User talk:Distributivejustice

Talk Here

Hi and thanks
I just wanted to thank you for your participation in the discussion on Race and intelligence. As it appears no one has welcomed you to Wikipedia yet, let me do so by saying I hope you find your time here pleasant and your collaboration with others rewarding. :-) -- Aryaman (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes to self

 * "direct empirical support" is the standard of evidence for causal hypotheses of group difference in Neisser et al. --Distributivejustice (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A proposal for the Race and intelligence article
I’m posting this comment on several users’ talk pages, because I’d like all of you to give me your input about a large change I’m considering making to the race and intelligence article. In my opinion, the article in its current state has a lot of issues. Fixing them has also proven to be next to impossible, partly because new changes have been made more quickly than it’s been possible to build consensus to undo changes that had been made previously.

I’m also of the opinion that the article as it existed in December of 2006 was considerably more informative, more balanced, and better-written than its current version. What I’m proposing is that rather than continuing to try and improve the article one part at a time, I would like to revert the article to the state that it had in 2006, while updating the things that need to be updated after three years.

The current discussion about this has been on my user talk page, towards the bottom of it. I would appreciate any of you reading the discussion about this idea, and letting me know there what you think of it. I’d like to be supported by the consensus of as many editors as possible before I attempt this. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I’ve just brought up this idea on the Race and intelligence discussion page here, so I would appreciate having your feedback about it there. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

R&I Recent Edits
Good job on your recent edits at R&I. I'm somewhat embarrassed, as I had proposed something very similar about a month or so back but allowed myself to be intimidated to the point that I didn't make the change. So... → -- Aryaman (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * DJ, I think you probably agree with me that there's no justification for Ramdrake to keep removing the content that I just added to this article, but I don't think he's going to be willing to compromise about this (well, he's directly said as much) so there's probably not much to be gained by trying to reason with him. You were thinking of reorganizing this section anyway, so could you please try to deal with Ramdrake while you're at it?  I don't want to violate 3RR. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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) 14:27, 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) 20:45, 14 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)

New edits to Race and intelligence
(X-posting this to Varoon Arya, Distributivejustice and David.Kane)

Guys, I think it’s probably getting to be impossible for us to prevent Race and intelligence or its discussion page from being edited while we wait for the mediation to resume. Users uninvolved in the mediation case are apparently going to be editing this article no matter what, so the real question now is whether we should collaborate with them about improving the article, try to prevent them from editing it, or leave them to edit the article on their own without our assistance.

I think the first option makes the most sense. There’s no telling how long it’s going to be before Reubzz reopens the mediation case, and I don’t think it’s reasonable for us to try to prevent this article from being edited indefinitely because of a mediation case that’s no longer in progress. If necessary, we can seek page protection whenever the mediation case is re-opened.

As long as we’re going to be posting on the discussion page again, I’d also like to resume our discussion about your proposed change to the lead section. Nobody seemed to have a major problem with that edit, and a lot of people (myself included) thought it would be a significant improvement to the article, so it would be a shame if that discussion were pushed back into the archives without a decision ever being made about whether to use this new intro. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Great Job on Between-Group IQ article
Well done! Feel free to delete everything that I had initially left there. Much of that Bell Curve material that I had in the first draft either doesn't belong or is best left at the main Bell Curve article. In any event, you are doing a great job here. I am mostly out for the next few weeks but hope to participate more in January. David.Kane (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Heritability of IQ
You and David.Kane have done a good job improving the Between-group differences in IQ article, but I think the content which was moved to the Heritability of IQ article needs some work also. I’ve brought up some of the issues with this section, as well as my proposed solutions, on the discussion page here. I’d appreciate having both of your opinions about what I’ve mentioned there. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

a quote
"Many psychometricians and behavioral geneticists believe that high heritability of IQ test scores within racial groups coupled with environmental hypotheses failing to account for the differences between the mean scores for groups lends plausibility to explanations of mean differences in terms of genetic factors." --DJ (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

race and intelligence
If you have time, there are some additional questions we have for you here. I hope you’ll be able to help us, if not now then at some point in the near future. It seems like it’s going to be a lot more difficult for us to improve this article without your help. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

soliciting comments/changes
draft of new lede section for race and intelligence article

editing open to anyone --DJ (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence, new draft
A new draft of the race and intelligence article is being edited into mainspace, based on discussion in mediation. It should be completed sometime on 4/1/2010. I am posting this notice to mediation participants in the hopes that those who have not contributed recently to the mediation will come back to review and comment on the draft, and help discuss any revisions that need to be made. You may make any reviews or comments at the mediation page, and we will discuss any revisions that need to be made.

I'd also ask you to leave a note for on his talk page. Whatever your opinion of the draft itself, I think he deserves thanks for putting a lot of time and effort into making the revisions. -- Ludwigs 2 18:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

New R & I spin-off article
I haven't seen you around here much lately, but I thought you might want to know that there's now a separate article about the history of this debate: History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy. If you look at the talk page for this article you'll see there are some NPOV disputes over it, so if you have the time, your input there would be appreciated. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you think you’ll be getting to be involved in Wikipedia a little more actively now? These articles definitely benefit from your involvement in them. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maunus is asking here for feedback about the remaining NPOV issues with this article, and the sources that should be used to address them.  I can try explaining this to him myself, but I thought you might be able to do a better job with it than I could.  Should I wait for you to do this, or should I just try doing it myself? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that mentions you as an involved party. You may want to respond there to the allegations against you.  — Soap  —  15:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI complaints about Mathsci
I have looked through the ANI archives and found some of the previous complaints about User:Mathsci:          . --120 Volt monkey (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Creating POV forks
Your "new" article has been speedy deletion. It was copy pasted from another article without the edit history. I have mentioned the POV fork on WP:ANI along with your preceding discussion with Captain Occam. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case
I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction:

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of the arbitration case
I’m cross-posting this to Varoon Arya, DJ, and Ludwigs2 because I think the outcome of this case is something all three of you ought to know about. The case hasn’t officially been closed yet, but it’s pretty clear by this point what the outcome is going to be.

Mathsci is getting topic banned. That’s the most important piece of news for me to mention, because all three of you have said that the reason you stopped participating in the race and intelligence article is because you couldn’t tolerate his behavior. ArbCom is also authorizing discretionary sanctions for both POV-pushing and incivility, so hopefully there will also be a lot fewer problem with these things from editors other than Mathsci.

The other important piece of news is that David.Kane and I are also going to be topic banned. As for Mikemikev, he was indef-blocked for making personal attacks before the case was even finished. I suspect that he got himself blocked intentionally, because the arbitrators were already voting in favor of a site-ban for him, and he probably wanted to get in a last few digs at his opposition once he knew that he had nothing to lose from it.

The reason I think this should matter to all of you is because without me, David.Kane or Mikemikev, almost all of the most active users involved in this article are people like Ramdrake, Slrubenstein and Muntuwandi who regard the hereditarian hypothesis as a “fringe” theory. Even in the presence of discretionary sanctions, and even if they aren’t going to engage in deliberate POV-pushing, I’m concerned that with this balance of editors the article will still end up being slanted in favor of that perspective. It isn’t always possible for people to recognize POV wording when there’s nobody with an opposing point of view to point it out, but on the other hand I have a lot of confidence in all three of your ability to recognize and remove slanted wording. I think this makes your involvement in the articles a lot more important now than it’s been in the past, and with Mathsci topic-banned as well as discretionary sanctions, the thing that’s been preventing your involvement there has been removed now.

I’m a little envious of you guys. You’re going to have the opportunity to experience an editing atmosphere on these articles that’s devoid of Mathsci’s personal attacks, which is not an opportunity that I’ve ever had. I hope you can appreciate how valuable that opportunity is, and make the most of it. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:


 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
 * The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
 * Mathsci (by consent)
 * David.Kane
 * Captain Occam
 * Mikemikev
 * Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW ( Talk ) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Letter to The Economist January 29th–February 4th 2011
The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?
An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)