User talk:Blakegartner

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. NJGW (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. NJGW (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I cited a book and I also cited an online pdf. Granted Pdf isn't much, but what's wrong with the book? I only put down the pdf in case people can't get access to the book.

This is not "original research", nor "novel, unpublished syntheses". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.178.252 (talk • contribs)


 * Many of the claims at race and intelligence had no cites. Stating that anything from before 1980 proved a book from 1981 wrong is your own interpretation.  Also, you should put 4 tildes ( ~ ) after your posts to auto-generate a signature.  NJGW (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The book is NOT from 1980, it was published in 2005. I am looking at it right now. If you'd like, I can scan you the pages of the book so that you can see for yourself. In fact, if you look at the Pdf written by the same person who published the book, you will see the same information. I am sorry, but you are just suppressing information to promote a myth.


 * There was no uncited information. Everything came from the same page in the same book. 24.185.178.252 (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was very unclear that you were citing The Affirmative Action Hoax. The way you formed your edit it looked like you were citing the original Goddard papers.  Mismeasure of Man is from 1981.  NJGW (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's another Wikipedia page which wrote the same thing as I did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Goddard

''Goddard established an intelligence testing program on Ellis Island in 1913. This program has been misreported as rejecting an estimated 80% of immigrants as "feeble-minded", including 83% of Jews, 80% of Hungarians, 79% of Italians, and 87% of the Russians, and resulting in an exponential increase in deportations. However, what actually happened was that Goddard wanted to find out if his classification system for mental defectives was as accurate among immigrants as it was among native-born Americans. He therefore tested a pre-selected group of 35 Jewish, 22 Hungarian, 50 Italian, and 45 Russian immigrants who had been identified as falling between “feebleminded” and “obviously normal” in intelligence. Goddard found that his tests successfully categorized 83% of this pre-selected group of Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 80% of the Russians. Goddard never claimed that 80% of all Jewish immigrants, or other immigrant groups, were “feebleminded.”''

Please understand that you cannot be consistent by allowing both versions to appear in your encyclopedia. Either one is correct or the other. At the very least, you should allow both versions to appear so that people could  be aware of the controversy.


 * First, it's our encyclopedia, and second, you should know that pointing to another article proves nothing except that the other article also exists. I'll have a look at that one and see if anything needs to be fixed.  NJGW (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, no doubt that one must be wrong! If you don't want something to be right, then it must be wrong. Emotions trump everything else!


 * Oh and hey, how come you chose not to respond to my point that I cited a book from 2005? What, when you have nothing to say, you just ignore it and pretend it never happened? Blakegartner (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the Goddard article uses almost no citations, and when it is cited it uses things like IMDB. It needs help, so no point in suggesting we need to reference that article.  As for the book, I responded briefly to that above.  You claim that Gould has broadly been disproved by pointing to one book, but is that book peer reviewed?  Can you point me to any respected book reviews on it?  NJGW (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Farron
I can find only one article by Farron on google scholar, and it looks like an opinion piece in the Journal of Libertarian Studies... is he published besides this? NJGW (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Vergil's Aeneid: A Poem of Grief and Love" is his other book.


 * Here's something else he published that I just found:


 * He's not a native speaker of English, but rather Dutch, so it's unlikely that you will find too much in English from him. But you do have two books. His book says that he has been published on "the Holocaust and related horrors, including Armenian genocide, the murder of the kulaks in the Soviet Union and the persecution of Chinese in Southeast Asia and Indians in East Africa."


 * The man was a tenured professor of Classics for many years until 2000 when he retired. He has a BA and PhD from Columbia University.


 * His book has been cited online in hundreds of forums, yet I haven't found any that disputed its accuracy. Blakegartner (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please put your signatures at the end of your post, not the beginning? I keep fixing it for you.  Also, don't forget the treading.  You can look at the edit immediately before this one to see some other fixes I made (like putting urls in brackets).dif  I'll put some links on this page after this edit so you can find some other helpful pointers as a new editor.


 * If you're going to claim that a widely critically acclaimed book has been disproven by someone, you're going to have a very hard time using an unacclaimed source. This is mostly due to the undue weight you are applying to the source, which becomes your opinion.  We can't really discuss forums, even hundreds of them, as they are not reliable sources.  All this things I just now linked to are very important, and it is crucial you understand them if you are going to edit controversial topics.  NJGW (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If Farron's book was wrong, one would think that someone, anyone would say so in all the reviews? Compare that to the general rejection by scientists of Mismeasure of Man as unreliable. M of M was embraced by the popular media because it made claims it wanted to hear, but few scientists had anything but utter disgust when reviewing it. Yet, you cite it as a source. All the other "sources" are actually citing M of M as the original source where they got the information.

I am not sure if a book can even be peer reviewed. It's a book, not a journal article.

Considering the kind of stuff that I see on 99.9999% of the articles, your requirements here clearly smack of bias. If the same requirement applied to all other information, Wikipedia would be reduced to about 5 pages, if that many.

Here's one review of his book, the longest one I could find. It is on a minority-oriented web site, so the people there should be particularly eager to find any flaws in an anti-Affirmative Action book: http://www.minorityjobs.net/article/662/Review-of-The-Affirmative-Action-Hoax-Diversity-the-Importance-of-Character-and-Other-Lies-by-Steven-Farron-2005-Review-of-The-Affirmative-Action-Hoax-Diversity-the-Importance-of-Character-and-Other-Lies.html

Here're reader reviews on Amazon.com, which all give him the maximum score: http://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Hoax-Diversity-Importance/dp/1931643628/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Amazon also cites his working as a Professor for 26 years and having a PhD from Columbia. Blakegartner (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you really still think your sig goes at the start of your posts? You keep putting it there as if you do.  When you write an email or letter, or anything in other forums, you put your name at the end right?  Otherwise it looks like you're talking to yourself.


 * Most of the people listed at MofM article as being critical of Gould were criticized directly or indirectly by the book, so no surprise there. In fact, it seems a bit odd that it would take 28 years for anyone to write something that "disproved" Gould, and then that it would have to be a retired classics professor rather than a psychologist.  Don't you find that even a little suspect?  The fact that the book has not received any major press should be a red flag for you.  If you see this type of issue at other articles, you should fix it immediately.  Most of the articles I have on my watch list only use journal articles or high quality news articles as sources.  Race and intelligence is a big mess though.  NJGW (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know how hard it is to publish a book attacking affirmative action? If one topic will ruin your career, that's it. And until the 1990s, the publishing industry was heavily dominated by leftist ideologues.


 * The same was true for book reviews. Unless you make it big, you will not get a review for an anti-affirmative action book.


 * But more to the point, Hans Eysenck wrote in "Intelligence: A New Look" that many scientists did not feel the need to answer M of M because it was so grotesquely wrong and unscientific that they felt it to be below them intellectually.


 * But nothing matters. You will not publish information that you dislike, come hell or holy fire.


 * You are playing games here. If a book was published a long time ago, it's bad. If it was just published, also bad.


 * I offered you a compromise where I (or we together) can come up with a text saying that Gould said X and Farron said Y. This would at least give people the knowledge that a debate exists.


 * But no, you keep creating obstacles until you find something that sticks. Farron has to have published other books, they must be reviewed, they must be reviewed by someone you like, etc.


 * And now the kicker: if a professor is retired, I guess all his education and job experience doesn't count. His IQ must've collapsed the day he stopped teaching!


 * Who are you kidding here? You are just abusing your privileges as a moderator by preventing the general public from seeing things you don't want them to see.


 * With people like you standing at the gate, you still wonder why people are afraid to write books against affirmative action and then have a hard time publishing them? Blakegartner (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's not even a bad review for the book, as if the press doesn't even know that it exists. Your claim is that the book is important enough to discuss, but you haven't been able to back up that assertion with a neutral outside source.  To put it at the same level of a book that has actually won awards, including one from AERA, and tons of reviews from many different wp:RS sources is a bit of a stretch.


 * From the rest of the comments you make above, it's obvious you haven't been groking a thing I've said. I haven't changed my position at all, only tried to correct your misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy.  Nothing I've said didn't stick, and it's too bad you don't feel yourself trying to twist the rules to fit your edit.  Let me save you a lot of angst:  Read the policies at wp:5p, then read them again.  If you still don't understand what you're doing wrong, consider the possibility that Wikipedia isn't for you.  There are many ways to contribute to the internet, such as all the other forums you mentioned before.  NJGW (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There can't be a negative review or a positive one. Unless you make it big, gate-keepers like yourself will prevent the information from being seen. The book is not some illegitimate source. It is written by a professor with a Columbia PhD and a history of writing/publishing other books/articles. Blakegartner (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia only uses as sources those who have "made it big". See wp:N.  NJGW (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's look at Wikipedia requirements:


 * "articles must strive for verifiable accuracy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:5p)


 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability)


 * "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources) .... one would think that a professor would have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy!


 * "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used."


 * Peer-reviewed journals are "most reliable", but not exclusive as sources.


 * "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking."


 * How would one manage to become and remain a professor for 26 years if he has a poor reputation for fact-checking? I guess it's possible, but unless we have allegations regarding such, we should presume otherwise.


 * "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:5p) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakegartner (talk • contribs) 08:28, 7 April 2009


 * I'm sure he's very good at writing about classics (or at least getting published, though we've only seen 2 or 3 pieces published by him). If there's no indication that this book is notable, then there's no indication that it should be mentioned at wikipedia.  This is not the forum to get non-notable information into the public eye.  NJGW (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is NOT a matter of being being a good writer. The requirement here is that he must have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and does not have "a poor reputation for fact-checking". Unless you are aware of reasonable allegations of his cheating or otherwise engaging in some improper conduct, you have to give the benefit of a doubt to a professor who has a clean record. You did NOT seem to be concerned with Stephen Jay Gould's lack of training as a psychologist. When Hans Eysenck wrote that Gould's M of M "is a palaeontologist's distorted view of what pscyhologists think, untutored in even the most elementary facts of the science", you dismissed it with a lame come back that Gould previously attacked Eysenck, as if that automatically makes Gould right and Eysenk wrong. For the record, Eysenk published more than 70 books and was the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals. (Haggbloom, S.J. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6, 139–152.) But you just disposed of Eysenck's criticism as illegitimate and irrelevant, while Gould is beyond any critique, even on factual issues.


 * Fact is that Wikipedia rules say that "perfection is not required". You did not make it a requirement in any other articles for any cited author to have a Ph.D. in that particular subject.


 * If it is not legitimate to cite a Professor of Classics, it is just as illegitimate to cite a Professor of Palaeontology.


 * Like I said, you keep changing the rules and increasing requirements. There's no reason to suspect that Prof. Farron is lying or doesn't know how to fact-check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakegartner (talk • contribs) 23:09, 7 April 2009


 * Hans Eysenck is as controversial as they come, so I'm not really worried about anything he has to say on the subject. Gould has received awards for the book from AERA etc.  A source from a non-notable source is not something we can note on wikipedia.  I can keep repeating myself, but that's pointless.  I've asked for a 3rd opinion to help you understand.  NJGW (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the reply. So consider yourself warned that you can only use notable sources.  NJGW (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it! According to you, WP can only allow politically correct people that you agree with! Even if you are the #1 most cited psychologist in the world, your opinion must be disregarded as "controversial" because it's not PC.


 * Eysenck had to flee from Nazi Germany for his views. His grandmother was executed. No doubt he should now face censorship in the country formerly known as the land of the free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakegartner (talk • contribs) 01:13, 8 April 2009

I just re-read our conversation. So let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that I am not allowed to cite the original publications where Goddard published his studies? So if I were to find them somewhere like the Library of Congress or on Google Scholars/Books or elsewhere, that would not be proper? Nor can I use something that was published a few years after M of M came out? By the time M of M came out, Goddard's studies were nearly 70 years old and there was no Google Books/Scholar. Is it really that surprising that it would take some time for people to find the information? Are you suggesting that only non-controversial Psychology Ph.D.'s publishing in 1981 or within a very brief period thereafter can be cited, and otherwise M of M must be unchallenged, treated as holier than the Bible during the Inquisition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakegartner (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 April 2009

Neutral third opinion
Blakegartner, NJGW made the requirements for references and Wikipedia policy very clear multiple times:
 * "If you're going to claim that a widely critically acclaimed book has been disproven by someone, you're going to have a very hard time using an unacclaimed source. This is mostly due to the undue weight you are applying to the source, which becomes your opinion. We can't really discuss forums, even hundreds of them, as they are not reliable sources. All this things I just now linked to are very important, and it is crucial you understand them if you are going to edit controversial topics."
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability)
 * "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources) ....

If you are attempting to disprove a well accepted and sourced topic, the burden of proof is on you the editor to provide valid references. Whether a reference for this type of article is valid isn't a grey area... in this case, either the book, article, or research being referenced is published and peer-reviewed or it isn't. Otherwise, we have to assume that its your personal opinion or original research. - 2 ... says you, says me 15:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)