Part of editing here is to know when to drop it even if you don't agree with how others are portraying your actions/intents etc. Springee (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Got it, will do. In the future, do you mind if I contact you if I come across issues I could use advice on? Where's the best place to reach you, just on your talk page?
(I brought up this issue with the BLM talk page on the Misplaced Pages-help IRC chat, and they actually advised me to file the dispute - which I can see now was ill-advised, and I trust your judgment more.) Stonkaments (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome to ask. I'm not an expert and as you found, sometimes the advice you get may not be ideal. I think the best advice I have is make an effort to improve some non controversial articles. That will build both experience and credibility. Also, even if you think the other editor is acting like a jerk (or worse) focus on the content (wp:foc). If you don't break editing rules then it's very unlikely you will ever be penalized even if editors assume the worst. Content disputes happen and are expected. Most non-content disputes start as content disputes that stopped focusing on content. Also, it never hurts to reach out to those with with whom you disagree. Sometimes they will be real jerks. Other times you will reach an understanding that helps smooth things over. Springee (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
More heavy-handed, biased editing of the BLM page today by the usual suspects. Stonkaments (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Good show with the External Links section and on figuring out how to get the TSLAQ cashtag link on the article as I kept running into difficulties. That said, I am not sure the link to TeslaDeaths.com will hold under scrutiny from other editors. We shall see. QRep2020 (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice quotes

The one about the barking dog is my favorite Username31113690 (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Rindermann et al. 2016

You don't appear to have edited the race and intelligence article previously, so I thought I should let you know what NightHeron is referring to in his edit summary here. A different paper by Rindermann et al., published in 2020 (not 2016), was discussed at the RS noticeboard in April. That discussion did not reach a consensus about whether the 2020 paper is reliable or not. The 2016 paper that you cited in your edit has not been discussed at the RS noticeboard at all, as far as I know.

You can do like you like with this information, but I think you have the right to not be deceived by NightHeron's misleading edit summary. If you want to add the 2016 paper as a source to the article, I recommend opening a discussion about it at the RS noticeboard, because that is the only way to establish that it's a reliable source. 2600:1004:B167:2E9C:2D8C:B38A:3134:2404 (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Since it is my understanding that this editor is still topic banned from race and intelligence, I have raised this comment at WP:ANI. That thread is here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Race and intelligence block and ban issue. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Please be aware that this IP-editor 2600... has a history of making false accusations against me. In this case my edit summary about consensus was a reference to the RfC on Race and Intelligence, see . In it Rindermann's so-called "surveys" were discussed at length, and both his 2016 and 2020 papers were referred to. In fact, Rindermann was the main source that was repeatedly cited by those who claimed that the belief that some races are genetically superior to others in intelligence is not fringe. Rindermann's name was mentioned more than 80 times in the course of that discussion, and evidence was presented that Rindermann has a strong racialist POV that renders his survey work unreliable. The conclusion of the RfC was that a consensus exists that the belief in a genetic relation between race and intelligence is fringe. So, by consensus, Rindermann's survey is not RS for the claim that such a belief is not fringe. That's the full explanation of my edit summary and my reason for reverting. NightHeron (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Basic Income

Hi, I see you are an editor of the page universal basic income. I was wondering if you wanted to join or help Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Basic Income? The project is currently inactive so it could really use some participation by new members to kick-start it again.

I have also opened a move request on its talk page here - Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Basic Income#Requested move 22 October 2020 - to request that it be re-named to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Universal Basic Income. If you could please spare a minute to leave a respond to this request on the talk page there it would also be much appreciated.

I look forward to hearing from you. Helper201 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Deceptive edit comments and disruptive editing by Stonkaments. Thank you. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you help me understand why you felt the need to start an ANI, rather than bringing up any of your concerns with me directly? I really don't appreciate being accused of deceptive and disruptive editing, when I've made all of my edits fairly and honestly, in good faith, and have led to a positive resolution of the challenged text. Stonkaments (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
At the article talk page, nearly a week ago, I pointed out that you deleted material and its citation while calling it an “unsourced claim”. You had nearly a week to respond. You did not. Then you started reverting completely different editors who restored the material, even after one of them added an additional citation. This is not an innocent misunderstanding.If you simply ignore the talk page and keep deleting cited material, that's a problem requiring admin intervention. You had a week's worth of WP:ROPE, and more besides. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 09:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't respond, but what response were you expecting? The source that was cited did not support the contested claim, hence "unsourced claim". You unfortunately failed to address my request to provide anything from a reliable source that directly supported that claim, instead providing disparate facts that were WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and have now managed to antagonize three different editors on that talk page. I'd suggest reflecting on your own actions, as it may help understand why I might not have felt interested in continuing an unproductive back-and-forth with you. I happily continued the discussion when other editors weighed in. Stonkaments (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Nice try at pulling a WP:DONTGETIT, but the “unsourced” sentence fragment you deleted attributing a list of specific U.S. racial disparities as the result of overt discrimination and unconscious bias relative to the general population is cited to an article in the Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review (the citation you simultaneously deleted and had a week to verify while the content you object to wasn't even in the page) which says, of the exact same list of fields in which disparities are present, recognition builds of the many ways that racial inequality manifests both explicitly and implicitly.The response of an editor acting in good faith would have been to acknowledge this, to retract OR and SYNTH claims (notably SYNTH is not directly applicable to talk pages anyways), and to not revert two editors other than myself who restored the content—the editors you “happily continued the discussion” with after reverting their cited additions of content to the article with a completely different WP:SHAMCONSENSUS claim, knowing very well that the material was neither unsourced nor did consensus support its removal. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect, your reading of that excerpt is wrong—in no way does it support the contested statement. Note that it says ...the many ways that racial inequality manifests both explicitly and implicitly. That is an affirmation that these inequalities indeed exist, and manifest themselves in myriad ways, but it makes no claim about the causes or origins of the inequality. The article goes on to talk about the ways in which racial inequality manifests itself in the criminal justice system through disparities in arrests, sentencing, etc. It makes one mention of unconscious bias in relation to NYC's infamous stop-and-frisk policy, and notes that Drug War-era policies were racially motivated, but besides that it refrains from making any claims about the causes of the racial inequalities it highlights. And those two isolated mentions are nowhere near enough to support a broad claim about the causes of racial inequalities across "education, health care, housing, imprisonment, voting rights, and wages", be it overt discrimination or unconscious bias or any other.
I would please ask that you at least consider the possibility that you're wrong here—about what exactly this source is saying, specifically, but also about my editing and my intentions more broadly. I'm still fairly new here, and I'm sure there are plenty of things that I can improve. But I don't take accusations of dishonesty, deception, and acting in poor faith lightly, and I would appreciate an apology.
(It's my understanding that an extended back-and-forth on the ANI page can often be unhelpful, so that's why I prefer responding here.) Stonkaments (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
This is stuff it would have been great to write at the article talk page a week ago. It's too little, too late to excuse a week's worth of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT radio silence on the talk page followed by repeated deletion of cited content from multiple editors, including an additional citation, however—and of course you aren't even addressing lying about talk page consensus and the rest.But for the record, I'll also respond the way I would have if you'd posted this comment a week ago. Let's look at the complete text following the list—again, the exact same list of areas of racial disparity which appears in both the Misplaced Pages article and the source article:

Nevertheless, the justice system presents a stark illustration. In 2018, Black people comprised only 12% of the population but accounted for 33% of the sentenced prison population. Still today, some people reduce this extreme discrepancy to a story of personal irresponsibility and poor choices amid colorblind enforcement and prosecution in a post-racial America. But the tides are changing. Recent protests and shifts in public opinion indicate that the durability of this lazy narrative is waning, as recognition builds of the many ways that racial inequality manifests both explicitly and implicitly.

So the source is clearly talking about the causes of disparity by pointing to the false “lazy narrative” of personal irresponsibility and poor choices. The subtle variation in wording did not somehow force you to behave in all of these deceptive and mendacious ways, or ignore the identical lists. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 09:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 20:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on TSLAQ and COI

Since you participated in Talk:TSLAQ#This_is_the_most_hilarious_WP:COI_article_I've_read, I am informing you of a related discussion at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020. --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Information icon Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Homosexual behavior in animals. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Misplaced Pages to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. –DMartin 05:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't remove anything due to perceived offensiveness. As I said in the edit summaries, I removed quotes and information I think are biased, misleading, and undue weight for the article. Stonkaments (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Seemed like the editor was vandalism patrolling, and an edit summary with "biased" tends to set off red flags. Still, to be clear, on topics like that you will want to edit with surgical precision and give good justifications for cuts. On closer inspection I do endorse those two removals and reinstated them. Down the line I expect to better organize the first half of that article and add some information from newer secondary sources. Crossroads 05:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Got it, makes sense. Thanks. Out of curiosity, are there any books or other sources you would recommend? I'm interested in doing more reading on the topic. Stonkaments(talk) 05:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This review article is mostly about sexual orientation in humans, but discusses animals as well. This book is focused on humans, but discusses animals on pp. 27-38 according to my notes. Those should be good starting points. Something to keep in mind with this topic, though, is that some other sources out there may discuss the topic but also advance a new particular hypothesis which may not be widely accepted; but those secondary sources I just linked you to are very balanced, and for the topic in general, not just as it pertains to animals. Crossroads 06:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, that second link only has the first edition on Google, and my notes are from the second edition, so the page numbering is probably off. There's also this book which talks a lot about experiments with rats - so, lab animals rather than wild, but it would still be relevant to the article. IIRC he discusses wild animals a bit too. Crossroads 06:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 --Guy Macon (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Race and intelligence. Note that discretionary sanctions also apply to talk pages. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Per my understanding of WP:AOBF, I am not required to assume good faith in the face of clear evidence of bad faith. Stonkaments (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Trolling

@Generalrelative: Since you can't handle the truth on your talk page, I'm leaving it here instead.

So now we're resorting to Guilt by association when the facts fail to support your claims? Anyway, here's the diff. You misrepresented this article as a Nature editorial, which it isn't. Given you are well aware of what an actual Nature editorial is, and the higher level of reliability and authority this implies, it strains credulity to argue that this misrepresentation was not in bad faith. And you also cherry-picked the source by failing to include a key sentence from the article: Although we endorse this view, plenty of scholars remain unpersuaded.

As was noted in that debate, that is not an accurate representation of Hunt's views. He clearly and unequivocally dismisses the 100% environmental hypothesis as having "virtually no chance of being true", and says that "Plausible cases can be made for both genetic and environmental contributions to differences in intelligence. The evidence required to quantify the relative sizes of these contributions to group differences is lacking. The relative sizes of environmental and genetic influences will vary over time and place." If you've actually read the source and can't see how MrOllie's argument is a distortion of Hunt's views, then I believe you are the one suffering from delusion. Stonkaments (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The R&I parody material

Hello Stonkaments,

Since you have been commenting on the new FAQ for the race and intelligence talk page, there are two things about it that I'd like to make sure you're aware of.

First, I'd like to ensure you've noticed the closed discussion here, initiated by Sesquivalent, about the FAQ misrepresenting its sources. Like your own earlier attempt to raise a similar issue at the NOR noticeboard, this discussion was swiftly shut down, and the same presumably will continue to by done to any future discussions that raise similar issues. So I doubt it would accomplish anything for you to bring up this issue yourself; I just want you to be aware of it.

Second, I'd like you to be aware of the origin of the theory (as presented in the FAQ) that the field of psychometrics is covertly racist, and that this explains why in that field there is more published scholarship in favor of the hereditarian view than against it. Sesquivalent called this a "talk page theory", but its origin was not on talk pages of Misplaced Pages articles. It originated at RationalWiki, as a parody of left-wing views introduced across multiple articles there with the intention of discrediting the site. I know this because I was one of the people who helped add this parody material, although several other people also were involved.

At the time when we were adding this material to RationalWiki in 2018-2019, the fact that it was intended as a deliberate parody was quite widely acknowledged. See the discussions here and here, among other places. Some of the really obvious parodies such as the Kathryn Paige Harden article were deleted for that reason, but more than 90% of our parody material about ISIR and the people associated with it has remained basically unaltered. In some cases, the users adding this material about intelligence researchers left deliberate clues so that those who looked carefully could know they were trolling. For example, the person who created the Richard Haier article used the username Kfotfo, which is a one-letter shift forward in the alphabet from "Jensen", in the same way that "IBM" is a one-letter shift from "HAL".

The goal of this project was to demonstrate how RationalWiki would allow and promote the most paranoid, defamatory conspiracy theories as long as they supported the site's ideology. Judging by some of the reactions we received, such as this and this, we succeeded at demonstrating that. What I want to emphasize here is that these claims about contemporary researchers in the field of psychometrics come exclusively from the parody material we added. It isn't difficult to find legitimate sources (such as this one) that make this argument about an older generation of psychologists such as Rushton who were involved with the Pioneer Fund. But with respect to the claims of covert racism against modern hereditarian psychometricians (such as Haier, Rindermann, Warne, etc.) who've never indicated any interest in far-right political causes, these claims originate from our parody material at RationalWiki and from nowhere else.

I don't recall you having been involved in any of the earlier discussions about this issue, so I'd also like you to be aware of something about my own relation to this material. I agreed with Kirkegaard and the other members of his Slack that RationalWiki was a disreputable website, and that the project to discredit it was a worthwhile endeavor, but I never supported their subsequent project to add the same type of material to Misplaced Pages. My preference was, and still is, for Misplaced Pages to be an actual encyclopedic website. However, at this stage I don't deny the logic of their plan. As can be seen from the above linked discussions at Twitter, there were quite a few people who paid attention to our trolling project at RationalWiki in 2018-2019, and who understand that this claim about modern psychometrics was always intended as a parody of left-wing extremism. Now that this parody argument is unironically being repeated at Misplaced Pages, it makes a very strong point about how vulnerable Misplaced Pages is to being manipulated by right-leaning trolls if they adopt the rhetoric of antiracism.

Incidentally, SMcCandlish is another user who is aware of the parody (and probable parody) material that's been added in this topic area, so I encourage you to discuss it with him if you're interested in more details. 2600:1004:B147:4751:3970:E21B:3D74:B13A (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can confirm the accuracy of at least some of what the IP is saying here. Some of the people who added this parody material were talking to me about it as they did it, although I didn't add any of it myself. This is the thing that I alluded to in the last sentence of my vote here, that I almost mentioned during the RFC at RSN, but I ultimately decided to not bring up there because I didn't want to derail that discussion further.
There are probably also a few other active Misplaced Pages users who know about this trolling project, who might speak up if they can be made aware of this discussion. This actually is pretty widely known, as evidenced from the above linked discussion from Eric Turkheimer's Twitter.Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, this information was being discussed in a voice chat in the RationalWiki Discord, and that's where I heard about it. Gardenofaleph (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
It's contextually important here that, per WP:UGC, RationalWiki isn't a source WP can use anyway, all parody considerations aside. Any material that can't be better sourced than that has to be removed (not should or may be but must be; WP:V is short-term tolerant of un- or poorly-sourced material if and only if it is not controversial). It is entirely better for WP to remain silent about something (e.g. the scientific basis of some particular claim, and even mention of that claim at all) than to rely on bullshit sourcing, because that is bullshit people will call us on. It brings the project into disrepute to use bogus material to make a socio-political point regardless what that point is or what ideology is behind it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: The FAQ does not cite RationalWiki directly. The source for its claims about the field of psychometrics is this paper, but that paper is about 20th century psychologists such as Rushton, and does not actually discuss any of the modern psychometrics researchers or research organizations such as ISIR. What the IP is saying, and I think this is correct, is that the only sources that exists for this claim about modern psychometrics are the parody articles at RationalWiki. Those articles are the origin of this meme that there is a racist "walled garden" of psychometrics research, which keeps getting repeated by Misplaced Pages editors, but for which nobody has ever been able to provide a real source, and which now is codified in the FAQ.
As for your proposal that someone should remove the unverifiable material: how do you suggest anyone could accomplish that? As you'll know if you've been following these articles over the past few months, every recent attempt to remove unverifiable material has been rejected or shut down as incompatible with the decision to classify the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory. See the discussion here for example, in which the closing admin told Stonkaments that in order to remove the material that several editors think misrepresents its sources, first he would have to successfully argue on the article's talk page that the hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe. As far I can tell, there appears to be a consensus that as long as the hereditarian hypothesis is classified as a fringe theory, the unverifiable material in both the FAQ and the article itself cannot be removed.
According to Stonkaments' response below, his patience with respect to this topic is pretty much exhausted, so your advice here would be especially valuable for that reason. Also, the article talk page is extended-confirmed protected, so don't think I'll be be able to comment there myself until either I have more edits or the protection expires. Whatever you think should be done, it will have to be done by someone who is able to edit that page, such as yourself, Stonkaments, or Ferahgo the Assassin. Gardenofaleph (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the kind of lame mess that WP:NPOVN and/or WP:NORN are good for. It should be clearly demonstrable that the claim is not found in RS but is being parotted from a parody site. Then a consensus of uninvolved editors at the noticeboard would decide the claims should be removed, and it would not longer be a he-said-she-said fight between involved editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
There were recent discussions at both NPOVN and NORN about closely related issues. Both of those discussions were quickly shut down before the community could make a meaningful decision. In the second discussion, it was pointed out that the editors adding this material won't allow it to be discussed at noticeboards.
The admin who closed the NPOVN discussion explained his reasoning here: "The load-bearing part of JBL's comment was this: "If there really is a fundamental issue not addressed by this RfC". It's the clear consensus of the community that there is not such a fundamental issue, and you need to respect that." The RFC he's referring to is the one that occurred on the article's talk page, about whether the hereditarian view is fringe or not. So in other words, it is the clear consensus of the community that the question of whether the hereditarian hypothesis is fringe or not, and the question of whether the unverifiable material must be included, can't be treated as two separate questions. As I mentioned in my last comment, the admin who shut down the discussion at NORN gave a similar explanation.
Based on this consensus, I think that as long as the hereditarian hypothesis is classified as a fringe theory, the unverifiable material can't be challenged at noticeboards. So unfortunately, what you're suggesting is not possible in this case. But if you have any other suggestions I'd like to hear them. Gardenofaleph (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that context, but I think I've run out of patience with banging my head against the wall of these sad POV-pushers. Editors at that page are now defending with a straight face the FAQ answer that political correctness has not impacted the study of race and intelligence, specifically that "researchers who choose to pursue this line of inquiry have in no way been hindered from doing so". Of course, this flies in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary from numerous, uncontroversial reliable sources. If they will support such a bold-faced falsehood–despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary–against the rather mundane and uncontroversial fact that considerations of political correctness often limit research in this area, it's clear that they are completely and utterly blinded by ideology, untethered from reality and the demands of intellectual honesty. As such I have lost all hope that they are capable of any rational discourse at all.
Sadly, this whole episode has greatly harmed my estimation of the accuracy and neutrality of the Misplaced Pages project more generally, especially on articles that are likely to be a sensitive subject for the identity politics mob. Stonkaments (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
You're really only just now realizing WP has a serious neutrality problem in such topic areas? Surely you jest.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Heh, well I guess it's one thing to notice an article isn't neutral, but it's another to see "how the sausage is made" so to speak. I didn't realize that these articles don't fail neutrality haphazardly, due to a few overzealous editors, but rather a concerted effort by the biased majority. Correcting the mistakes and untruths of a small minority of POV-pushing editors is fairly straightforward, but when those untruths are being pushed by a biased majority of editors, that is a whole other beast (as thoughtfully explained by DGG here: ). That means the majority of editors in that topic area have placed ideological motivations ahead of core principles like verifiability and NPOV, which makes me apprehensive about the resiliency of WP more broadly in the face of such ideologically motivated efforts. Stonkaments (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey Stonkaments, since several editors who’ve objected to these recent changes are already here, it might be useful to try and have a discussion here on your talk. We might be able to figure out what's an effective way to address to the problem of unverifiable material in the article and the FAQ. All of the attempts to raise this issue on talk pages and noticeboard have quickly been shut down (most recently here), so I think a user talk page might be the best place to discuss this. Would it be okay with you if I ping some of the other people who have raised these objections, and if we have this discussion in your user talk? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Stonkaments (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. There are two points in particular I'd like to hear from other editors about:
@Berchanhimez: in some of your past comments, you've indicated that you felt that those of us who were raising objections had not done so in an effective way. However, you weren't specific on what approach you thought would be effective. Could you please elaborate on that?
@DGG: in your comments here, you advised against requesting an arbitration case, and suggested waiting for more sources to be published before raising the issue again. However, at this stage I think it's clear that's no longer a viable strategy, for three reasons.
  • The new FAQ clearly is intended to preemptively reject future sources that go against the current consensus of Misplaced Pages editors. This is most evident in its arguments that the field of psychometrics should be discounted, and this field accounts for about 80 percent of published scholarship related to race and intelligence. When there is a permanent notice on an article's talk page rejecting the reliability of most of the published scholarship about the article's subject, it probably won't be possible for the publication of new sources to have an effect on the article's content.
  • The recent objections raised by @Sesquivalent: and Stonkaments show how in the present editing environment, the substance of one's arguments makes very little difference, because these sorts of arguments inevitably are shut down without receiving a meaningful response (and as Gardenofaleph pointed out above, this has also happened when editors tried to raise these issues at noticeboards). This eliminates the possibility that anyone could successfully argue against the approach to sourcing prescribed in the FAQ. This could only be improved by something that changes the editing environment (such as an arbitration case), not by new sources being published.
  • If things continue along their current trajectory, the editors who've objected to the approach prescribed in the FAQ will gradually give up or forget about the issue, and then this approach to sourcing will be assumed to have consensus because there is no longer anyone arguing against it. Since this approach includes misrepresenting sources and using blogs as sources (as summarized here), that can't be an acceptable long-term result.
@Gardenofaleph: @Nerd271: @Bonewah: Any additional input on these or related issues would be appreciated.
I recognize that any action we take runs the risk of making things worse, but they are virtually guaranteed to get worse if we do nothing, especially because of what I mentioned in my last point above. It isn't my intention here to argue for arbitration specifically; my argument only is that waiting for more sources to be published is no longer a viable strategy. Do any of you (especially Berchanhimez and DGG) have suggestions about what ought to be done instead? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)