Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:52, 17 June 2010

Per , Hipocrite has given permission for me to correct spelling in his #Evidence section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2

So far, all the evidence presented has been against Ludwigs2. Although I feel he has done wrong, I don't think he's the only one, but I can't construct evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to add the stuff about the other guys. Ludwig2's behaviour was so blatanly in-your-face that I just had to get it off my chest. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

lol - lots of pots, but just one kettle... --Ludwigs2 03:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to MathSci to correct evidence claim

MathSci: You write "David.Kane, self-identified in real life as opposed to black intake in elite colleges". This is not a true statement. Please remove it from the evidence. I do not oppose "black intake in elite colleges". I have some concerns with the current amount of affirmative action practiced by elite colleges and favor more transparency with regard to their actual policies. (What reference this has to the current discussion is beyond me. But I am glad that this arbitration is providing a forum for you to demonstrate your standard approach for dealing with editors with whom you disagree. Keep up the good work!) David.Kane (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What about this ? Did you not self-identify as the "David" that made that comment on Oct 4, 2009 during WP:Articles for deletion/EphBlog and is this not in fact an ongoing subject on that website? I can certainly expand the phrasing, if you wish. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

MathSci: You seem confused. If you think I am "opposed to black intake in elite colleges" then you should be able to quote me writing something like "I am opposed to black intake in elite colleges." So, quote me! The link you provide is to a long discussion about the responsibility (if any) of Williams to make clear the graduation rates of various subgroups of students. And, indeed, I think (I am the David there) that elite college should be more transparent about this. Isn't it obvious to you that these are different topics? "More transparent about graduation rates" is not the same thing as "opposed to black intake." David.Kane (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I might have misinterpreted what you meant when you wrote, "Looking at the 6 year data from the Diversity Initiatives, you are three times more likely to fail to graduate from Williams if you are black then if you are white. Does Williams have an obligation to tell this to admitted students?" (Your bolding.) Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You have, indeed, misinterpreted it. No worries, though. I am happy to assume good faith. Simply remove your false claim from the evidence section. In the quote I am (obviously?) reporting the facts of differential graduation rates at Williams. (I believe that the same is true at other elite US colleges.) David.Kane (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this phrasing acceptable: "David.Kane, self-identified in real life as being in favour of making higher failure rates of ethnic minorities at elite colleges known to admitted students, volunteered ...."? Mathsci (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, my first question is what relevance you think that has to the arbitration? To the extent you insist, then I would prefer a more neutral and accurate summary. After all, I do not know the data for all, or even many, elite colleges. Also, some ethnic minorities (like Asian Americans) probably have lower failure rates. Anyway: this would be a fare claim: ""David.Kane believes that elite colleges should be more transparent when it comes to reporting student performance, for example, graduation rates by student sub-group." (I think this policy should apply to other dimensions besides race --- athletes, for example.) You can even cite this comment for your source. I think that links to off-wiki writings are somewhat rude. David.Kane (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I will make the phrasing specific to Williams College. You did not talk about athletes, you talked specifically about black students being three times more likely to fail than white students—in fact you put that expression in bold face. You're free to give your own explanation in your section if you wish. If you find references to off-wiki writing "somewhat rude", why did you create User:David.Kane/EphBlog, an article on that off-wiki site? In that article you named and shamed Robert Shvern, sombody who can't be very old. That article in your user space has been partially blanked because it was a BLP violation. Isn't putting that kind of personal information on on a very public site like wikipedia, which appears almost immediately on a google search, also "somewhat rude" or possibly even worse? Mathsci (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made the change to something that agrees (a) with what you've said here and (b) what you wrote on EphBlog. I hope it's OK. Mathsci (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

MathSci: No, it's not. You are making it very hard to assume good faith here. First, you insist on bringing up off-Wiki statements that have nothing to do with race and intelligence. Second, you mischaracterize my views despite my repeated requests that you stop doing so. Your new version is includes the claim that "in favour of making the higher failure rates there among minority groups, such as African Americans, known to incoming students." This is so misleading as to be false. Why can't you simply describe my opinion accurately? I even provide you with a quote above. Imagine that the topic was capital punishment and I was in favor of it for murderers. You then claim that I am "in favor of capital punishment for minority groups, such as African Americans." Don't you see how misleading that would be? I am, in this hypothetical, in favor of capital punishment for everyone. So, to fail to tell the reader that is the equivalent of lying. And the same is true here. I am in favor of making graduation rates for all groups public. To imply that I am only in favor of doing so for minority groups, as you continue to do, is the best possible evidence of the sort of bullying and intimindation that you regularly engage in on Misplaced Pages. David.Kane (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's very hard to know what you believe. It's certainly not what you wrote, which is unfortunate for you. For example look at these links . You seem to be using wikipedia as some kind of extension of your blog to push a rather extreme point of view and asking other like-minded people to help you. When I read those kinds of statements, they seem to have an unambiguous meaning. Similarly your libelous EphBlog article. In that article you were harrassing real life people in a vindictive way: you are now doing the same to me. You haven't answered the question on Robert Shvern. Do you have an explanation for that as well? Mathsci (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

MathSci: I have no interest in "harrassing" people. All I am trying to convince you to do is to describe my views accurately (to the extent that you have some strange compulsion to do so). Is that too much to ask? You should realize that your refusual to do so is not the wisest strategy. With regard to Robert Shvern (to the extent that anyone cares), his exploits were thoroughly reported in the Williams Record. I have not made any claims about him on Misplaced Pages that were not already reported in this reliable source. David.Kane (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

2nd Request to MathSci to correct evidence claim

Mathsci: Xaveogem did not set a two week deadline - I volunteered a 2-week deadline, primarilly in order to get you to cease hounding him. In fact, I've corrected you on this point once before. do you need me to dig up the diffs, or will you just go ahead and correct it? --Ludwigs2 03:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you must be a little bit confused. You were certainly not the editor who suggested terminating the mediation. Anyway when I prepare the diffs over the next few days, I will correct any inaccuracies that might have accidentally slipped into the initial statement. I hope that you will also take similar care with your evidence. I would also request, in view of the strong language you use when addressing me on wikipedia, that you try to avoid interacting with with me during this ArbCom case. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)The request I made here was serious.

don't take it personally - I use strong language when I talk to most everyone. I'm blunt, and honest, (and prone to deep, bitter sarcasm) which is an occasionally brutal combination. and no, of course I was not the first person to suggest terminating the mediation, but I did (in fact) volunteer the two week time limit, and I'm reasonably sure that I have corrected you on this point once before. I suppose I'll need to dig up the diffs for that, though. --Ludwigs2 04:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Diffs: where I suggested the two week limit and where I corrected you previously.

Ah, one other thing: I'm not pro-Fringe, and there's not a damned shade of evidence you have that would suggest that I am. I know more about science than you do, my friend, and my problems with brangifer stem from his complete lack of competence with scientific issues. The man worships science, I think, in the manner of a Golden Calf, but he has proven himself time and again incapable of following basic scientific reasoning. More to the point, I had been avoiding mentioning him in this ArbCom case because he's not in any way concerned with R&I at all (yes, I am well aware that your full-scale assault on me began a scant 2 or 3 days after I threatened to start an RFC/U on him, even though I hadn't interacted with you for months, but that little machination of yours - if true - is just too incomprehensible to address). I'd ask you to refactor him out of your comments as off-topic. If we have to get into the AltMed/brangifer/pseudoscience/Fringe thing in any detail, then this arbitration will start expanding like mildew in a YMCA. Don't get me wrong, I would enjoy that debate - it would give me the opportunity to bend arbcom's ear about mistakes they made with their last judgement on pseudoscience - but this procedure would become unwieldy. Better to keep this discussion simple and on point. --Ludwigs2 05:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are a well known fringe advocate. If you are alleging you have any real world credentials, you should self-identify. Hipocrite (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that, you've been listening to people who have a habit of talking out of their asses. I have no interest in discussing real-world credentials, and no interest in self identifying. I'm simply telling you that I know science (as a general topic) better than the vast majority of people on the project - something I can prove in conversation at need, to anyone who bothers to listen (which, to date, has not included anyone from your little clique). I wouldn't dream of competing with an expert outside my own field, of course (e.g. my math skills, while decent, would not be up to Mathsci's level), but scientific reasoning is my thing. would you like me to give a short list of the errors in scientific reasoning that brangifer habitually makes, or maybe take a stab at sussing out some of evidentiary and discursive errors that you seem to make?

My problem to date, H, has been that I have made the unfortunate mistake of challenging people who imagine themselves as firm defenders of scientific principles, when they are (in fact) actually advocating for some sadly unscientific positions (possibly for noble reasons, but still...). These people thus decided that I must be the enemy, and because their enemy is fringe advocates, they decided that's what I must be (a misconstructed syllogism which still makes my eyes roll). I don't consider any of them serious threats, although I've gotten tricked into being blocked by some of the slyer ones. more often the hard-line, anti-fringe rhetoric they try to use on me simply misses its mark, and they end up tripping over their own words. I still find it hilarious that Mathsci actually thinks I disagree with him about R&I; I don't know whether that's a simple refusal to give me any credit, or whether he has not completely grasped the distinction between content (where I largely agree with him) and process (where I find his behavior execrable).

but whatever: I think he's too angry at me now to think clearly. c'est la vie.

So look: if you want to treat me like a fringe advocate, go ahead. All that really does is assure that I will never lose an argument to you. The label is irritating, as is the constant squabbling that goes with it, but it is compensated by the advantage of knowing all your salvos are aimed in the wrong direction. You can keep trying to politic for it if it makes you happy: I've had people trying to hang the fringe label on me for years, but it always falls off when push comes to shove. Just don't say I didn't warn you. --Ludwigs2 07:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

'I know more about science than you do' and 'I have no interest in discussing real-world credentials' seems a bit contradictory to me. If you had no interest in discussing your real-world credentials then why did you bring them up as though they should be respected? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't - Hipocrite brought them up. all I said was that I know a hell of a lot more about science than most people (which is true) and I can prove that easily in casual discussion. If I need you to respect my scientific opinion, then I will convince you to respect it by force of reason. The issue only came up because of some brainless accusations that I'm a fringe advocate. I have little use for labels, and less respect for people who use them unwisely. --Ludwigs2 22:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually your claim of greater scientific expertise (than Mathsci) came before Hipocrite's post. The post wherein the claim was made has no attempt to use force of reason to back up the claim that I can see. I do see the opposite, where you are making judgments about another editors scientific ability and attempting to lend weight to those judgments by claiming your own scientific ability as greater. From there it seems perfectly reasonable that your claim could and should be questioned, but you declined as is your right. Of course it also means that no one has any reason to take your claims as anything but chestbeating. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

take it any way you want, IP. if it becomes an issue then we'll see what happens; if it doesn't, then it doesn't really matter what you or I believe. I do not want you to believe that I am "the kind of person who would be right" about scientific issues; all I request is that you analyze any specific scientific issues that arise with appropriate reason and detachment. If you can do that, we're good. If you can't, that is so entirely "not my problem" that I don't even know where to start with it.

Do you have anything else to say on this issue? --Ludwigs2 18:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I put a similar assertion of Ludwigs2 in my evidence. This diff . Ludwigs2 wrote: "I understand the scientific perspective - there are few people on wikipedia who understand science in general better than I do, and you are not one of them". The only person who's made statements like that to me on wikipedia is User:Abd. Wasn't he going to patent jamjar tests for the general public to verify cold fusion in their own kitchens? Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where we expanded the universe of editors to deride? Please strike your comment re: User:Abd. You're not scoring points here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, what Ludwigs2 wrote was a personal attack. And secondly it was similar to the comments that Abd made here on the talk page of cold fusion and elsewhere. The discussion there involved hydrino theory, a fringe theory that is apparently not accepted in mainstream physics. Probably Rushton's adaptation of life history theory is a similar kind of fringe theory. Mathsci (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, peters, that's a standard tactic. Mathsci can't think of anything to criticize me with directly, so he compares me to someone he feels he can criticize, in the hopes that some of the badness will rub off. it's a shitty, stupid thing to do, and every time he does it (which is fairly frequently) my opinion of him sinks a little lower. but, such is life on wikipedia. It's like trying to write an encyclopedia in a frigging daycare. --Ludwigs2 22:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would think of refactoring "It's a shitty, stupid thing to do" and "frigging daycare", because of WP:NPA. You have been blocked for that recently and making that kind of exaggerated and offensive statement on an ArbCom page is not advisable.

I haven't criticized either you or Abd. But both of you have made statements about my own competence in science. Diffs of statements like those are used as evidence in ArbCom cases (for you R&I, for him Abd&WMC). Actually I don't directly edit any parts of articles on dodgy science or science outside my expertise. Why would I? I will summarise reviews of books by Richard Lynn. I will write about the history of a controversial subject involving dodgy science when it's well documented in WP:RS. But when I write about science, it is usually about something within my professional expertise, e.g. FBI transform or Plancherel theorem for spherical functions or Commutation theorem. Mathsci (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

and I didn't criticize you either - not unless you are under the impression that no one could possibly be more knowledgeable about science than you are. You are not one of the people on wikipedia who understands science in general better than I do (that I know from experience). That doesn't mean you're not good at science in your own field, and I would never make such a claim. Nor would I compare you with someone I disliked just to score points. Nor would I habitually try to label you with some dumb pejorative label (I have done that to you on occasion, out of pique, but nothing compared to your constant name-calling towards me and others).

I understand and respect your desire to maintain the image of a high-minded, conscientious wikipedian, Mathsci, but please do yourself a favor and stop trying to claim that image right after you do something lowbrow. I can't resist the irony of it. oh, and thanks for he advice.--Ludwigs2 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I edit or create articles. I'm not here on wikipedia to have WP:FORUM discussions on science. I do discuss secondary sources. On WP:FTN I offered you the possibility of corresponding off-wiki to put an end to this kind of sniping, but apparently you refused my offer (I haven't checked my email). We are judged on wikipedia by the articles we write or contribute to and how much we write. I also don't bear grudges. In the case of CoM and Ottava Rima, I did not participate in the ArbCom cases, except in ORs to try to help him when he delivered an OTT ultimatum on the workshop page. As explained on WP:FTN, Elonka and I have had dinner together (she had the foie gras with figs) and I've bought Charles Matthews a tomato juice. Mathsci (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll jump into this oh-so-productive discussion to point out that mathematics is not science any more than lens-grinding is astronomy. Glad to be of service. Rvcx (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

yeah, it's time to end this thread. I've said all I need to say here anyway. but don't diss Math - the core of science is its style of reasoning, which has a lot in common with mathematical reasoning. Math is science that somehow got detached from reality. --Ludwigs2 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics is generally regarded as a science. That is certainly the way it's classified by the University of Cambridge. In fact in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences (Cambridge) we have several astrophysicists and cosmologists some of whom are quite close colleagues of mine. Outside universities, my employers have been the Royal Society, the Miller Institute and the CNRS. All these are fairly well known scientific institutions. Mathsci (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse funding and organizational structure with ontology. Pure mathematics is funded in the UK by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and you'd hardly claim that mathematics was engineering or physical science. What's more, the very term "mathematical sciences" suggests that sciences can be mathematical, not vice versa; pure maths is usually lumped in with the sciences at the university level for convenience sake. Rvcx (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not how the University of Cambridge sees it, but I'm sure you know better. Mathsci (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge lumps the mathematics faculty in with the school of physical sciences. Mathematics is not a physical science. Thus: some minor mislabeling for convenience sake. The "Centre for Mathematical Sciences" is the name of a collection of office space, not any academic organizational structure. Apparently both Cambridge and I do know better than your stab at ontology. I will now disengage from this thread. Rvcx (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a philosophical discussion for another forum, but I'd draw clear distinctions between mathematics (deriving consequences from a known set of laws), science (deriving laws/models from observable data), and engineering (using partially known laws/models to create systems with a set of desired properties). The actual practice of any discipline usually requires a balance of all three, but it's fascinating how little many academic mathematicians seem to know about scientific notions of evidence, proof, and truth. I'll stand by my initial statement: mathematics is a tool employed by scientists, and the tool can't be mistaken for the job it's being used to perform. (And I say this as a mathematician, at least by formal qualification.) Rvcx (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics is not about deriving consequences from a known set of laws. Quantum field theory and general relativity, the two theories that try to explain the very small and the very large scale structure of the universe, are formulated wihtin and give rise to new forms of mathematics. String theory and conformal field theory are particular parts of these theories that mathematicians study a lot because of completely unforeseen predictions. That cannot be called "deriving consequences from a known set of laws." Structures in mathematics, particularly in number theory, mirror those of quantum field theory. That's part of the geometric Langlands program. By formal qualification do you mean Ph.D. or something higher? Mathsci (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty sketchy understanding of what constitutes pure mathematics (and "new forms of mathematics") for someone who claims to be a mathematician. I'm not going to be the next victim of your outing attempts, but I will admit that I've drawn funding from EPSRC on occasion. Rvcx (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Vertex algebras are new forms of mathematics, are they not? They will be part of the Part III graduate course I give in the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos next year, As for claiming to be a mathematician, I have spoken at an International Congress of Mathematicians and was tenured faculty at DPMMS, before my current permanent research position. Since ArbCom knows my real life identity, I'm not sure that this way of attacking me will be very helpful for you. Mathsci (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

How easily I forget that every conversation with Mathsci is about dick-measuring and personal attacks. Shame on me. Rvcx (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor this personal attack immediately or you are likely to blocked by a clerk. You simply cannot behave like this on an ArbCom page. Please refactor. Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) @Mathsci, you started this latest degeneration by insulting an editor, Abd, having nothing to do with these proceedings (your selling jamjars comment) just to deride your editorial opposition. You respond that you "didn't criticize" Abd? I'm still waiting for you to strike your insult and we can close this sorry thread. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What insults? Abd's business has been mentioned on the evidence page of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley and it talk page (my last ArbCom case)—I believe the experiment involves something like a jam jar—and is described by Abd here on wikiversity.Mathsci (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Was your comment meant as a compliment out of respect? Abd has nothing to do with anything here. Whether there's a real Mason jar out there somewhere or not is immaterial and its existence does not change the nature or intent of your comment. You engage in derisive commentary and then try to pass it off as mere factual observation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I've taught structured programming to undergraduate and graduate students at Cooper Union, one of the premier engineering schools in the U.S. I might have even been doing so while you and other editors at R&I were still being weaned. Big deal, more diversion having nothing to do with the topic at hand. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 wrote on this page, "I know more about science than you" There's also a similar statement in my evidence. I don't why he says this, because science is not very much involved in this case, at least the bits of the article I have edited. History is involved. I haven't said I'm a better mathematician or scientist than other wikipedians. Rvcx did cast doubts on me being a mathematician, so I gave him four or five facts about my career which would confirm that I have had the career of a pure mathematician. And I mentioned that ArbCom knew my real life identity Rvcx has already said on WP:ANI that I'm a poor editor because I don't use the preview button properly. I can't do very much about that. I am in fact 2 years older than Elonka. As you'll see from the modified message above, Abd's business was part of the evidence in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley and was discussed on the talk page. Abd was the previous person to make remarks like Ludwigs2. Rvcx was the next one. Mathsci (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So let's be clear, Mathsci - on the numerous occasions you've referred to me as a Fringe advocate or supporter of pseudoscience (or any of the other variations on that theme you've used), you intended those as compliments to my intellectual abilities? I had no idea you cared so much! --Ludwigs2 02:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci, alas, apparently not being weaned (though I'm still older), all the more reason you should consider dispensing with the puerile denunciations and your seeming fixation on who said what about whom. As I said, Abd and Abd's business have nothing to do with matters here, I really don't get why you keep implying it does, or seem to be indicating you brought it up for any reason other than to be derisive of your editorial opposition. Clearly you're not going to strike your comment and you're old enough to know what good manners are, your choice. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Response of Abd

Vecrumba, Mathsci's mention of me may be more on-point than he realized, because the history he cites shows a pattern of behavior that may be similar. However, I'm not judging that, it is up to ArbComm and the other editors to decide whether I will now say is relevant. Since I was mentioned here, repeatedly, with misleading analysis, I'm commenting. Because I am under a topic ban on Cold fusion, I will also self-revert, giving permission to anyone to restore it, partially or fully, suggesting they sign it additionally, certifying that it is relevant and useful, on their own responsibility, or place a reference to this edit here as a diff or elsewhere where it is relevant, possibly using the temporary section header I'm inserting for use in a permanent link, to make it easy to read.

I will also be relatively thorough, because I have no intention of engaging in further discussion of this here; I apologize for the length that then becomes necessary. If there are errors here, however, I'd appreciate notification by email, and comments may be made on my Talk page, but I may decide not to respond there because of the ban, it is unclear to me if I may respond on my Talk page to questions on the topic; I have interpreted the bans quite strictly of late.

Jam jars

Jamjars are not involved in my own work. The cell used is a less-expensive plastic cell from the same manufacturer as with the work being replicated. The experiment being "kitted" is close to the work reported in a peer-reviewed physics journal continuing peer-reviewed publication in other journals such as Naturwissenschaften, with findings confirming nuclear activity in experiments known to produce the excess heat that has been already well-established by other evidence (More than 153 peer-reviewed publications, not counting conference papers). My experiments will not be looking for excess heat, only for very low levels of neutron radiation; perhaps it was a mention that my set-up may be in my apartment kitchen that led to the "jam jars" epithet.

The fringe Hydrino theory

At the discussion cited by Mathsci, Hydrino theory was mentioned by him, when it was completely irrelevant to the point, which was the notability of a published book and its proposed use as reliable source. Mathsci was attempting to discredit Storms based on the fact that he neutrally mentions the theory as a proposal to explain cold fusion; these proposals have been covered in reliable news sources, as well as mentioned in some scientific publications. Hydrino theory is widely rejected, including by cold fusion researchers, and neither I nor Storms support this fringe theory, and I now know Storms well. Hydrino theory was mentioned in Cold fusion for a time.

(That material was removed by an admin later admonished by ArbComm for the edit under protection, but, since ArbComm or involved admins have effectively excluded from participation, including even the right to make Talk page suggestions, and without article abuse, at least three editors who know the topic of cold fusion well, the sourced information, in spite of being solidly established in multiple reliable sources, and accepted by consensus for a time, hasn't been restored.) Mathsci was attacking a book (and me for considering it reliable) for doing just what Misplaced Pages would and should do, cover a topic according to what is in reliable source, not according to the opinions of Misplaced Pages editors, including those self-declared as experts or qualified to judge the field, on either side.

Use of the "Fringe" label to exclude WP:RS

This is relevant here because it appears from this discussion that Mathsci may have been acting similarly elsewhere, using accusations of "fringe" to discredit sources and editors, which practice ArbComm soundly and properly rejected with RfAr/Fringe science. If a reliable source can be discredited based on coverage of a fringe theory, we have created a circular argument: "fringe" means, among other things, a paucity of support in reliable sources, and if a source can be rejected merely because it covers the topic, then the "fringe" claim is self-reinforcing and self-confirming, even if there are far more positive sources that would otherwise be considered reliable, based on publication conditions, than there are negative, which has been the case with Cold fusion for a long time. The same thing applies to an editor; if an editor who inserts material based on coverage by reliable source, attacking the editor as a "fringe POV-pusher" attempts to warp the natural balance based on coverage in reliable sources.

The "hydrino" situation is particularly pointed for this because the source in question does not support hydrino theory, and merely reports it. Mathsci did not have access to the book himself, apparently, but only to a review of it that, as dicta, rejected hydrino theory. The review established, itself, additional notability for Storms and, as well, for hydrino theory (respected scientists don't wast time writing about completely non-notable theories), but all this was lost on Mathsci, who appears to have had some anti-fringe agenda there, and he remembers this incident only as my questioning his scientific competence.

He is not familiar with the sources, at all. He is a mathematician, and only knows the math of quantum mechanics, which is known to be inadequate to accurately predict nuclear behavior in solids, but previously it seemed that the approximations would be good enough, and those approximations were applied to a presumed mechanism that, almost everyone agrees now, is not what's happening. I asked Mathsci to review a recent peer-reviewed publication that uses the much more mathematically difficult quantum field theory to predict fusion in a physical environment that might possibly exist in palladium deuteride, and he did not respond. That is a place where his expertise on math might have been relevant, and where I'm incompetent to judge. At this point, though, according to Storms, no present theory clearly satisfies all the conditions for a satisfactory explanation, so the field, as to what is established, is almost entirely experimental, not theoretical. Some kind of cluster fusion, though, seems likely, something that can't happen in a plasma.

On the Cold fusion talk page cited, Mathsci argued that we should wait to include material from reliable sources until there was more review, but, in fact, in actual article editing, I only was at all insistent on inserting material covered in multiple independent reliable sources, with preferential reliance on academically published or peer-reviewed journals and secondary sources, per the ArbComm Fringe science decision. There are many such sources, in fact, contrary to what Mathsci implied, but they were generally being excluded as "fringe," one at a time, without evidence. And we were looking at a definitely non-fringe review of Dr. Storms' review of the field already, which recommended the book. In addition, every peer-reviewed publication that is appearing now, and they are pouring in compared to previous years, (the flood began as an increased trickle in 2004, and became a flood in 2008) is being reviewed by experts. Naturwissenschaften has access to the most competent physicists and others, and, from what I hear from authors and editors who help submit these publications, (I may get to find out myself, because I was asked to help edit a paper on cold fusion that was requested by the journal), they are tough as nails.

The damage done by exclusion of allegedly "fringe" material and editors

The topic of Cold fusion is vast, with wide and deep coverage in reliable source, from ordinary reliable media sources for the history and sociology, to books by "believers" and "skeptics," some academically published and usable in some ways, to over 1000 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and an additional 2000 or so conference papers (which we can only use occasionally with caution.) Because of the activity of editors following arguments similar to Mathsci's, the article is drastically impoverished, compared to what is available in the best sources, enough to fill many articles on subtopics within the general field of low energy nuclear reactions. I never wanted it to be "promotional," nor, in fact, did the other banned editors around this topic. They wanted it to fairly treat the topic, according to policy and guidelines and ArbComm decisions, and, as happened with other editors involved with Climate Change (many of the same people on the exclusion side), they ran into opposition that sought blocks and bans for those with apparently opposing points of view, or anyone who assisted those people in an effort to make articles neutral per sources. In the absence of consensus otherwise, and even though I came to believe that Cold fusion was no longer fringe, based on plenty of evidence, I acted as if it were, to avoid unnecessary disruption. But I also expressed my opinion, as someone who had become very familiar with the literature and who knew all the mainstream objections and how they had been addressed over the years.

I have not, however, examined the subject dispute here, Race and Intelligence, and I am not a party to it, nor do I have a position. I am here commenting only on the possibly related behavior of Mathsci, as shown in the record he himself cited, it having been noticed and brought to my attention by an editor also not involved previously, and with no apparent opinion on cold fusion. It's a scandal. --Abd (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Possible improvement by limiting list of sources used in this article

I have a new idea for how to improve the process of editing this article. But, before suggesting it on the evidence page, I wanted to get a sense as to whether anyone but me thought it a good idea. Should we limit the sources used for this article to a select (less than 20) group of the most highly regarded articles and books? This idea is inspired by MathSci's repeated (and correct!) insistence that using excellent secondary sources is the best way to edit an article like this. I agree. But just because he and I (and others?) agree means nothing since any other editor can use whatever reliable sources she wants to. This leads to endless fighting over issues of source quality and WP:UNDUE. But, if we restricted the article to just 20 or so sources, all those problems go away. And, in fact, I bet that we could agree on such a list. (MathSci and I, at least, agree that sources like Mackintosh, Loehlin and others are excellent.) We could then revisit the list once a year or so. Thoughts? David.Kane (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to post a reply out of sequence, but I request that an Arbitration Committee clerk move this section to the workshop page, as this is not evidence. On my part, I disagree with the substance of the suggestion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On the face this is appealing; at the moment, however, I believe that while the best understanding of the topic requires reputable sources editors agree on (a list worth maintaining), it also requires including the better known "contentious" sources and positioning them appropriately in the larger narrative. "UNDUE" is not the product of the insertion of a source; it is the product of insertion of a source without appropriate contextual narrative. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a "list of approved sources" is already the problem: there seems to be an implicit list of secondary sources which are assumed to be reliable beyond any question, with anything not on that list dismissed as fringe. Sadly, that's not how reliable sources work: every source is written for a particular purpose and from a particular perspective, and each one varies in its reliability from topic to topic. This is in addition to the issue of undue weight raised by Vecrumba—the fact that something is a reliable source is not an excuse to give prominence to some minor detail appearing therein. Rvcx (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a consistent problem (across multiple articles). Primary sources are (of course) not to be preferred, but sometimes they are the best (or even the only) sources to adequately convey a particular aspect of a scholarly debate. The issue needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis; trying to impose a 'blanket' rule about sourcing is counter-productive, and sometimes flies in the face of NPOV. --Ludwigs2 18:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is quite impossible to avoid primary sources, as they (studies and those who conduct them) are the fount from which all interpretations flow. Secondary sources are required to document "feedback" from the scholarly community, if you will. Article narrative includes the original study/inferences/conclusions, reviews from reputable secondary sources, and the inevitable reviews by secondary sources (which may also be primary sources) of each other. Per comments already and below, it would be useful to have a list of sources which editors could generally agree to not dispute, but the issue, of course, is representation of said sources, which a mere list does not address.

   I also have to say I take exception to characterizations which have been put forward that there is a conspiracy on the part of some to create content at R&I which institutionalizes the genetic inferiority of blacks versus whites. Such contentions constitute a gross disservice to the R&I topic, and, indeed, completely misrepresent the topic and purpose of the article: conclusions of genetic inferiority, superiority, or equality are all equally inappropriate.

   P.S. It's not rocket science to figure out that (despite the best efforts of researchers) by its very nature there must be some cultural bias in determining what cognitive skills correlate to what one considers to be "intelligence." (That does not mean the article therefore has "systemic bias.") Genetics, environment, and what studies test—and do not test— and attempt to quantify as (presumably) correlating to the somewhat amorphous "intelligence" are all factors to be considered and discussed as part of R&I. It's our job (that we have volunteered to take on) to do so with objectivity and respect.

   P.P.S. I suppose I should add that if someone believes my assessment is flawed, I'd like to understand how and why. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about it, technically:

1. The study and data are the primary source
2. the interpretation is already a secondary source
3. other secondary sources may choose to interpret the primary source differently

So, we can't simply report A, B, and C scored X, Y, and Z without the scholarly interpretation(s) of said results. Conflicting analyses of the same set of data are common. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment There are many good secondary sources in this case by the world's top psychometricians; they cannot simply be dismissed by editors that don't particularly want to read them. That is merely an excuse for writing bad and biased articles using primary sources that no wikipedian can evaluate. Most of the secondary sources come to the conclusion I outlined. I did not invent that conclusion: I read the sources and then summarised what they said, That is the wiki way.

The book of Mackintosh has a section of 34 pages on ethnic groups and carefully gos through the arguments for the hereditarian case. In the case of adoptive mixed race studies of Eyforth, Tizard and Scarr-Weinberg (151-156), he concludes, "If it would be rash to argue that they refute the genetic hypothesis, it would surely be absurd to argue that, taken as a wholem they support it. If we recall the cautionary note sounded at the outset of this discussion—that is a racist society it will never be possible to bring up lack and white children in truly comparable environments, the results of these studoes are surely consistent with the possiility that if the environmental differences could be miraculously eliminated, the —two groups might well have approximately equivalent IQ scores." He then examines environmental causes of black-white differences. Observing that US test score for blacks in 1995 are comparble to those of whites in 1945, he writes, "Although we have no serious idea about which factors are responsible for these changes over time, there can be no doubt that they are environmental. By the same token, then, even if we cannot identify the environmental factors for differences in IQ between blacks and whites, there is no reason for asserting that the differences must be partly genetic." He then consider other ethnic groups and test bias. He discusses Jensen notions of Level I and Level II abilities, but points out that Jensen never claimed it to e a fully-fledged theory, just a simple empirical generalization from a simple set of obervations. He then writes that, "Although Jensen and others have sometimes argued that the validity of Spearman's hypothesis proves that black-white differences must be genetic in origin (an argument no doubt responsible for its rejection), this conclusion does not even remotely follow. Just because a test is a better measure of g, it does not follow that it is more heavily influenced by genetic factors. Many psychometricians, Jensen among them, have argued that Raven' Matrics provide one of the best measures of g. But scores on Raven's Matrices have probaly been increasing faster over the last 50 years than scores on any other IQ test, and we know that these gains are environmental in origin." In his conclusion Mackintosh notes that, "it is not a simple matter to decide whether an IQ test is biased. It requires the evaluation of alternative explanations and the balancing of probabilities, rather than confident, glib pronouncements." Of other cultures, such as Africa, he comments that, "Administering such tests to people of other cultures may well tell us whether they do or do not share the same values. But it will not necessarily tell us much about their 'intelligence'."

John C. Loehlin in "Group Differences in Intelligence" on pages 176-193 of Handbook of Intelligence (not used in the article, accept en passant) writes the following in conclusion (page 189). Like Mackintosh, he says that no inference about the genetic hypothesis can be drawn from the adoption studies because of "confounding of variables". He continues, "So we are left with the usual conclusion: More research is needed." He then suggest various directions.

James R. Flynn's latest writings on Race and IQ can be found in Where Have All the Liberals Gone? Race, Class and Ideals in America (Cambridge University Press 2008). I've briefly looked at this on the web and probably will pick up a copy tomorrow (I get a 20% reduction in Cambridge at the C.U.P. shop).

I think that primary sources should not be used in the article, except possibly in a final short and tentative "future directions" section and there only with great caution if at all. I looked at this interminable discussion on WP:RSN about using the results of a non-scientific blog to speculate about genes that contribute to intelligence . The article certainly cannot go that way; speculative, unevaluated research has no place in an encyclopedia like wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm dismayed by the direction of this discussion. Primary sources are discouraged because the relative importance, the veracity of the source, and the quality of the research is not something that can be determined from the source itself. Secondary sources, sources that are attributed to well qualified experts in the field, are where we should be always be looking for our material because wikipedia editors are not here to interpret or judge the works of others. If it is 'impossible to avoid primary sources' for any given topic, then perhaps we should not be covering that topic at all.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No way on the "restrict to 20 approved sources" idea. Folks, this is wikipedia. If editors can't edit these articles with the same policies and tools that apply to all the other articles throughout the wiki, without imposing "special criteria" on sources, claims, etc., they shouldn't be editing it at all. And the use of primary sources is narrowly limited at wikipedia. Since most of the few instances where I've seen them used in this dispute were clear misuses, offered as "backup" for or against some disputed interpretation of the study published in secondary sources, we should be extra wary of using them in these disputed articles. Representative experts and other published authorities interpret primary sources, and we say what they say. Unfortunately, some editors who have this mistaken notion that achieving WP:NPOV means wikipedia should "set the record straight" where experts irl have "got it all wrong" resort to primary sources in order to add weight to their own conclusions and claims and circumvent those of secondary sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) @RegentsPark, I think you misinterpret the intent behind my comments on primary sources. By that, I mean, being able to summarize a study including the author's interpretation, not for WP editors to interpret it in any way; the purpose is to provide that as an anchor for what secondary sources say about the study. Where discussion of quantitative results is concerned, you can't talk about interpretations of results without indicating what results are being discussed in the first place. In particular, I would emphasize that it is not the role of editors to use their personal judgement of what is "discredited" (a Wiki code word used to suppress "I don't like it" sources) and what is not. I trust this clarifies, I do believe we are on the "same page." (Also with reference to @Professor marginalia's comments.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been re-reading the article, and I do think the current article organization ("he said, she said" format which structurally gives the advantage to "the last word," also tending to polarize the presentation as if there is no middle ground) does not benefit presentation of the subject matter. The placement of lower scoring groups first in all discussions also repeatedly focuses the article on emphasizing what is perceived as a negative—after all, there have been no complaints that I've seen regarding hereditarians promoting the "Asian superiority hypotheses." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment on RFC by not-very-involved editor

I think it would really help to draw up a list of relevant secondary sources the article could draw on. (I always think it's a good idea to do that.) You could even go on from there to prioritise them using some more-or-less objective criteria, namely how recent, status of the academic publisher, how close to topic, comprehensive book-length treatment, how well reviewed. The last criterion I mentioned there could of course give rise to much argument because the book that one side loves is exactly the book that the other side hates. But the process should help the article move on. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already begun compiling such a list of sources. It can be found as a subpage to my user page, titled Intelligence Citations, and any Wikipedian is welcome to suggest additions to it. I haven't finished typing in all the sources I know partly because I have had very successful library visits on which I have gathered dozens of additional sources, and I have been busy in my off-Wiki life. But I still intend to keep adding sources to that citations list so that all Wikipedians who edit articles on intelligence can check the sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I can think of several additions that I’d like to suggest. Where would you recommend suggesting them? On this page, in your user talk, or somewhere else entirely? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The subpage on my user page includes a section I already put in to collect suggestions from other editors. I'll be on wikibreak while traveling to meet some of the people I share my professional research results with, but you or anyone reading this is welcome to post source suggestions on my user subpage meanwhile. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)