User:GodBlessYou2/sandbox2

Allan Chase
Allan Chase, The Legacy of Malthus, (New York: Alfred P. Knopf, 1977)

Legacy of Malthus cited as "highly respected work" by Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban in "Race and Racism: An Introduction" AltaMira Press, division of Rowman & Littlefield, Oxford UK 2006.

Allan Chase Papers, 1933-93 | University of Illinois Archives

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/4602442?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Review Reviewed Work: The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism by Allan Chase Review by: Eugenia Shanklin Human Ecology Vol. 6, No. 1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 115-117]

[www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/courses/361/MalthusianIdeology.html An excerpt from: Robbins, Richard H. (2002) Global problems and the culture of capitalism, 2nd edition. Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Pp 142-145. The Ideology of Malthusian Concerns]

’Malthus, Medicine and Science’ Robert M. Young. Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, 20 March 1998.

Recommended reading list of John F. Henry, Department of Economics, California State University.

Eugenics: The Impulse Never Dies Counterpunch, March 6, 2000.

"Allan Chase has written one of the most provocative books on the history of scientific racism."-- William Edwards, "Scientific Racism: Persistence and Change. Trotter Institute Review. Vol 3 (2) Sept 22, 1988.

Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought (Temple University Press, 1978), ©Temple University Press.

cited in Is Biology Destiny? by Phil Gasper, International Socialist Review Issue 38, November–December 2004

cited in [The Nebulous Hypothesis: A Study of the Philosophical and Historical Implications of Darwinian Theory] © 1996 by James M. Foard

cited in The Souls of Sociologists: Equality vs. Freedom in the 21st Century by Howard Winant, American Journal of Sociology, Vol 108. no. 4 (Jan. 2003).

Cited in DISABILITY, EUGENICS, AND THE CULTURE WARS, PAUL A. LOMBARDO, SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW & POLICY [Vol. 2:57 2008]

Kirkus Review

Good Reads reviews: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/356701.The_Legacy_of_Malthus

Other books: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=author%3A%22Allan+Chase%22#hl=en&tbm=bks&q=author+%22Allan+Chase%22

Books he wrote: Falange: The Axis Secret Army in the Americas, 1943 The Five Arrows, 1944 Shadow of a Hero, 1949 The Biological Imperatives: Health, Politics, and Human Survival, 1971 The Truth about STD: The Old Ones--Herpes and Other New Ones--The Primary Causes--The Available Cures, 1983.

Magic Shots, "Dare we Legalize Drugs: and "The Mark of Cain: Aids and the American Conditon" 1977-89

http://archives.library.illinois.edu/uasfa/1519120.pdf

Assume Good Content or at least Good Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Assume_good_faith

Essays of Interest
Civil POV pushing


 * Other relevant pages:
 * WP:Advocacy
 * WP:Be neutral in form
 * WP:Disruptive editing
 * WP:Don't be a fanatic
 * WP:Expert retention
 * WP:Gaming the system
 * WP:New admin school/Dealing with disputes
 * WP:No holy wars
 * WP:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you
 * WP:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
 * WP:POV Railroad
 * WP:Tendentious editing
 * WP:Town sheriff
 * WP:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat – Advice on coping with civil POV pushers
 * WP:WIKILAWYER


 * Related arbitration cases:
 * Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion (2008)
 * Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (2006)

Category:Wikipedia essays Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view NPOV Disputes

Build vs Tear Down
Demolition is easier, and faster, than construction. Similarly, criticizing an editor's contributions is easier than improving them. Easiest of all, is simply reverting a contribution. . . which often flies in the face of the guidelines which disfavors reversions."'Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.'"The general goal of Wikipedia is to create an ever more complete encyclopedia, one that covers anything and everything that may be of interest to a significant subgroup of people. One major exception is that articles should not be created for self-promotion of individuals or products. Beyond that limitation, the goal of expanding the breadth and detail of this encyclopedia suggests a bias toward including new material rather deleting new material."'Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse.'"A preference for including rather than deleting should guide editors as they work through content disputes. PRESERVE currently states: "''As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a finished article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies." ''This approach favors building to demolition.

In the counterbalance, WP:ONUS states that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." So building an article is not not only through addition, but also involves some deletions. At the same time, those arguing for exclusion, especially of new sources, should move slowly, following the recommendation of PRESERVE and Revert only when necessary, In doing so, they will show respect for an editor's attempt to add material and giving the wider community an opportunity to rework the contribution in a way that will make it an acceptable and valuable part of the article.

Nothing is more frustrating, and rightly so, than having a contribution of new material reverted within a day, or even a few minutes, by a single editor who imperiously claims with a royal "we": "We don't use unreliable sources in this article." This is especially aggravating when the source meets many and possibly all of the tests for being a reliable source. Shouldn't more than one editor weigh in before declaring a source unreliable?

But the goals of creating a truly great encyclopedia are not served by taking the easy route.

WP:Revert only when necessary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_revert_due_solely_to_%22no_consensus%22

This

UNDUE WEIGHT

Preference of Adding Rather than Subtracting Sources and Content
I'm interested in eventually seeing this guideline expanded to include a recommendation that showing respect for other editor's contributions suggests that considerable effort should be made to avoid completely deleting a contribution and especially the source, provided it is reliable and properly attributed to in the text.

I have ideas for general recommendations along these lines, but they should be developed in an essay with other interested editors. Rather than start one from scratch, I'm asking here to see if anyone is ware of is something already along these lines where I can contribute.


 * Attribution Problems: Often an editor, especially an inexperienced editor, will add a statement citing a verifiable source or even questionable source, that overstates what the source says, or perhaps fails to include an inline attribution such as "According to X" that is necessary to comply with the attribution necessary for opinions or the appropriate use of a questionable or self-published source WP:Aboutself.
 * Solution: If there is any way the provided source can be properly used, do not delete it. Instead, assist the editor who made the contribution by adding the appropriate inline attribution or other qualifiers.


 * Presenting Opinion as Fact: Inexperienced editor often overstate an opinion reflected in a source they cite, making an opinion appear as a statement of fact.
 * Solution: It is better to correct than delete these edits.  Often this is easily done by an inline attribution such as "According to X, such and such is true," that is necessary to comply with the attribution necessary for opinions or the appropriate use of a questionable or self-published source WP:Aboutself.


 * Is it a Reliable or Unreliable Source?:"


 * Does the contribution give Undue Weight to a minority view


 * I agree. I'd suggest creating a flow chart like this which gives suggests an approach to dealing with disputed sources while also showing respect for goodfaith edits.  In general, I think a lot of edit warring is caused by editors too quickly asserting a source is not reliable or that the contribution gives undue weight.  A fast revert raises hackles.


 * Some thoughts. Immediate reversion should take place if the source is clearly off topic.  If relevant, but perhaps from a biased source, second editor should add attribution clarifying source of opinion rather than fact.  If relevant, but arguably not reliable or undue weight, tag to invite first editor to start talk, or second editor starts talk, wait three days and delete if no support or defense offered.

WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Goals
Isn't tagging the contribution a better way to elicit discussion about your concerns about the use of the source, one which shows respect for the contributing editor while still raising appropriate concerns about the edit. (Indeed, would it not perhaps be good policy to require a tag for at least 24 hours before a complete deletion of both a statement and it's cited source?)

It is similarly disrespectful, and self-aggrandizing, to delete added material and sources with the declaration that the contribution gives Undue Weight to a viewpoint. Isn't this too, something that requires discussion and consensus building?

Regarding the problem of undue weight, one which different editors will have different opinions, the best way to address a new contribution citing new sources which give more weight to a view you think is being given undue weight is to simply add more material and sources regarding the perspective you feel deserves more weight. Adding, rather than deleting, in this context, serves multiple purposes. First, it gives readers more sources they can followup with for additional information. Second, it expands the breadth of the article. Third, if one viewpoint truly has more sources backing that viewpoint, it is easy to find those sources and cite them in the article. Fourth, if one viewpoint is being inappropriately limited with exaggerated claims of undue weight, the preference for keeping sources helps to prevent an article from being policed by editors of one POV who routinely seek to block inclusion of alternative POVs with self-serving claims of undue weight and unreliable sources.

The "Add rather than subtract" principle may thereby help to reduce the editorial conflicts which arise from protectionism, reducing the waste of editorial contributions by refocusing efforts on making contributions acceptable rather than arguing for ways to delete contributions which one side considers to be contributing to balance while the other side insists is contributing to imbalance.

Clarifying PRESERVE
WP:PRESERVE currently states: As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which doesn't mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research.

I note that WP:Verifiability says that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion... and that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Yet PRESERVE clearly implies the opposite... that verifiablity does guarantee inclusion, and that there is an onus on those who wish to remove the content to achieve consensus for the removal.

This sets up a potential for conflict. I am sure that there is a reasonable middle ground... a balance between the two policy provisions... we just need to find a way to express it. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. At root, I think a big part of the problem is essentially one of laziness. It's easier to tear down than to build up.  When a contributing editor provides new content and a new source that another editor dislikes for any reason, a revert claiming some provision of WP:V is easy to throw out there, reverting within a minute of reading a contribution.


 * Fixing a contribution using the steps recommended for WP:Preserve takes much more effort. So often, lazy or POV-inclined editors skip past Preserve and move immediately toward revert, justifying their revert on the grounds that the ONUS is on the contributing editor to convince the reverting editor why he or she should not be an obstacle to the edit. That's not a collaborative attitude, but it's an easy one.


 * Except in extreme cases, such as citations to the satirical the Onion, as an obvious example, I think the guidelines should emphasize that the the best first step approach is always to seek first to practice the steps recommended in WP:Preserve for correcting and salvaging a contribution. When Preserve methods are practiced, that will also show more respect for other editor's good faith efforts.  A secondary goal should be to at least salvage the reference to the new source, even if the sentence(s) describing the source material need to be completely reworked.


 * This bring us to the WP:V issue. What if a source should not be kept?


 * Here, in my experience, we run into editor's differences of opinion regarding the whether the new source is WP:NOTRELIABLE or the facts and views in the source give WP:UNDUE weight to a minority view.


 * Often reliability issues can be fixed by adding an inline attribution to the source identifying that such is the opinion of so and so. If that won't work, I think the second best option is to tag the source (rather than delete it) in order to invite additional editors' comments and/or the first editor's defense of verifiability.  This avoids the appearance (and often the reality, especially on pages relating to anything remotely controversial where there are one or more people who engage in [[WP:Owner] tendencies, that a very hasty deletion, within just hours of the original posting, is POV motivated. As anyone who edits long on WP knows, such hasty reverts feel like a lack of respect for good faith contributions.  While the onus on the contributor makes sense, I think it is good practice to tag before deleting and to give 24 to 48 hours for other editors to get involved and for the original editor to respond to concerns being raised.


 * In short, I suggest any modification in these guidelines encourage WP:Preserve as the first, and preferred option, followed by tagging of questioned sources then . . . after a bit of time, deletion per WP:V . . . if the onus is not met within that time frame. I think this approach is also in better keeping with WP:GOODFAITH –GodBlessYou2 (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)