User talk:Captain Occam/Archive 4

MedCabal Case
Hello! My name is Reubzz and I have opened up this mediation cabal case that lists you as a party. Please indicate your acceptance of the mediation process on my talk page and on the case page so we can move quickly towards discussion and resolution of the dispute. The proceedings cannot start unless ALL parties agree to accept the mediation process.

Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am in the process of reviewing the matter. The simple fact that there are 74 archived pages is enough for me to realize this is a complex matter. Each party will get a chance to make an opening statement which will lay out each editor's opinions in their own words. Reubzz (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement
The mediation case has now opened. Please post your Opening Statement here: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence.

Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've posted my opening statement. I'll be heading offline shortly, so I won't be able to keep up with any developments for at least the next 10-12 hours or so. Good luck. ;) -- Aryaman (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Adequate description of the hereditarian position
I'm assuming you've seen the latest request from the mediation team. I don't think there's going to be a better opportunity to make a coherent presentation than the present. This is something I think you will excel in, so I prefer to defer to you. What's needed now is to boil down the literature to the absolutely central points along with the attendant evidence and supporting argumentation. If I can help, let me know. Otherwise, I'll wait to post (if necessary or helpful) until you're done. -- Aryaman (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Notice
This is a notice to inform all parties in the MedCabal case involving the article Race and Intelligence, that the deadline for any final comments in this introductory stage of mediation is due within the next 24 hours. At the end of this timeframe, the Mediators will seek page protection for 48 hours to review the entire case and prepare a schedule of issues to discuss to proceed forward. Thank You for your cooperation and acting in good faith to pursue a conclusion to this dispute. Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Article
So long as the changes to the article are not major structural changes, editing the page would be fine. Reubzz (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What are we supposed to do if we need to discuss some of the edits being made to the article? You’ve told us not to post anything on the article’s discussion page until the mediation is finished.  Do you no longer have a problem with us doing that, or do any edits to the article now have to be made without discussion? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All things considered, it's probably best to get the article protected until we agree on the changes. I have already made the suggestion to Reubzz.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, but I want to know Reubzz’s own opinion about this. He’s the one calling the shots here. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, thatr rightly should be his call. I'm just pointing out what's typical in such situations.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Re : Occam, I think you're making a mistake in assuming that the lead is not at issue in the mediation. Many of the issues involved with editing the lead are exactly the issues we went to mediation to address. Any suggestion to restore old versions, give differing weight to ideas, or change the focus of the article are necessarily considering changes to the lead. This would be in direct violation to the mediation. Also, the mediation isn't closed or even paused. Reubuzz is just reading. T34CH (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Reubzz said he would be starting the next part of the mediation after two or three days. It’s now been more than four, and in the meantime the article is being edited whether we want it to or not.  You don’t have to participate in helping the people now editing the article if you don’t want to, but the mediator can’t indefinitely prevent us from cooperating with them, especially when the mediator isn’t doing any actual mediation now.  The longer the mediator goes without mediating anything, the less reasonable it will be for them to expect this from us.


 * So far, you’ve had nothing to say about DJ’s proposed edit, and very little to say in the mediation itself beyond your opening statement. So I’m not sure why you think you should be getting involved in this now.  But if you have a problem with DJ’s proposed edit, you need to raise it in the relevant section of the article talk page.  So far, nobody has raised a serious problem with it. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think the changes made to the article the past few days are related to the mediation? I don't see how. Here are the changes since the mediation began.  An added reference, a {fact} tag, and MOS fixes.  Hardly anything worth worrying over.  As for DJ's changes, I repeat: they are central to the mediation issues, so discussing them outside of mediation is improper.  We are in mediation because it is assumed to be a more productive process (the mediator directs the conversation in a productive manner).  Part of the reason I have kept my posts short and to the point is so that the mediator can understand my position in less than 4-5 days.  Have patience.  T34CH (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hereditarian Views article
Here is my initial stub:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David.Kane/Hereditarian_Views_on_Race_and_Intelligence

Alas, I may not be able to do much on this in the next few days. Any interesting in helping out? Feel free to do anything. My thought is that the article could just list the 10 or so arguments that are made in places like Jensen and Rushton (2005) along with whatever supporting citations would be useful. I don't think that this page needs to be long, but it should only cite academic articles and be as scrupously NPOV as we can make it. Even if mediation does not lead to this being a stand alone article, it should be possible to incorporate it back in to the main article. And, if mediation falls apart, we should be able to save this work into a new article all by itself. David.Kane (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I probably won’t want to put a lot of time into your article until I have a better idea of whether mediation will determine that it should be created. If we end up having to merge this into the main article, you know that other editors are going to demand that we reduce all of the information about the hereditarian hypothesis to just a few paragraphs, at most.  I’m reluctant to spend a lot of time writing something when there’s a good chance that most of it will eventually have to be thrown out.


 * Not that I have anything against other people working on it, of course. And I’ll be happy to help with your article when and if mediation determines that creating it is the route we should take. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. David.Kane (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

chance to make this work
Need your help here: Academic Debates on Race and Intelligence

Given that other editors moved first in their boldness, I think that no one can stop us from making this the sort of article that race and genetics should have been from the start. We can always chance the title later. Can you help out? David.Kane (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Now at Between-Group Differences in IQ. Your help would be much appreciated. David.Kane (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Also think you should join us in support of Race and IQ. Not my first choice either, but not bad answer. David.Kane (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don’t have a strong enough opinion about this to vote in the poll, but I’ll help with the Race and IQ article if that route ends up being the one we take.


 * Consensus seems to support that course of action, so one of you should probably go ahead and create the article sometime soon, so that we can begin discussing how content should be organized between it and the wide-scope article. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't part of this yours?
Were you aware of ? I know you released it in commons, but I thought at least a mention would have been in order. -- Aryaman (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that image contains the genetics chart I made a little while ago. Now that the Race and genetics article no longer uses my chart, I guess it’s good to see that it’s getting some use elsewhere.


 * Here’s a question, though: I released that chart under a GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2, which requires that any derivative works be released under the same license, and have the portion of them that I created be attributed to me.  Shouldn’t he be giving me credit as the creator of the original chart, and not releasing the derivative image into the public domain?  Or is there some loophole in this that I’m not aware of? --Captain Occam (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, he should have attributed you as the creator of the chart and should be required to release his adaptation under the same license. If you have an account on Commons, you could bring it up there. I don't think you'd have any problem in getting it corrected. -- Aryaman (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm
But unfortunately, you don’t WP:OWN this article, and neither does anyone else. I hardly think a single edit in about six months is indicative that I think I WP:OWN the article. On the other hand your response would indicate that you do have some ownership problems. Take a look at your own actions and see how what you say to me may actually apply to you more, hmm? Alun (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Race and intelligence. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Verbal chat  10:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, when trying to make a controversial change like this to an article, editors need to seek consensus for it. I hope you’re listening to your own advice here.  The changes you wanted to make are currently being discussed  here; you’ll need to justify them there before continuing to revert. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop this edit warring. You seem to have WP:OWN issues, and have been blocked for this behaviour in the past. Please desist and work collaboratively rather than combative. Please take this a a second warning. Thanks, Verbal chat  19:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I’m trying to work collaboratively, but you and Ramdrake are the people who’re refusing. Even after this has been brought up on the mediation page, neither of you are attempting to justify your edits there.


 * Who’s edit warring here? The person who’s trying to have a discussion about the content that results in consensus, or the person who’s refusing to participate in the discussion about these edits, and modifying the article without providing any explanation for it? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please realize that in this situation, the onus is on you to justify your edits. An article under mediation should not be edited by the mediating parties while mediation nis going on. Period.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Hang in there for a bit if you can...
Occam, please don't leave the mediation on the R&I article. My wife gave birth to our third child this past Saturday (nearly three weeks early, hence the abrupt drop-off in my own activity as of late), and I won't have the free-time to maintain the discussion as I would like to. Of course, you're free to do as you like, but I would really appreciate it if you would stick around to at least see the second round of mediation get off on the right foot. -- Aryaman (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

race and intelligence
Cap'n OC. with respect to this edit: it's always better to avoid labels, even when there's no specific target for them. that comment about 'a few tendentious editors' runs the risk of having someone assume that you mean them, at which point they'll get up in arms and things will fall apart. also, mediation is one of those odd things where 'going faster' often translates into 'taking longer', because people will interpret undue haste as suspicious activity and start arguing about it. try to take the perspective that there is no opposition, there's just misunderstanding; that should curb both of these tendencies. -- Ludwigs 2 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * After having seen a few editors continue to advance the same claims again and again over a period of approximately a year, regardless of how many times the errors in them are pointed out, it’s hard to think of misunderstanding as the only issue here. But I certainly don’t want to do anything that would interfere with the mediation process, so I’ll keep in mind what you’ve said about actions that risk having this effect. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

cause/coreelation
I misread you. I struck it out, and have apologized on the talk page. I do think some of what I wrote was valid, the basic point is I am not fully satisfied with your reply to Woble and Muntuwandi. Still, I misread you and apologize. Slrubenstein  |  Talk

Outline suggestion for R&I
Hi, Occam. I just posted a suggestion for the outline on the mediation page. Looking at it, I suspect I have not made it sufficiently clear that the section Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups would represent the largest part of the article. I haven't attempted to make a full list of the sub-headings here, as that will probably have to be done as a group. If you have some specific points in mind, particularly some of the correlates as presented in Jensen's work, feel free to add them directly to my outline.

And sorry I have not been more available recently. But, what can I say? Newborns need lots of lovin'. :) -- Aryaman (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:fringe resolution
you wrote: "What you said in your resolution was 'Research into race and intelligence is not 'fringe'', and Aprock and Slrubenstein were interpreting this to mean that the entire topic of race and intelligence isn’t fringe, but the hereditarian hypothesis still is."I certainly agree with the mediation resolution. I don't know where you get the idea that this is my position. A.Prock (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

race and intelligence
mike - I just noticed that you aren't signed on as a participant at the race and intelligence mediation. you need to formally accept the rules of the mediation on the main page before you make any further contributions.

I am beginning to be concerned that you are more interested in arguing here than in reaching any real consensus. SLR has been trying to find a middle ground - are you willing to work with him to any extent at all? -- Ludwigs 2 17:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Why Ludwig went ballistic
Because he's in a HEAP 'o trouble! Read about that and how Wapondaponda just got the entire mediation on the edge of being cancelled HERE

I'll get banned for "telling", but WTF, y'know? All things must pass.

Hey, it was nice talkin' to ya!

love,

-faye

Back
I am back and ready to write next week. The more detailed you and other editors can make the outline, the easier my job will be. David.Kane (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Likely outcome of R&I Mediation
Occam, I don't know if you're keeping yourself informed regarding the various chatter on the mediation around Wikipeda, but judging by the latest developments, here's what I see as being bound to happen: If we end up doing anything Slrubenstein, Muntuwandi or Aprock do not explicitly approve of, they will declare Ludwigs an incompetent mediator, the mediation biased, and will move to have the whole thing shut down. This was always a worry in the back of my mind, but yesterday's posts on ANI made it clear that such a development is imminent. We should not let this effect our work on the article, but we need to be mentally prepared in case they decide to take this course of action. -- Aryaman (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to think this is more Mathsci and Beyond My Ken getting on my back (they have reason to dislike me); Slrubenstein, Muntuwandi and Aprock don't seem to be particularly involved, unless there's something I've missed, and the current version of the outline I just posted ought to meet with fairly broad approval (they have all agreed with it in major respects, and I have stubified the one section that is a current problem (the significance section). we'll see what happens, but I think this is just wiki-baiting that will go away as soon as I stop responding.  worse comes to worst, you guys keep the positive work we have accomplished so far and build off it with some new mediator.


 * no sense getting paranoid about it yet, at any rate. -- Ludwigs 2  08:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Slrubenstein, the mediation is in danger of "turning into a wikiproject run by Varoon Arya and Captain Occam and friends". I'm trying very hard to share your optimism, Ludwigs, and will refrain from responding any further to that... um, discussion. -- Aryaman (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well, maybe I should go back and refocus the thread... hmmm...  -- Ludwigs 2  15:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Occam, let me run something by you here:

The R&I mediation was called into existence to resolve one issue, i.e. how much coverage the so-called "hereditarian" position should be allowed under WP:UNDUE. The argument advanced in support of limited coverage claimed that the work of "hereditarians" is "fringe" science, and thus undeserving of more than a brief mention. During mediation, there was never any verifiable evidence provided to substantiate this claim. On the contrary, it was demonstrated that the "hereditarian" hypothesis does not fulfil Wikipedia's criteria for "fringe" science. Wikipedia policy (not to mention common sense and intellectual honesty) indicates that the "hereditarian" hypothesis is to be presented as a socially controversial alternative hypothesis for explaining the racial IQ gap. It was further demonstrated that the mainstream academic view on the subject of the IQ gap is that no one knows what causes it, and that both the "environmental" and the "hereditarian" models suffer from a lack of direct empirical support. (All of this can be directly verified through the APA report, which everyone has agreed is a fair presentation of the mainstream view.)

Given that this central point has been resolved, it could be justifiably argued that the mediation has fulfilled its original purpose, and should be considered resolved. If so, the next step would be to close the mediation and return to normal editing, applying the fruits of the mediation resolution to all future edits.

What would your reaction be? -- Aryaman (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that we’ve resolved more than half of what there is to resolve about this article, and the point that you mentioned is probably the single most significant thing we’ve resolved. But I would still consider it a problem if the mediation case were closed at this point, because I think there are still a lot of secondary issues that ought to be resolved in order to maximize the article’s long-term stability.


 * The structure of the “significance” section is one obvious example: if the mediation case is closed before Aprock agrees with the rest of us about this, it seems likely to me that at some point down the road he’ll end up edit warring with us over it. I imagine that after David.Kane has finished his first draft of the article, there will also probably be several other points of contention about its structure that will need to be resolved, and doing this will be considerably easier if we still have Ludwig as a mediator.  Finally, I think it would be beneficial to the article’s stability if we were to create a “FAQ” for its talk page detailing some of the points that we’ve resolved during mediation.  This is something that a lot of articles about controversial topics have, and it’s useful to help users who are unfamiliar with the article quickly become acquainted with the existing consensus about it, which I think would be very beneficial for Race and intelligence also.


 * I’ve mentioned before that I’m worried after mediation is concluded, some users may attempt to reject every change that’s resulted from it because they consider the mediation itself to have been invalid. Seeing Mathsci display an attitude similar to this, while refusing to participate in the mediation itself, makes me even more worried about this possibility.  Even after we’ve resolved all of the core issues about the article’s structure, I would prefer that the mediation case not be closed until we’ve done everything we can to avert that risk. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you've written, Occam. But I think we have to wake up to the fact that, even if this mediation were to resolve all of the points we've taken on during its course, all anyone - participant or not - has to say to undo everything we're about to do regarding the revision is "that mediation didn't count". The higher-ups have already demonstrated that if it comes to that, they will not defend the mediation in any way, and will very likely support a lone dissenter. If we stop now, we preserve the progress we've made and can return to normal editing. If we try to push ahead, I'm willing to bet my password that we will be thrown back to a situation palpably worse than the one we started with. -- Aryaman (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're concerned about whether or not this mediation will count, the most constructive thing you could do is to recruit a diversity of editors to support it. As it stands now, there isn't much diversity.  Without that diversity, it's going to be difficult to convince anyone that anything of substance was resolved. A.Prock (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually think the current mediation case has a fairly good balance of different viewpoints about this topic. In terms of your perspectives about the cause of the IQ difference, you, Slrubenstein and Muntuwandi are fairly strongly pro-environmental, while Mikemikev and Technofaye are strongly pro-hereditarian.  Counting the users with strong viewpoints in either direction, that’s three in one direction and two in the other, or if you include me and Varoon Arya in the “hereditarian” camp, it’s three and four.  Either way, DJ, David.Kane and Ludwig seem completely neutral as far as I can tell, while Bryan Pesta takes the same position as the APA that the cause of the IQ difference can’t be identified.  Although it might be helpful to have more users who take the “agnostic” position that Dr. Pesta does, other than that this seems to be a fairly good balance of perspectives.


 * VA, do you think it would be helpful if we were to begin working on the FAQ that I suggested before we’ve finished revising the article? That way, even if the mediation fall through at some point before we voluntarily decide to close it, we’ll at least have gained something concrete outside of the mediation from the points that we’ve resolved in it, and which would probably also help prevent future discussions on the talk page from wandering as much as they have in the past.  Obviously one of the points we’d be including in the FAQ is how we can know that the herediarian hypothesis does not meet Wikipedia’s definition of a “fringe” theory, which was one of the points of endless dispute on the article talk page before we resolved it in the mediation case. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Occam, just so you know how I see it: the two week time-frame is good. it will encourage us to do what we can with the article. My plan is to get the current outline written up in mainspace, and start a review process on the mediation page. that would be a good moment in time to open it up to new people if we want more diversity. At the end of two weeks, I'll start a thread about closure. If there really hasn't been any decent progress on the page in that time, then closing the mediation is likely a good idea anyway. if there has been decent progress but there's more work to be done, then I don't think anyone would want the mediation closed - no one would close a mediation that's showing signs of succeeding. I may be obligated to step down as mediator at that point (depending on how Guy wants to interpret things), but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

anyway it goes, life is good. -- Ludwigs 2 00:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)