Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maunus (talk | contribs) at 22:24, 16 July 2013 (→Your New Lead: this is incorrect and the APA report is now 17 years old.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Anti-Muslim violence in India

Can you, should you have time look here and add a few extra bits for balance? Two of the sources he mentioned on my talk page I will need to get from a library, and I cannot get to that for about a week. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Is that Varshney and Brass sources?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

On the DYK he pointed to Brass, on my talk page he recommended these, Making India Hindu (essays by different authors). "The Geography of Hindu Right-Wing Violence in India" (in Violent Geographies) – contains some discussion of relationship to anti-Muslim violence globally. "History, emotions and hetero-referential representations in inter-group conflict: the example of Hindu-Muslim relations in India". Darkness Shines (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Toral Varia is not with the BBC? She is Senior Special Correspondent at Outlook Magazine & Senior Associate Editor at Rediff.com currently. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

But she was when she wrote it.

Order of the Bull's Blood

I need help with the citations I added.Hierophant443 (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't recreate articles that have been determined to be non-notable without substantial new sources. The sources you have added from the Daily Princetonian and the Rutger's Centurion and Youtube are not sufficient to establish notability. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So you're going to ignore the New York Times, New York Observer, The Week, and U.S. News & World Report?Hierophant443 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, unless they write something substantial about the order instead of just mentioning it in passing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

La Ciudad Blanca

Thanks for your interest and your comments regarding the article on La Ciudad Blanca. It seems clear to me that this is the case of a fantasy that has garnered some level of interest (as have so many other "mysterious" topics featured on The History Channel and the like) as well as having become the object of obsession by would-be discoverers of a "lost" El Dorado. I am a big fan of Misplaced Pages, but it's clear that it can be abused as a tool for making mountains out of molehills for fun and profit. Unfortunately, in this case, amateur seekers of fame and fortune enchanted by romantic fantasies of finding gold in an imagined "White City" (that may be little more than a misperception by a famous aviator) seem likely to do actual harm to the archaeological record. Public education is required. Hoopes (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I for one consider wikipedia editorship a part of my public service responsibilities as a scholar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

About our discussion

I wouldn't be present tomorrow, but i will be back probably sunday, sure in monday. Czixhc (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know. I don't have time self at present to do substantial workon the article, but I'll keep an eye on your progres.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I do agree that the Race and Intelligence article did need a lot of changes and many of the changes you made were positive but I still have a few concerns on some of your edits. Our differences might be due to our assessment of the scientific fields as was noted by Atethnekos. In my overview of published scientific papers, I see it as much more disputed regarding the varying positions and you appear to believe there's a clear solid majority. In regards to the anthropology fields, you would be right but I don't believe the psychology and biology fields have joined the anthropology fields on the same level to the same extent and there is more dispute in these fields. Some positions that may be well accepted in anthropology, appear to still be heavily disputed in the fields of psychology and biology. I do think our discussions were very helpful though. I already spent way more time on this today than I was planning to so I think I'm done for the night. I'll go through scientific journals tomorrow and come up with some reliable secondary sources that would be important and relevant. BlackHades (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

R&I doesn't exist as a field of research in Anthropology, or in Biology, the consensus I am describing is that of the discipline of Psychology. Perhaps in the subfield of intelligence testing, there is a more even division between hereditarians and environmentalists, but I think you will find that this is also changing. If you disagree you should show me some recent psychology textbooks or handbooks where the hereditarian view is favorably represented. Don't go by stand alone research articles, but by reviews that show how those articles are received. And try to avoid the obvious pioneer folks, as none of them are really well regarded within their field. The ISIR, which Hunt describes as "the conservative wing of intelligence research" where Gottfredsson is now President, is also a minority group within the discipline and seems likely to be taking up the mantle from the pioneer fund that appears to be defunct with Rushton's death.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are talking about the field of psychology then there is absolutely not a consensus. Not even close. There are 3 different camps in the field of psychology. Those that believe average racial IQ gaps are caused by both genetics and environment, those that believe that it's all environment, and those that believe there is not enough evidence at this point to draw any conclusions. There is definitely not a consensus for any one of these 3 positions. It can even be argued that all 3 could be the minority and there is no majority view as all 3 could fall under the 50% threshold. The all environment view you're pushing for was the smallest minority of these 3 groups twenty years ago, and likely still the smallest of the 3 groups today. If you're going to make the extraordinary claim that it is the majority view, you should be able to provide concrete sources that explicitly states so which you haven't done. For example, it's not hard to find a source that states evolution is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific fields, or that global warming is accepted by scientific consensus, etc. If you want to claim the all environmental position is the majority viewpoint, you should be able to provide a source that explicitly states so. I doubt such evidence even exists as countless editors have requested such evidence from other editors that make this claim and they never get anything back in return.

I already provided countless secondary sources that state the genetic/environmental position is the majority position. You don't want to accept any of them? Okay fine. But you should then be able to come up with secondary sources that explicitly state that the all environmental position is the majority position exactly like I've been able to. If you cannot, then this assertion of yours is just nothing more than personal view and holds absolutely no weight as far as wikipedia.

The "avoid pioneer folks" is an absurd request and similar to the constant demands of some editors on another article I'm active in. The anti-GM activists on the genetically modified food controversies article that constantly demand the "there is broad consensus that GM food pose no greater risk than conventional food" text be taken down because GM food studies are funded by GM corporations and that any study funded by GM corporations should be taken down despite the fact they're published in highly mainstream journals. Or the argument made by climate change deniers that state that positions stated by climate scientists should be discarded because they simply want more funding. Such points are absolutely irrelevant to wikipedia. As I've previously stated, as editors, we are not to question or discuss why WP:reliable sources say what they say. This is strictly forbidden by wikipedia policies. We are to report what WP:reliable sources say, that's it. Not why or how it got there. If a position shows up repeatedly in WP:reliable sources, it must be given due weight. BlackHades (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream sources say otherwise. You haven't provided a single one yet, whereas my textbook sources and review articles clearly show that you are wrong. Even within the field of intelligence testing there seems to be a consensus that environmental influences are well established and the genetic influence at this point is purely hypothetical. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing something else entirely from what I'm requesting. I'm not requesting a source that states there are some established environmental influences. I'm requesting a source that states the all environmental position is the majority view. BlackHades (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason I advice you to avoid Pioneer folks like Lynn and Rushton is because they are considered extremists and pseudoscientists by many and are clearly not well respected within the field (some like Bouchard and Lykken are a much more accepted, and Jensen certainly is respected as a person and scientist though I don't see many people agreeing with his conclusions, Gottfredsson is a bit more difficult to assess). You also seem to be conflating two arguments: one is the cause of individual differences in IQ the other is the racial gap. Everyone knows that individual differences are hritable and that individual IQ i probably 50/50 genetic environmental. But the racial gap is an entirely different thing. Even Hunt says that he believes the gap is accounted for by environmental factors only. And all mainstream sources agree that there is no empirical evidence in favor of a genetic influence on the gap, whereas there is plenty of evidence for different kinds of environmental influence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa! Wait. You think Hunt supports the all environmental position?? Please tell me what you think Hunt is saying here:

"Rushton and Jensen and Lynn are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. Nisbett's extreme statement has virtually no chance of being true”--Hunt, E. (2011). Human intelligence. pg 434 New York: Cambridge University Press

BlackHades (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that does seem like I was wrong there, I remembered reading him saying that in an interview, but I can't find it now. In anycase, I suggest you find a review article or textbook or similar high quality tertiary source that agrees with Hunt there.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Human Intelligence" is already a high level textbook. You seem to have the misconception that the all environment position has more support than it actually does. Nisbett is an extreme source. Many reliable secondary sources make this clear. You should remember that many well known environmentalists, like Wicherts and Flynn, still leave at least a small window open for possible genetic contributions regarding racial IQ gaps. Nisbett does not at all. This is what makes him different and extreme. BlackHades (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I will take your statements serious as soon as you begin to provide sources in support of them which usually you don't bother to do. Show me those many reliable secondary sources that see Nisbett as extreme. As far as I can tell he is as mainstream as they come. Of course the mainstream "leaves open a possibility" - so does Nisbett when he is not writing popular books but scholarly articles. Simply believing that the entire gap can be explained by environment is not extreme. It would be extreme if he said that it was impossible for there to be a genetic component. I don't think I've seen Nisbett say that. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I already have. I don't know why you still continue to ignore them. I provided Hunt here and I provided more in talk with the link I sent you previously that had several sources highly critical of Nisbett. I could of course find more but when you've shown you'll disregard any source that attacks a position you favor, is there a point? Should I be spending more time digging up more reliable secondary sources knowing that you'll automatically disregard them anyways? BlackHades (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No you haven't. Please show the many secondary sources that call Nisbett extreme. When did you send me sources?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Saying that a statement is extreme is not the same as calling the person extreme or outside of the Mainstream.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the material here is in the right order.

I have been quite careful, what looks wrong? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that the material could be organized more logically, by first mentioning in the first paragraph the most influential and relevant inquiries and show the weight of the findings, also the ones that contradict the mainstream. And then go on to summarize them chronologically? It seems a little random to start head first with the HRW and State Departments, before even describing the chronology of inquiries and how they have differed or agreed. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to rearrange that lot. I am currently langers thanks to the d of the NHM and as usual the guys from the IWM came along to tell us how much we suck Really gotta love those guys, thought me a lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

VE

See Category:Wikipedians_who_have_turned_off_VisualEditor. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your New Lead

I hope you don't mind the small change I made to your new lead. Those two sentences just seemed far too similar. BlackHades (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they are similar at all, they are making to completely different statements. Its difficult not to see that edit as working to strengthen your POV by denying that there is a general consensus in favor of environmentalism. But I am not going to revert it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to misinterpret my intent. It has nothing to do with my POV. For example, in the genetically modified food controversies, I've been in strong support there for keeping the line:

"There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food."

Even though several editors have on numerous occasions tried to remove this line, I strongly supported keeping this statement because this is what WP:reliable sources consistently state. Even still, I went ahead and removed this line as redundant. So I hope you understand it's not about POV but what appears to be similar and redundant text. BlackHades (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The intent is actually irrelevant. What is irrelevant is the effect on the article. And it has the effect of downplaying the quite strong consensus that the environmentalist view has better empirical support than the hereditarian views.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The majority support some environmental factor. This is absolutely correct. But all this seems to already be there in that 1st sentence. When it states "several environmental factors have been shown to affect group differences in intelligence", with this statement, it's already a given that a majority accept environmental explanations. I do find the 1st sentence itself a little bit misleading however. While there is no question environmental factors do contribute toward the gap and the majority do accept this, however, as the APA stated, accounting for test bias, socioeconomic status, culture, etc does very little to close the gap and there's little direct empirical support overall for environmental explanations. This should be made more clear. It might be better to replace these lines with the APA text that there is little direct empirical support for environment explanations and no direct empirical support for genetic explanations. Most evidence either for environmental or genetic right now are indirect. BlackHades (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This is wrong, there is abundant empirical support for different environmental influences. This has of course been published in the decade and a half since the 1996 APA report. Before the Bell Curve the pioneer fund grantees were almost alone in conducting this kind of empirical research, but since the Bell curve debates more mainstream researchers have contributed to the field with empirical studies of environmental factors that were never considered for study by the pioneer folks. Since then there has not been similar empirical advances for genetic arguments, which continues only to have circumstantial support.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)