User talk:Ephery/Archive 1

R&I - closed your section
David, I've answered you on the page, but closed the discussion. in the future, if you have concerns that do not directly related to developing the page, ask me on my talk page. that thread would do absolutely nothing productive, and would just provide another distraction and another excuse for people's tempers to flare. -- Ludwigs 2 15:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood. One suggestion: How about having a straw poll to see (confirm?) that everyone involved feels that the current version of the article is better than the previous one.? I would just like to demonstrate consensus on that point. Needless to say, we will continue to improve the article. David.Kane (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to wait on that until next sunday, unless there's a good reason to do it. I'm trying to keep distractions, arguments, and other kerfluffles off the page until we've made a few more revisions to the article, so that we make the most progress possible in the time allotted.  No worries, you did a good job - I just don't want the page to get judged on the basis of sections which aren't yet fleshed out.   -- Ludwigs 2  17:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I just don't want anyone to try to revert to a much older version while claiming that there was no consensus for all the changes that were made. I could easily imagine some of the interlopers doing that. But I defer to your judgment. David.Kane (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Mackintosh
Well, I would be glad if ANY comment I write is ever constructive; I appreciate the work you are doing. About the Mackintosh thing, I would just add that in the frame, i.e. the introduction to the section in which you draw on his book for his account of the two sides, you provide some information about his background and the intended audience for the book (which one can usually tell from the preface or how the book is being marketed). Right now all this information is inoccuous, but if at some future date another editor comes along and wishes to add material from another source, and thinks that the other source reflects a fundamentally different view from Mackintosh's, such backgrond information will help that future editor explain how the two views are different, again, without doing damage to the positive contributions you made. At least, that is how I would go about it. I know some editors would consider this information extraneous and cut it. But I have read too many articles where it is clear that over the years people just keep adding different views and the end result appears random and hard to follow. If you can create a framework future editors can work with, I think this is less likely to happen.Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

another round
I hope too you will have time to add this new, properly sourced material MathSci has brought to our attention: thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like he has already added a version of it. In my next round of major revisions, as in the last one, one of the top goals will be to shorten the length of the article and make it more focused on R&I. Every sentence that covers something not directly related, however true and well-sourced it may be, takes a sentence away from important material from folks like Nisbett, Mackintosh and so on. In any event, thanks for the general article advice above. Any specific articles that, in your opinion, handle this particularly well? David.Kane (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I only know this material second-hand. A.Prock or Muntuwandi may be able to give you a good answer to your question.


 * There is a widespread view among anthropologists and sociologists that Rushton and Lynn are practicing what is called "racist science." I know B. Pesta and others interpret this as "advocacy;" Rushton certain does.  But that is emphatically not what anthropologists and sociologists (or even evolutionary biologists like Stephen Jay Gould) mean.  What they mean is that it is junk science, bad science, research that is fundamentally flawed in its use of the scientific method.  I think this is the larger point Gould and Nesbitt are making and it is a serious debate for many (even if Rushton and Lynn do not take it seriously or recognize it as a critique of the science behind their research i.e. not a criticism of "science" but of Rushton and Lynn's skills as scientists) and there has to be a space for this in the article.


 * Saying that it is motivated by racism or funded by a foundation set up or underwritten by racists is not - in my understanding - the actual criticism (the criticism is: this is bad science). In my understanding, the points about racism and the Pioneer Fund is meant to explain how it is possible that bad science is perpetuated in mainstream universities.  This is a distinct question from "is it good or bad science" good or bad not meaning "morally" but meaning "in research design and methodology."  And this second question can only be answered sociologically i.e. by looking at universities, professional organizations, foundations, and journals as social institutions.


 * Past versions of this article were muddled because they did not separate clearly or adequately these two questions and the place they occupy in work like Gould's. Also, past versions were ruined because sometimes the material on the Pioneer Fund and racist science was so disproportionately large that the article was no longer about research on race and intelligence.  But other times, past versions were ruined because the critique - made not only by social scientists but by life scientists, like Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould (who, as Harvard biologists, were/are not experts in intelligence testing, but are experts in the question of "heritability" and would be recognized in any courtroom (just as a, for an example) as authorities on "the scientific method") that Rushton and Lynn are bad scientists was kept out of the article.  My personal view is that the claim that Gould and Lewontin have no standing because they are "outsiders" doesn't wash.  A physicist or biologist or chemist may not be an expert on race or on intelligence (although many biologists are experts on both).  But they are experts on "science" and for any research to be considered scientific, it should follow certain standards.  I'd say the same about a historian of science, sociologist of science, or philosopher of science (Lewontin and Gould just happen to be biologists).  In science, another word for "outsider" is "objective."  As long as the only people who are considered "significant views" according ot our NPOV policy are "insiders" i.e. people who draw on research by Rushton or Lynn, whose manuscript submissions to journals, or grant proposals, may be reviewed by Rushton or Lynn, and whose published work is expected to be cited by Rushton or Lynn, no one should be surprised that the article presents their research as accepted science.


 * I am speaking personally now, but I find the claim that one journal is the authoritative source of knowledge on any scientific topic suspect. Major academic organizations generally are divided into sections and it is common for a section to have its own journal - work published in that journal is aimed at people doing similar research and will be reviewed by people doing similar research.  But professional organizations also have flagship journals that publish a range of research and articles are reviewed by a more diverse panel.  Every scientist I know of has published in multiple journals, and hopes to be published in different journals.  That is because they welcome the scrutiny that comes from being reviewed by different journals.  A biologist will not (as a rule) publish in a physics journal ... but no one who has won the Noble Prize in medicine and physiology would expect to be publishe din only one journal - they might have articles published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Science, and Nature and probably a half-dozen other journals.  in these journals their research will be held up to the scrutiny of a diverse group of researchers, not just (this is my main point) people doing just the same kind of research as they are doing.  (By the way, most of these scholars have published in such diverse journals; my point is that this is a major reason why they have been taken seriously, although I have more to say on the matter it is tangential).


 * My point is that many scientists do not accept it what Rushton and Lynn are doing as science and there must be room for this critique in the article.


 * The stuff on the Pioneer Fund as I said addresses a related but different question. I am now guessing, because as I said I only know MathSci's sources second-hand, that the reasoning is as follows: much of the research Rushton and Lynn do would never be funded by the National Science Foundation (the premier foundation for scientific research in the US; I am not sure what it would be in Canada; in the UK it is like the BBSRC and NERC) because it does not rise to their standards of science, so they need another source of funding.  I agree with you that this takes us a little far from the direct science on race and intelligence, but I do think it is relevant.  But it should not overshadow the basic issue, which is that there are scientists who research psychological or biological differences among humans who have serious doubts about the scientificd validity of Rushton and Lynn's research.  Rushton may respond that these critics are social or political advocates, and not speaking as scientists; fine.  But Lewontin, Gould, and Nesbitt say they are speaking as scientists, not as humanitarians. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay. I think that I agree with 90% of the substance of the above and almost all the spirit. One of the reasons that I organized the article around Nesbitt's presentation of the debate was precisely because I thought his a useful and NPOV framework in which to view the issue. David.Kane (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa!
Mea maxima culpa! I really intended no criticism of you! This is a monumental task and thanks to you we are making progress for the first time in years! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries! ;-) I understand your intent and realize that no insult was intended. David.Kane (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
I see you are taking on this monstrosity. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance; this article tends to be a quagmire, and attracts POV pushers and Fringe fans galore. I wish you well. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! If you could check in tomorrow and offer an opinion, that would be great. I am trying to make everyone happy, but it is hard. David.Kane (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll give you a fact, not an opinion, right now - making everyone happy will not happen. Stick to sourcing and NPOV and good luck. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

what happened to the nutrition part of the r&i article? mustihussain 11:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)


 * Trying to focus on references that specifically mention race. Any reference that doesn't probably belongs (and I hope you will add it) to the articles on either Intelligence or IQ tests. Thanks for the comment! David.Kane (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * interesting. so why do you mention "inbreeding depression"?mustihussain 22:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)


 * It is one of the categories in Nisbett (2009). I hope to expand on it later. David.Kane (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * understand. the article mentions "racial differences in iq scores are observed around the world". is it not pertinent to use references that point out that severe iodine deficiencies lower the iq score? for example http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/16-twothirds-of-schoolchildren-iodine-deficient-report-hs-07 or statements from the copenhagen consensus? mustihussain 22:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)


 * If iodine deficiency is correlated with race, then it would be highly relevant. But any study that does not mention, at least indirectly, race is not that relevant to an article about Race and Intelligence. David.Kane (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * what do you mean by "correlated with race"? did you check the first link? you cannot just mention lynn's world wide "data" without taking into account all the relevant facts. for example, lynn mentions the "average iq of south asians". here it is relevant to add the fact that 60 to 70 % of south asians suffer from iodine deficiencies, resulting in a huge loss of cognitive abilities. mustihussain 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)


 * I think that these are interesting points which I encourage you to raise on the article talk page. My major editing binge is complete. David.Kane (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Rabbit hole
I think it is good, but look - we all know there wil be at lest one more major revision. My only advice is, say a littl bit more about Nesbitt's intellectual project or motives i.e. what led him to look at the debate this way. That way if someone objects to Nesbitt instead of just a stilly argument over who is right (which source is better) we can just odify it so now readers arepresented with two divergent views. Again thanks for the hard work! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. David.Kane (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead
was the result of a very careful collaboration among editors with very different views, at the mediation site. It is one of the few things we all know we agree on. Given these facts I am not sure wy you would want to fiddle with it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mainly because I am trying (foolishly?) for an article that is global in focus, not US. This seems to be one of the few topics that everyone (?) involved agrees with. So, we need, for example, to link to non-US specific examples of racial categories. Anyone, give me another 4 hours is all I ask . . . David.Kane (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The lede of Race and intelligence
Please just leave the lede alone for now. You were including material which was your own creation, undiscussed with others and exceedingly non-neutral. You may discuss radical changes leter with other editors. What you added seems inaccurate, unsourced, WP:OR and WP:POV. Please just leave this aside for the moment and bring up any changes changes you wish to make later. Just remember that it is easy to find good secondary sources which say that the issue of race and intelligence is hardly studied in academia. It's no good suggesting otherwise or misrepresenting popular science. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * David, it's WP:OR to suggest there is a global view. Only Richard Lynn and his collaborators have written on a possible global view. There is no evidence of any extensive study of that topic anywhere in academia and we should not be suggesting the contrary. The current lede acquired consensus on the mediation talk page and is the version by Varoon Arya. It is not "my lede". Many things you have changed in that lede seem to be your personal opinion and spin on things, not backed by secondary sources. Please just leave this for now. No need to create unnecessary discord. Thanks,Mathsci (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You couldn't have waited to make this change until I was done? It was just three more hours . . . David.Kane (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By "global view" I do not mean Lynn's ideas. I mean that there is, for example, a black/white IQ gap in many countries outside the US. Makintosh, among others, discussed the black/white IQ gap in the UK. So, we could have an article that was "Race and Intelligence in the United States" which would only be concerned with the US. But the consensus clearly is that this article should cover research in other countries as well. So, we should not use African Americans (and other US-specific) links in the lead. Apologies if I did not make this clear initially. David.Kane (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, no consensus was reached about the changes you and VA made to the lead. I changed many aspects of it immediately, some of which were accepted (?) and some were changed back. But I did not think it useful to get in to an edit war on this topic at that time. David.Kane (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There was a long discussion on the mediation page in which many people commented and their views were incorporated in the lede (eg Captain Occam).


 * If Captain Occam agrees that consensus was reached on that version, then I withdraw my complaint. David.Kane (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In other countries IQ gaps have hardly been studied, according to the secondary sources. If the debate has occurred primarily in the US, following the controversy created by Jensen's 1969 paper, that is what has to be written. It started in UC Berkeley, didn't it? The history is extremely relevant to the article.Mathsci (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there are scores of countries in which IQ gaps have not been studied. But I am right now reading, at your suggestion, Makintosh and he discusses England specifically and makes statements about whites and blacks globally (or, at least, outside of a US-only focus). I am agnostic about how much history the article includes. David.Kane (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * David: just as an FYI, If you have any edits to the body of the article remaining, you can probably go ahead and finish them while you and Mathsci are talking abut the lead. it's usually a good idea to put off material that turns out to be contentious to the end, any way; It gives the two of you time to talk, and fleshes out details in the article that might help with the contentious point.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. As long as my moving on is not interpreted as agreement. By the way, I have wasted a bunch of time obsessing on this, so a better target end time, unless you object, is 15:00 EDT today. As always, I appreciate your role as mediator. David.Kane (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank for you time on Race and Intelligence
I don't know whether I agree with any of your edits yet, mind you! But this article needed a major consolidation, and you certainly gave it this. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Just checking all the footnotes was a huge time sink. And, even then, I have clearly missed some . . . David.Kane (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
You have been mentioned on WP:ANI and may wish to comment. Mathsci (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

out of curiosity
Why did you change the R&I lead? I'm not sure what you did was an improvement, but I don't know what your rationale was. -- Ludwigs 2 23:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I will add my reasoning to the excellent discussion that you have started on the topic. David.Kane (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that you restructure what you wrote in mediation as bullet points rather than separate sections, since we probably want to talk about the lead as a whole. Honestly, you went a little over the line with your edits here - the old lead (while not perfect) had a good consensus. You probably should have approached it as through small revisions rather than rewriting it outright.  Let's restart the discussion from that perspective and see where it goes.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I will give it a try and move it to the end of the page. Hope I don't screw it up! Again, I deny that the previous lead had any/good consensus. Those edits were made on Easter! (And I complained about this at the time.) Also, I don't really think that they are that different. Several sentences are identical. Others, that I cut, are clearly cruft. And, I think, I am correct on the other issues. But, if other editors don't agree, then I will concede. David.Kane (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I tried bullet points, but couldn't make it format nice. Feel free to fuss with it, if you like. I think that anyone who wants to comment will do so. David.Kane (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried a compromise draft of the two leads here. Since you and Mathsci seem to be on the opposite sides of this, can you two tell me if this would work? -- Ludwigs 2 20:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the time that you have taken on this and the good faith effort that you have made. I differ to your authority as mediator. I will make some (mostly minor) comments on the page. I do think that you ought to take Occam's comments seriously, or at least respond to them. David.Kane (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no authority with respect to content as mediator. it was only a suggestion, so please don't defer to it in quite that way.  I'm not sure what comments you're talking about, butI'll go look now.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

3rr
Of course, you are aware of the WP:3rr rule. I suggest that removing tags via reversion without commenting on the talk page is disruptive - if you do it again, I won't wait for you to break the three revert rule, I'll just report your behavior. Hipocrite (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * David, the tags are fine - they point to problems that we will address. don't worry about them.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, your faith in Hipocrite's good intentions is stronger than mine. In the past, other editors have WP:TAGBOMBed this article because they believe that any discussion of race and intelligence (even the very existence of the article itself) demonstrates a "systemic bias." That is the sort of behavior that is problematic. Fortunately, there is an easy test of Hipocrite's good faith. If he provides specific complaints about the article as it exists now, especially any problems with "factual accuracy," then, obviously, his concerns must be taken very seriously. If he doesn't, then I will conclude that he is just WP:TAGBOMBing. Time will tell. By the way, it would be good if you added your final version of the lead (whatever you decided on) before the mediation ends. Also, wouldn't it be good to have a straw poll about whether, on the whole, the current article is better then the one we started with? I think that almost everyone agrees that it is, but it would be nice to be able to show that. David.Kane (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * well, it's best to allow tags like that when people add them. Time will tell if it's an honest complaint or not, and there's no harm having the article tagged for a week or two (or three) while we suss out the problem (if any) and resolve it. I'm tempted to quote Sun Tzu at you, but I'll resist.  suffice it to say that it's better to be moderate, because that will encourage your opponents to moderate as well, and that is the way to eventually get some peace.


 * I'll edit in my compromise version of the lead after the mediation is closed. it wouldn't be correct for me to do it while I was still acting as mediator.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yo
David, thanks. I think you did a very fine job too, providing the structure. I really hope this doesn't become addictive on my part...


 * ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpesta22 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

edit summaries
II asked if you could make more of an effort to use descriptive edit summaries when you edit the page over at R&I. they are useful - easier to get a sense for what you've done and why you've done it, that can save later contentions. -- Ludwigs 2 22:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course! Thanks for the reminder. David.Kane (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

New Assumptions section
·Maunus· ƛ · suggested that the "Debate assumptions" section of Race and Intelligence be expanded. I am going to draft up something here and then paste it over. I hope that it won't be controversial. Bpesta22 suggested adding in the methodology section as well.
 * I think you are on the right track, but... The last paragraphs from "in theory" seem to be unsourced original research (or thought experiment) of no relevance to the topic of debate assumptions/overview. I don't think "anti-hereditarians" is a good or neutral term and I also think that instead of "none" it should say that they argue that "genetic differences is not an important cause of differences in measured intelligence". I also think that it should be mentioned that the enviromentalist stance is the predominant paradigm in social sciences, whereas the hereditarian viewpoint is mostly explored within the biological and psychological sciences. Also you are still shying out of mentioning the important fact that there are wellgrounded ethical concerns springing from the history of eugenics and scientific racism, that hold many researchers especially in the social sciences from considering the hereditarian viewpoint - and which causes many to see the hereditarian viewpoint as basically supportive of racism. Also you explain very well the objections to seeing intelligence as something monolithically measurable, but you do not mention any of the objections to seeing racial groups as valid biological groupings. Still some work to be done here, but you are doing good progress.·Maunus· ƛ · 07:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the thrust of Maunus's comments. Thank you both for doing all this good work :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Many of these I agree with. Questions: Thanks for the comments! David.Kane (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What term should I use instead of ""anti-hereditarian"? I am completely flexible on this. That term was suggested by a different editor. I can't find any widely used term in the secondary sources. (And, to be fair, the "hereditarians" (at least Jensen and Rushton) do not call themselves "hereditarians".) I would use "enviromentalists" except that this is easy to confuse with the other meaning of "enviromentalists," i.e., protecting nature. Or do you think this is the best term?
 * The thought experiment is something that I am pretty that I have read in several sources but, alas, I can't find a cite right now. I didn't just make it up. I think it is the standard way that the difference is explained. What would you replace it by?
 * Do you have a cite for the "enviromentalist stance is the predominant paradigm in social sciences?" Is that really true in general? Among economists? I guess that the key distinction is "enviromentalist" as a general position (i.e., even within one population, intelligence is genetic) and "enviromentalist" with regard to the debate over race and intelligence.
 * "you do not mention any of the objections to seeing racial groups as valid biological groupings" Don't the quotes from Rose and Sternberg address this point directly. That is why I picked them! Do you think that there are better quotes available? Both articles are on-line.
 * Sorry I didn't read the Rose and Sternberg quotes to the finish it seems, as both do indeed adresss the race issue as well as the iq issue, and indeed they seem to do so adequately. You still refrain from commenting on my suggestions to include some kind of description the eugenics/racism background? (I take that to mean that that is the point with which you agree less, as you have avoided to comment on it several times) To me this is og high importance as I feel that a large part of the debate stems from this fact. I don't currently have a quote for the claim that environmentalist stance is predominant in social sciences - I only know this form my own education in anthropology - I'd of course find some kind of quote to include that. (I don't know about economy I must admit - but I don't imagine they care much either way). I don't know about environmentalist - but anti-hereditarian doesn't work as that assumes a reaction to hereditarians. Maybe "constructivists"?·Maunus· ƛ · 12:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is very useful.
 * I will add something short on eugenics/racism, but note that a) This is covered in the History section and b) Other editors are very concerned about NPOV with this sort of stuff. That is, they want the assumptions section to be just about the assumptions themselves, not why persons follow specific assumptions. But, again, I will add it.
 * Constructivist doesn't seem to have anything relevant and, to be honest, I have never heard that term used.
 * I certainly agree that the "environmentalist stance is predominant" in anthropology. Note my link to the AAA statement.
 * I agree that "anti-hereditarian" implies a reaction to "hereditarians" but think that this is a feature rather than a bug. As the History section demonstrates, the flow of the debate is often hereditarian (Jensen in 1969, Bell Curve) say objectionable thing X, Y and Z. Then others, who I am tempted to call "anti-hereditarian" say, "No! That is all wrong."
 * Anyway, thanks again. David.Kane (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggested constructivist (maybe it should be "social constructivist") because social constructivism stresses the status of concepts such as race and intelligence as social constructs - which is pretty much what many non-hereditarians argue. ·Maunus· ƛ · 13:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. There are two groups of people who argue with the hereditarians. The first, which I am happy to call "social constructivists," dispute race and intelligence as useful constructs. This is Rose and Sternberg's position. But the second group (Nisbett and others) accept race and intelligence, pretty much in exactly the same terms as the hereditarians, but argues that genetics plays no role in any racial differences in IQ. It is this second group that needs a name. David.Kane (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * .:::Yeah, I thought of that distinction afterwards. Nature and nurture - though we couldn't call them nurturists. I guess enviromentalist is best then, well just have to explain it the first time it is used. Oh and then the section should also make the distinction between constructivist and enviromentalist objections to the hereditarian view.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Debate assumptions and methodology
Race and intelligence research involves debate over the links, if any, between race and intelligence. This research is grounded in two controversial assumptions: Both assumptions are disputed.
 * Race is partially genetically based.
 * Intelligence is quantitatively measurable.

There are two conflicting positions: Some scientists argue that research into race and intelligence makes no sense because intelligence is too multi-dimensional and/or poorly defined to allow for comparisons between human groups and because race is a purely social construction with no meaningful genetic basis. Furthermore, some of these scientists argue that the history of eugenics makes this field of research difficult to reconcile with current ethical standards for science. Steven Rose writes:

Group comparisons of IQ are even more problematic. Attempts have been made to make 'culture-fair' or 'culture-free' tests, as if such a thing were possible, to allow comparisons of 'g' between people from very different societies. But IQ is clearly a flexible construct — as amply demonstrated by decisions in the 1930s and 1940s in the United States and Britain to 'adjust' test questions to equalize the scores of boys and girls, because in previous versions of the tests girls had scored higher. When Lev Vygotsky tested Russian peasants back in the 1930s, he found that answers that seemed logical to an urbanite were responded to quite differently, but with parallel logic, by the peasants. As for 'race', the problem is whether it is a biologically, as opposed to socially, meaningful category. Among geneticists interested in differences in gene frequencies between populations, there is increasing consensus that the word obscures more than it reveals, and should be replaced by the concept of biogeographic ancestry, which makes possible the study of subpopulations for relevant genetic and phenotypic characteristics.

Robert Sternberg argues that:

[I]ntelligence is, at this time, ill defined. Although many investigators study “IQ” or “g” as an operational definition of intelligence, these operationalizations are at best incomplete, even according to those who accept the constructs as useful. Research suggests that properties of intelligence beyond g may be somewhat different from those of g. Race is a social construction, not a biological construct, and studies currently indicating alleged genetic bases of racial differences in intelligence fail to make their point even for these social-defined groups. In general, we need to be careful, in psychological research, to distinguish our folk conceptions of constructs from the constructs themselves.

Unsurprisingly, almost all scientists actively engaged in research in race and intelligence disagree this this constructivist position. They argue that, although both race and intelligence are fuzzy concepts, both can be operationalized enough to draw conclusions about the connections, if any, between the two. In this research, race is almost always measured via self-identification. Subjects are presented with a set of racial options and allowed to place themselves in one (or more) category. The set of categories allowed and the words used to describe them varies from study to study and from country to country. Intelligence is generally measured with some form of IQ test.

Most researchers involved in race and intelligence fall into two camps: hereditarians and environmentalists.

Hereditarians argue that genetics explain a significant portion (approximately 50%) of the differences in measured intelligence among human races. Leading scholars of this view include Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Richard Herrnstein, Linda Gottfredson, Charles Murray and Richard Lynn.

Environmentalists argue that the hereditarians are wrong. Genetic differences are not an important cause of differences in measured intelligence among human races. Leading scholars of this view include Richard Lewontin, Stephen J. Gould, James Flynn, Richard Nisbett and Stephen Ceci.

In theory, the dispute could be resolved with a simple experiment. Simply select 1,000 newborns at random from the relevant racial groups, say White, Black and East Asian. Place all 1,000 in identical environments. This would involved creating three separate societies (perhaps racially segregated, perhaps not) which would be perfectly equal and as similar as possible to contemporary developed countries. Nutrition, family environment, education, popular culture and all other factors which might influence intelligence would need to be identical. For example, the Nobel Prize winners in the White society would all be White, those in the Black society would all be Black and so on.

Then, after 18 years, give the thousand subjects from each racial group an intelligence test. If the group averages are the same, then the hereditarian hypothesis is refuted.

Since ethical and practical issues make such an experiment impossible, researchers in race and intelligence need to reply on simpler and less conclusive experiments and data analysis.

The research strategy for demonstrating that a factor explains racial differences in IQ is relatively simple: (1) Identify and reliably measure a factor that co-varies with race. (2) Control for the factor. (3) See if the diference diminishes (in which case the factor "explains" the difference) or remains (in which case the factor does not explain the difference).

At least two methods exist for controlling factors that co-vary with race. The first constrains participant selection so that members of all races are equal on the factor in question. For example, if a researcher thinks education is the explanation for the difference, then she could compare the IQs of only similarly-educated members of each group. Showing that the difference is zero for persons matched on education levels would suggest that education is the cause of the difference. Showing that the difference remains for similarly educated people would make it unlikely (but not impossible) that education differences across race explain differences in average IQ. The second method is similar to the first, but uses statistics (rather than participant selection) to control the factor.

2nd version of the Assumption section of R&I
Don't have much time, but 2 and 3 in the first paragraph are flat out wrong. I'm starting to realize a large part of the editing problems stem from calling this "race and iq" when it's really race differences on g. Reframing the whole article as this would help, though I doubt anyone would agree to it (it would be more precise and allow comments on the idea that all of human intelligence is not g). In fact, it seems like there could be many positives to renaming the whole thing "Race and General Intelligence (g)"

Research on race and g might make little sense because of how we define race, but not at all because of how we define or measure g. -Bpesta22 (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)



you say: One person can be smarter than another in one subject and dumber in another.

Ack.

That's true (though it contradicts the basic finding of the last century-- the "law" of positive manifold) but it would be "true" like finding the chronic smoker who lived to be 90. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpesta22 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. 2 and 3 are not meant to be "right" or "wrong." They are meant to describe the assumptions/views of folks like Sternberg. Should I make that intent more clear? On renaming/reframing, I am sympathetic, but that was thrashed out endlessly in mediation. We are stuck with this title. So, the purpose of the assumption section is to segregate that debate. The rest of the article takes for granted that IQ/g tests are measuring something meaningful. David.Kane (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I sort of agree with Bpesta that the way in which you have written the first paragraph makes it look like a series of statements and only a very focused reader would be able keep track that they are all just desriptions of positions. The previous version handled this better by attributing quotes and by being more wordy and describing that "some entertain this view while others..." Also Slrubenstein correctly stated that it is not attractive for us to say "there are x different viewpoints arguing against eachother" unless we have solid sources agreeing that there are only those positions. A way of escaping this would simply be to characterise them as "arguments used" by scholars arguing for or against and source them explicitly one by one. That woudl save us from counting the exact number of camps and the risk of accidentally assigning someone to a camp in which they do not feel comfortable.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these comments. I will try again. Although please note that other editors seemed to want an explicit number of groups. I am fine either way. David.Kane (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have moved the latest version to the R & I talk page. Please comment there. David.Kane (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Minnessota twin study
I find the table cryptic, as it specifies the race of the parents but not children. Can the table add these details without becoming unweldy?

I would be grateful if we added a summary of the Minnesotta Twin Study's conclusions. As i have sais before, the way to maintain NPOV is to specify that these conclusions are not the truth but the conclusions of the researchers and name them. But this kind of contextual information is important. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies! I realize that I promised to do this next, but then I got caught up in the new Assumptions section and in this discussion at ANI. Assuming that the article does not get locked, I will do a rewrite of this section next. (PS. Would love to get your take on my ANI idea.) David.Kane (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice
If you want to be the subject of an ArbCom case, I think you are certainly going about it the right way. I have explained that Jensen has changed his mind so many times (as reported by historians of psychology) that we cannot rely on his own version of events, and particularly thirty years later. It's inadvisable to continue this kind of civil POV-pushing, blatantly ignoring wikipedia editing policies and obviously tag-teaming in a staged edit war. Please don't try to create your own rules for writing history articles - particularly when you have no prior experience of any kind in that kind of article. At the moment you seem just to be wikilawyering. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 25 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  —  15:41, 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)

Please be more careful
This text and its footnotes directly contradicts the assertion you made in your edit summary to History of the race and intelligence controversy. At the moment you seem to be involved in tag team editing with Captain Occam. My addition to the article, like all my numerous edits to wikipedia, satisfies WP:V. You appear not have read the source (please do so now on the link I provided); nor have you assumed good faith on my part. Thanks, Mathsci (talk)


 * Thanks for providing that. I see the text but not the footnote (beyond the number 44). Am I missing something? For the record, I am not tag teaming with anyone. The key think that is unclear whether or not Tucker's is quoting something that is not in Jensen (1969). I think we need to fix that, but maybe the text of the footnote will clear that up. David.Kane (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been fixed but you then removed it and other sourced material as WP:UNDUE. Please try to edit in a more reasonable way. 06:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The "significance" section
I'm not sure if you've noticed this already, but I recently made a proposal on the R & I talk page about finally adding the "significance" section that we've been discussing on and off since January: Talk:Race_and_intelligence. Not many people have commented there, and even fewer have offered specific advice about it, so your feedback there would be appreciated. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You saying the holocaust was based on political views? Historians do not agree
You deleted a verifiable historical claim on the basis "POV" (point of view) from Race_(classification_of_human_beings). The genocides that were mentioned are not a question of "POV", historical or editorial,.

The relevance to the particular context is clear, especially to the previus paragraph. Even the context leading to "History" -section that follows is suitable.

The relation to race is not "POV" either, or historically ambiguous, vague, foggy or even unclear. Neither is the publisher of the source, or the authors.

Or are you denying that the WWII Holocaust ever took place? That turkish armenians are just imagining it along with historians? And that Rwandan genocide never happened, and there was absolutely no racial reasoning behind these events? Feel free, but historians of your time do not agree with you, and in the edit I have provided a verifiable notable source for this, and thus deleting these edits is not acceptable.

Deleting a claim without consensus or heavy arguments in a case like this amounts to censorship. Whether the sentence structure is valid might be open to discussion. Casimirpo (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article already violated WP:SIZE. We need to shrink it, not expand it. Your additions may be correct and well-sourced, but they violate WP:UNDUE. If you wanted to substantially edit/cut other material so that WP:SIZE is met, I would have fewer problems with your addition. David.Kane (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

R & I again
Maunus is specifically requesting feedback about some of the new changes he's proposed to the race and intelligence article, and I'd also still really appreciate having some feedback from you about my proposal for the "significance" section.

I hope you aren't avoiding this article just because you still aren't happy with the changes I made to it three weeks ago. In my opinion, the section I’m hoping to add matters more than any of the possible problems we were discussing with the changes that I made, so if you don’t participate in this discussion, you’re missing out on the opportunity to help improve the article a lot. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish you'd be more involved in this article. Mathsci and Mustihussain have just blanked most of the "debate assumptions and methodology" section that you spent several weeks getting everyone's approval about, and I can't defend your edits well on my own. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read more carefully
My edit said "restoring the tags per talk page". Please read what I wrote on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * David, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look again at this article again. (The Snyderman and Rothman (study) one).  I'm not sure whether Mathsci's major changes to it are appropriate or not, but either way we need to discuss them, and it seems problematic that he apparently isn't interested in doing that. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the best solution here might be to rewrite the material that Mathsci removed, rather than just adding it back, while providing more space to some of the additional sources Ramdrake linked to that discuss more about this study than just its questions about race and IQ. If you look at Varoon Arya’s comment on the talk page from November 17th, you’ll see that he was thinking of doing this himself, and it also might be enough to satisfy Ramdrake and/or Mathsci.  Do you think that would be a good idea? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. David.Kane (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

My disagreement with Aprock
Sorry to bother you again, but I really think I need a third opinion about my disagreement with Aprock here. I don’t think he’s being reasonable, but I also haven’t had any success trying to explain this to him. Would you be willing to take a look at this discussion (the relevant part is at the bottom of that section), and let either him or me know if you think we’re being unreasonable about this? I’d appreciate it a lot if you could. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning
You made an edit on the article Mainstream Science on Intelligence, ignoring the discussion on the talk page which had straightened out any misunderstandings. Now you quibbled about exactly the same type of content one weekago at another article, but eventually accepted that it was correct and supported by reliable secondary sources. Now you are raising the same point again at a different article. That suggests that you are trying to provoke an edit war, just for the sake of it, with no reason whatsovere. This is highly disruptive and tendentious editing. In this case you deliberately choseb to overlook the fact that Victor Chmaara agreed that there these complainst were without foundation. You didn;t even bother to read Yet instead of enteringthe discussion you just reverted the discussion there. If you suspect there is a BLP violation, which certainly does not seem to be the case, leave a query at WP:BLPN. Otherwise stop inventing things and pushing an supported point of view. Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you continue this, you will be reported at WP:ANI for being disruptive. You know quite well that you are using spurious reasoning and just reverting without due thought. 14:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have already left a query at WP:BLPN: see . No comments have been made yet. I recommend that you wait for comments before edit warring. WP:BLP makes clear that suspect material should be held off the page until discussion has occurred. Feel free to report me to ANI. I have little doubt that they will find you to be in the wrong on this point. David.Kane (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I offer you the same advice as Captain Occam: all other avenues have been unproductive, so an ArbCom case seems appropriate. Rvcx (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about your editing behavior
I have concerns about your editing behavior. If you do not cease such disruptive behaviors, I will escalate - it is well past time that you learn to deal with this encyclopedia as a participant, rather than a warrior. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You frequently revert others - in fact, evaluating your last few days of edits, it appears that almost 80% of your edits are direct reverts.
 * 2) Your talk page behavior is dillatory - you write massive lengthy passages, but rarely, if ever, suggest concrete changes, and do not atttempt to compromise to reach agreement - it appears that, given the number of times you state there is a lack of consensus for the version you do not prefer to justify a reversion to the version you do prefer (which also lacks consnesus), that your dillatory behavior is a sham designed to extend a lack of consensus to justify your preferred version by strength of reversion.
 * 3) You frequently misrepresent the positions and beliefs of others - as a recent example, you attempted to use a broad statement about contentious claims by Jimbo Wales to justify specific actions of yours - justifications which did not follow from the broad statement.

Feel free to "escalate". (By the way, what does that even mean?) My use of the quote from Wales was exactly on point. I would be happy to have a phone conversation with you, if that would be helpful. Sometimes I think that personal communications would help solve this Wikipedia debates much more quickly. David.Kane (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you publish your phone number I'll call it. The "email this user" button works. I note that you have failed to defend your dillatory tactics and frequent reversions. Hopefully those will stop. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 646-644-3626. Next two hours are great. David.Kane (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your User:David.Kane/EphBlog page
You asked me if it's okay to work on such drafts in user space. In general, yes, but in terms of BLP absolutely, unequivocally not okay to repeat your own self-published blog accusations against non-public individuals to your user page. Is this a serious question? You've embroiled at least two articles in months long now battles hyper-protectively guarding Arthur Jensen's public reputation here, blanking well sourced claims, often with most trivial and implausible of excuses, and you don't see any a problem with the kind of content you're crafting there? I hope you haven't been putting stuff like this elsewhere on the wiki. Is there more? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence is no longer locked.
Hi David, I just wanted to remind you of what we agreed about here: that after this article was unprotected, you were going to try modifying the “debate assumptions” section to address the objections people have made to it, and then adding it back to the article. Now that the article’s been unprotected, do you think you’ll be ready to do that sometime soon? --Captain Occam (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this afternoon/evening. Sorry for the delay. David.Kane (talk) 15:34, 2 June 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) 13:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

topic ban proposal
See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * David, don't let this get to you. This is all bluster designed to make you feel paranoid, more than an actual threat. Standard hazing from the pseudoscientists; don't sweat it too much.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I was getting a touch worried . . . David.Kane (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Getting more worried. Just what prevents a malignant admin, especially someone who is friends with an editor involved in the process from coming along, noting the 5 Support votes, and slapping a permanent topic ban on me? To the extent that making me feel paranoid is the goal, it is working . . . David.Kane (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * technically nothing, except that admins need to justify themselves to other admins, and are loathe to assert their admin powers without darned good cause. if it happens (it's happened to me in the past) it will probably be overturned quickly, since there doesn't seem to be any real cause for it.  keep your temper, stay on your good behavior, don't let paranoia get the better of you, and it will blow over.  Keep in mind, the expectation here is that if enough pressure is put on you, you'll act out in some stupid way and do something that will give an admin a real reason to block you.  It's pure (if nasty) emotional politics, so just relax and keep your head on straight.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For that topic-ban (Race/IQ), I have advised "Strongly Oppose for 5 reasons" (see diff-link: ), which logically should stop the ban (by the very thorough 5 reasons). So, feel even less worried. I did not comment elsewhere, due to that pending ArbCom case, and I noted at 4:13 Jimbo posted "...everybody take a rest, please" (diff: ), I guess about complaints of Race/IQ edit-warring. My advice: Suggest they limit all Arthur Jensen details to stay within his bio article, where there is ample space to document the various claims. They don't need to wiki-spam Jensen text into so many articles, and then edit-war in those topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved comment
Re: the moved comment, there are plenty of options. (1) Point it out to the editor who put it there and ask them if they'd mind moving it. (2) Edit your own comment to make it clear what you're responding to. (3) Add a new comment to the thread explaining the problem. It would generally be inappropriate to move or change another editor's comment under any circumstances, no matter how obvious the mistake, and it's doubly inappropriate to do it in a conflict that you're personally invested in. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, to be clear, I should say I didn't think you were attempting to misrepresent the editor or advance your position through the move; it seems to have been a perfectly good faith edit. It's just that it's nevertheless contrary to policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Can you point to the exact policy page? I had always assumed that obviously good faith and helpful moves were not only allowed but encouraged. David.Kane (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Covered in WP:TALKNO and WP:TALKO. Specifically, "Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures" and "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."  The best rule is you should only make those edits where the edit is unarguably non-controversial.  Changing the order of comments in an ongoing discussion - even to fix a mistake - really can't be unarguably anything, especially when you're one of the disputing parties named in that discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, you seem to be wrong about policy: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: . . . Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. . . . Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom" In other words, moving someone else's comment (without changing it) is expressly allowed by policy. I think you should revert your edit. David.Kane (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, wasn't my change "unarguably non-controversial?" I can't imagine Wikipedia editor arguing, in good faith, that my change was controversial, given that policy explicitly allows moves. If my move isn't ""unarguably non-controversial" then no move ever is. David.Kane (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get involved in this dispute more than I already am. I saw something happening on ANI that shouldn't be happening, for the reasons I've explained above, and I reverted it.  You're naturally welcome to revert again but I suspect (a) you're going to get reverted by another editor and (b) it's not going to help your cause in that discussion.  Not sure what's wrong with asking the relevant editor to move their own comment, or pointing it out on the thread.  Best wishes. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regents Park indicated in his edit that he was traveling. Who knows how long it will be before he sees such a message? In the meantime, every single reader who goes through that thread will be confused. Moreover, your edit makes me look sloppy because I appear to be responding to Regents Park in a completely off-base manner. Could you at least admit that there is no Wikipedia policy which prevents me from moving other people's comments if, in good faith, I think doing so makes the discussion easier to read? David.Kane (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to edit your own comment if you have concerns with how it portrays you. You're also welcome to attempt moving the comment again, having been informed of the matters above, and accept whatever conclusions other editors may draw from that action.  But if -I- were being discussed in a thread at ANI, I'd want to make sure that my actions in editing the thread were not merely justifiable by reference to policy, but absolutely beyond question, and to my mind moving another editor's comment and saying it's one of the exceptions to a clear policy saying "Don't do this" doesn't fall under the description of "absolutely beyond question", especially when it's the most confrontational and non-transparent of the range of options for addressing the problem.  That said - do it, or don't.  I'm not going to revert again and I'm not going to jump up and down and call you names either way. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On your talk page, you ask for "feedback." Here is some: The behavior you are demonstrating here is the sort of stuff that drives people away from Wikipedia. I made a good faith change which, obviously, made the page read better. You reverted for no good reason. You then (and this is the worst part) made a vague reference to "policy" when, in fact, the actual policy explicitly allows me to make the edit that I made. You then refuse to admit your mistake and put me in an very awkward position since, obviously, I don't want to get into an edit war in that thread. This is not the sort of behavior that encourages greater participation at Wikipedia. You ought to simply revert the page back to how you found it. David.Kane (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Feedback accepted, considered, rejected, but taken in the spirit it's offered with thanks. In short I don't accept your contention that you're supported by policy, and even if you are I don't make any apologies for making a good faith edit which I politely explained in both an edit summary and through discussion. If you feel this is an issue which really concerns you, you should feel free to open a discussion on it in one of the relevant policy forums.  Or just go ahead and make the change again and see if I'm alone in my opinion (I might be). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(4) In the same edit move the comment and leave a comment in its original placement: "X's comment moved below/to Y because it was in the middle of my discussion". This usually makes the trick. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Where to post a barnstar for you
I am planning to award you a WP:Barnstar for "Detecting a complex BLP violation that few understood" (Barnstar of Diligence, re: Jensen) but I need to know: would you accept it, and where to post it (on your talk-page or user-page). If I sent a barnstar here, and you had to move it, I am afraid they would accuse you of "self-promotion". Please think about it, and reply below during the next few days. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! User page, please. Would you mind also moving my other Barn Star there? David.Kane (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. I put a link at top, here, to those Awards on your user-page. To rename that section, also change word "#Awards" at top of this page. I think Wikipedia should have a new guideline that limits controversial BLP text to stay within a bio page, to be viewed against a person's other actions: for example a person known for "crashing a plane" could have bio text explaining piloting another "50,000 flights without incident" or other factors that broaden the view of the controversial text. It is too tempting to highlight a person's negative BLP incident in another article, with limited space to give the incident full NPOV-neutral coverage. I even think all major crime suspects should be allowed a separate article, from an infamous crime, to balance those accusations against other events in their lives; otherwise, their names are directly linked only to the crime, as if implying "guilty" simply by association with the crime-article title. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My comment
I replied on my talk page before I saw the discussion above. My apologies for the confusion, the misplacement was inadvertent and I would not have taken umbrage to my comment being moved! I'm on for only a short while and cannot look at the placement carefully so please feel free to move it if you think it necessary. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. The problem here was the ridiculous behavior of DustFormsWords. He has no business reverting what was obviously a good faith edit on my part. David.Kane (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wms. College presidents
Hi, I see you have created at least two of these articles in the last few minutes. Could you in your initial creation put Category:Williams College faculty in the articles? Also, if any of these are still living people, we must have sources for them, and they should be in Category:Living people. Thanks, Lady  of  Shalott  23:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thanks for the suggestions. David.Kane (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Here's one more: when you put the category on the article, remove the leading colon. (I needed it in the discussion so it would be a link rather than categorizing your talk page.) Lady  of  Shalott  23:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks. I am still learning the details of page creation. By the way, is there a simple way to rename these pages? David.Kane (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the "move" tab at the top of the page. Lady  of  Shalott  00:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Harry C. Payne
A tag has been placed on Harry C. Payne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Carl W. Vogt
A tag has been placed on Carl W. Vogt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Williams G. Wagner
A tag has been placed on Williams G. Wagner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - slow down!
OK, I've declined the speedy deletion requests on the two presidents on the basis that that position is a claim of notability. However, there is no way that a one line article saying someone is (simply) on the faculty of any school will not be deleted right away. (It's already been tagged for deletion, as you can see above, and I will not decline that request.) You should slow down, find out more information about the people about whom you are writing, and use references. Lady of  Shalott  00:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent advice. David.Kane (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Carl W. Vogt
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Carl W. Vogt. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you've ever been welcomed properly, so...
Welcome!

Hello, David.Kane, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Lady of  Shalott  00:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style


 * Thanks! Although I have been around for almost 4 years now . . . David.Kane (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. I was looking at the dates of comments on your talkpage. Lady  of  Shalott  00:17, 7 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) 12:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence and workshop pages
It's fine to add things as you go along, along the same lines as the case page, i.e. try and add whole sections or replies. As the pages see a high level of activity, please keep in mind that they should not be used for drafts (though going back and doing some copyediting is fine). Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the direction. I have never done one of these before. David.Kane (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you have any questions, User:AGK will be the main clerk on this case with User:MBK004 helping. This is MBK004's first case as a trainee, and so might be less at ease with answering questions, although I can't obviously speak on his behalf. If you don't get a reply from either (both are somewhat occupied today, hence me opening on their behalf), I can help. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)