Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Varoon Arya (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 30 May 2010 (→Orgelbüchlein: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII

Sigh

Its the (deserved) three month topic ban on Ayn Rand that persuaded me the route is a good one. No problem with you putting the comment in, deleting it straight away really plays into the hands of those who think you game the system. I've looked at weighing in a couple of times as I do think you are being ganged up on, but the present exchange is poisonous. --Snowded 10:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because I decided it best to remove it. I have replied by email. Mathsci (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Occam

Mathsci, I really hate to get involved in this sort of mess, but I'm going to politely ask that you retract your comment about Capt. O being involved in Holocaust denial. True, the blog posting which you cite as your source for your claims about Capt. O is not optimally worded, but to interpret from it that he is a denier is a little too much of a stretch. DS (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, first of all you have incorrectly described what I wrote. On WP users other than me have discussed the precise off-wiki post, which I made no link to (Occam gave the account himself). Secondly, according to an email Maunus sent me, he redacted my post at least twelve hour before you wrote your message. Were you aware of this? Mathsci (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup

Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Cambridge 7 taking place on 29 May. Hope to see you there. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream Science on Intelligence

Your last edit to Mainstream Science on Intelligence has the summary "User:Varoon Arya removed all criticism from previous versions of the article". This diff shows the changes I actually made. --Aryaman (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Before your edit, there was one section marked "controversy." You rewrote the article like a science review, as if it were some objective article, using just the primary source. It was initially a letter to the WSJ drafted by Linda Gotfredson and cosigned by 52 people whom Linda Gottfredson she knew. She subsequently got it published in the journal of which she and some of the other signatories are editors. Some editors who are notable and mainstream, like Flynn and Sternberg, or plenty of other experts like Jencks, were not cosignatories. I have no idea whether this "letter" was discussed in any reliable secondary source. I wouldn't be surprised if it hadn't, since it appears to be an opinion piece, a bit of lobbying. Mathsci (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think normally we'd look for secondary sources. For example I found this discussion quite quickly by Eleanor Armour-Thomas in the Handbook of racial and ethnic minority psychology, ed Guillermo Bernal. I'm sure there are lots of others. Mathsci (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for improving the article via the introduction material from reliable sources, and I encourage anyone to do so. Yet, you seem to either overlook or willingly ignore the fact that the "Controversy" section you refer to was nothing other than a collection of references to The Bell Curve - not to Mainstream Science on Intelligence. To my knowledge, there is no "controversy" surrounding the publication of Mainstream Science on Intelligence. If one were to write a statement on the role Mainstream Science on Intelligence played in the unfolding of the modern debate surrounding race and intelligence, I certainly would not object. But I don't appreciate the implication of your edit summary, i.e. that I have eliminated "all criticism" from the article in an attempt to whitewash the subject. I first proposed my changes on the talkpage, presenting my rationale, and then waited for a full week before undertaking the edits as per WP:BOLD. If I were still intent on editing the article, I'd request that you reply to the concerns I raised there so we could work out a mutually agreeable solution. As it stands, however, I'd bored to tears with the insinuations and generally fanatical atmosphere surrounding all of these articles, so you're free to do as you please. That goes for all of them. I do request, however, that you leave me out of your future involvement with them. --Aryaman (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't quite see the point in writing an article by summarising a letter/editorial without giving any context using secondary sources. At the moment I am locating secondary sources for History of the race and intelligence controversy where this will be added, without a detailed description, in connection with the other books and articles written in response to the "Bell Curve". Mathsci (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding material from secondary sources is, of course, to be encouraged. I do not consider the article "finished" in any way. At the same time, I don't feel obligated to attempt "completion" with every article I edit. Though I generally make it a point to add more material than I remove, and to make sure that the material I introduce is properly sourced, removing substandard material is as far as my involvement with this particular article went. Criticism regarding the lack of secondary sources in the article, while justified, should be directed towards the article, not towards individual editors. Provided you refrain from making those kinds of remarks in your edits, we should be able to prevent our paths from crossing in the future. --Aryaman (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions...

Re Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Comment_by_uninvolved_Mathsci: No, I've never been sanctioned in any way, serious or not. I don't remember even a WP:TROUT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, that's what I thought :) Mathsci (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Tags

Hi Mathsci. You should either explain your tags or allow them to be removed from Mainstream Science on Intelligence. It is not fair to generally tag an article without an explanation. There is no hurry, you can remove the tags yourself and then add them back when you are ready to explain them. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

R & I and History section

I would like to keep the History subsection of Race and Intelligence "in sync" with the History of Race and Intelligence article by having the former be identical to the lead of the latter. Would that be OK with you? David.Kane (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No and you'll see why in a minute. Mathsci (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Hello, Mathsci. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The section is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mathsci, and I hope your review of the commentary might lead to some equitable resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My revert

After I reverted your edit, upon closer examination I noticed that you’d modified the text from what it was before more than I’d initially realized. I was intending to self-revert and leave it for others to decide whether or not your new wording was acceptable, but you reverted my edit so fast that I didn’t have the chance.

You ought to be more careful about reverting. In this case it was completely unnecessary, since I would have self-reverted if you’d waited more than five minutes before reverting it yourself. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's probably true. On the other hand, you (Captain Occam) might want to be more careful about reverting as well. You apparently reverted Mathsci's edit before actually examining its content, and now you're criticizing him for being too quick on the trigger. You waited exactly 5 minutes before reverting Mathsci's edit, which apparently was not enough time for you to actually examine its content. I would suggest that people are unlikely to take your advice seriously if you yourself are unwilling to heed it. MastCell  23:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I’ve admitted that my revert was a mistake, and that I would have self-reverted if given the chance. All I would like is for Mathsci to admit to his own mistake the same way that I’ve admitted to mine.

I’m not sure if any explanation beyond this is necessary, but the reason this happened is because I was so used to Mathsci repeatedly re-adding the same material to this article that when I examined his new edits, I misread some of what he’d added as being the same as it was before. I was tired, and distracted, and was so used to the same pattern of behavior from him on this article that I didn’t realize it was something different until after I’d clicked the “save” button. That’s when I tried to self-revert, but found that Mathsci had reverted it already.

Even though I admit that I made a mistake here, Mathsci’s combative style is not making this situation any easier. It’s also evident from the current WQA thread about him that I’m not the only person who feels this way at the moment. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hi, I sent you two emails - one was very short and appears to have gone through but the second one bounced.

The first one was short and after I sent it, I thought of a better way to explain what I meant, so I wrote a longer one. It was, in part, toning down what may have sounded blunt in the first one. Let me know if you got either of them, and if not, please email me again with an alternate address? Thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Will do. (This makes up for missing the Cambridge wiki meetup today!) Mathsci (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Orgelbüchlein

Mathsci, I am trying to help you improve the Orgelbüchlein article. You've reverted my corrections and cited 5 editions as support. I'm sure you're using the best books you can find and all, but I'm afraid it makes no difference in this case: those titles are simply misspelled - some of them horrendously so. ("Wir galuben all in einem Gott"? 4 errors in that one alone.) I assumed you had made a simple error in transcription. Apparently that is not the case. WP:RS hin oder her, you're using sub-standard sources. Perhaps you're unable to WP:AGF with me. That's fine. Would you listen to the advice of an uninvolved German-language editor on this matter? --Aryaman (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's explained on WP:ANI. Breitkopf and Hartel used your spelling in the nineteenth (this is in the Dover edition), but 20th century editions prepared from the autograph manucript only have a few of these apostrophes. So for example the updated 1968 Breitkopf and Hartel edition uses the format I have adopted, as do Editio Musica, and also the definitive books by Peter Williams Cambridge University Press and Russell Stinson Oxford University Press. Russell Stinson ectually examined the mansucript scientifically to date the order of composition. I suppose that it is safe to say that the Breitfopf and Hartel edition, Nr. 6587, edited in Germany by Heinz Lohmann is fine. The two books by Williams and Stinson adhere to those conventions. Mathsci (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I can understand the lack of apostrophes in later editions. There are issues related to archaisms here, but spellings such as *"güttlcih" for "göttlich", *"Goot" for "Gott", *"galuben" for "glauben", *"Auf" for "Aus", *"is" for "ist", *"kommich" for "komm' ich", or "asl" for "als" are wrong, regardless of which century you're writing in - as are grammatical errors such as "Erbarme sich" (instead of "dich"), "zu Jordan" (instead of "zum Jordan"), "in einem Gott" (instead of "an einen Gott"), etc. Are you telling me that modern experts are pedantically reproducing Bach's handwritten orthographic errors in their editions instead of correcting them as any sane person would do? Anyway, as I said, I'd be more than happy to request that another German-speaking editor advise on this matter. --Aryaman (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No I haven't proofread everything yet because it's a pain transferring 164 entries and I realize that I've mistyped bits as I do in English occasionally - the table is quite small in the original. I know Noten should be Nöten and the other things are fairly obviously wrong. So I don't mind if you correct obvious typing errors or misreadings. But can you leave the apostrophes for the moment. It's possible I'll get the 2007 book of Sven Hiemke who edited the facsimile of the autograph score for Bärenreiter. If you would like to complete the list of titles and page numbers yourself, please feel free to do so. I find it rather boring since there are only about 3 BWV numbers left in the list. I'm sure you know what's needed in the rest of the article also, if you're interested in Bach organ music. Mathsci (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The article before I started editing it has a list of titles which don't use apostrophes on BWV 639, for exmaple, so I would take that as the norm. Mathsci (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The apostrophe thing seems to be a longstanding wikipedia convention as shown by List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function. You're welcome to mae a request on Wikiproject Music for clarification. I think I probably am capable of doing the proofreading of German titles myself, come to think of it. But thanks for spotting the typos. Mathsci (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I grew up listening to and/or performing many of these compositions, but I'm not really "into" Bach. My primary interest here is in the 18th century German. You can finish transcribing and either do a thorough job of proofreading or drop me a note and I'll correct them for you. If there are, indeed, differences in the conventions used in your sources, I would strongly recommend that you use the edition(s) with the apostrophes throughout - if possible, find a German-language source, which should be reliable in this respect. (Several can be found here, at least for the completed chorales. The first PDF listed is the Bach-Gesellschaft edition nach dem Autograph, thus of obvious value here.) It shouldn't be necessary to request "clarification" regarding the apostrophes - non-German speakers - and even some lazy German copyists - tend to neglect them, but they are quite necessary if the titles are to be correct. (Imagine the uproar if the French Misplaced Pages quoted Shakespeare as having written "Oer courtiers knees, that dream on courtsies straight". Ugh.)

I would also request that you voluntarily remove your accusations on AN/I regarding me "hounding" you when I'm obviously doing you a service, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. --Aryaman (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)