User talk:Legalleft

Welcome!

Hello,, 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, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Alun (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hi
Replied on my talk page to keep discussion in the same place. Alun (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

your bias
Please refrain from removing critiques of heritability from the "race and intelligence" article just because they contradict your personal "belief" (as you have expressed it). It is perfectly reasonable to have a discussion of gene-environment interactions in an article about "intelligence" and "race" especially as the article currently erroneously assumes that these are independent variables. This is not "your" article and you are not acting in good faith and appear to understand nothing about neutrality, your edits have been one sided and enormously biased. Alun (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say exactly the same thing to you. I actually think everyone's POV is interesting and most are even plausible, but you clearly think that only one thing is true and worth mentioning. You may not realize it, but the text you added is somewhere between trivial true (and hence could simply be given in the definition of heritability) and irrelevant (as in not important to this issue). --Legalleft (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly it is odd that you think you could "say the same to me" as I have made very few edits to the article, check the edit history, I have also not reverted any of your edits as soon as you have made them. Besides if you think that it is trivial then it just shows how little you actually understand about this, it also doesn't explain why you were so quick to remove it, I think it is because it directly challenges the claims of your heroes. Personally I don't think anything is necessarily "true" in science, I've worked in laboratories for over fifteen years and am well enough acquainted with science to know that there are no "truths", there are only "theories" and that we should always challenge theories. I also know enough to know that some theories are more convincing than others, and that some theories are very poor descriptors of what we observe. Your edits are blatant pov-pushing. You appear to believe that any work or analysis that does not support your racism is "trivial" and that you have authority to remove it. Your attitude is patronising and arrogant. I note that many of the citations used are from news sources and not from reliable sources and that you have patently failed to provide anything like balanced edits. Most of the editing you have done amount to long portions of text supporting the theories of people like Jensen and Rushton (who's bias you have admitted to supporting), with a small mention at the end that amounts to "soma scientists disagree". At best this is dishonest. You had the hypocricy to accuse me of not wanting to have a neutral article, but your edits have been far more biased than mine, I have not been involved with this article to any great extent but have contributed to the talk page when asked to comment by other editors, and have made far fewer edits to it than even you, someone who claims to be a "new" user, note that pov-pushing is considered damaging Wikipedia. I do not engage in pov-pushing, and have stated to you explicitly several times that I do think the article should address the work of people like Jensen, but that this should not be in a biased way. Please do not assume that we are comparable in this regard, I am happy to have a neutral article that is balanced, you clearly want no such thing. This is not a free for all, we do have rules here and the community can be asked to comment on the contributions of any user, the highest sanction being a ban from editing of some sort. Please take this as a specific warning that you are not conforming to the neutrality policy. Also note that Wikipedia is a collaborative venture, you may not like what I write, but if it is relevant and cited from a reiable source there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. You should also be aware that single purpose accounts are viewed with suspicion on Wikipedia as they are invariably used by people with a pov to push. Alun (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Editor
You're doing really good work, if you asked me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.98.97 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the fellow above. I don't see how presenting facts as how they have been known for hundreds of years qualifies as POV pushing. This whole 'races don't exist except as a social construct' is complete garbage. We might share a common ancestor hundreds of thousands of years ago, but so do the Cat and the Lion, the Chimp and the Ape and the Eagle and the Sparrow. Yet people are quite happy to admit they are a different species, proven obviously by their appearance, and by their genes.
 * Life evolves differently when it is seperated for many thousands of years, and that is the exact same as humans.
 * I don't see how people can be so ignorant as to assert that negroes are identical to whites. Our limbs are different lengths, muscle is concentrated in different areas, the shape of the skull is completely different, the brain is larger in the European, even the skin is different. Not just the color, but the negro has thicker, more resistant skin, having evolved that way to protect him from the outdoors.
 * From a scientific point of view, this stupid social trend to say we are all identical and equal is nothing but a hindrance in creating any worthwhile article.
 * And one last point, I fail to see why editors who don't believe Races exist are even editing an article on Race and Intelligence. Surely to edit such an article, the first assumption that must be made is that races do exist. Any debate on that should be confined entirely to the Race article itself. --Confederate till Death (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand why people who know that "race" is a social construct edit the article, then you know nothing about Wikipedia policies. You might as well start take a look at the neutrality policy. It's quite simple, even for you, if only editors who are racists edit the article, then it becomes non-neutral, and is therefore not an encyclopaedia article so much as a one sided discussion from people who have only a single point of view. If you do not understand even the basics of how Wikipedia works then how can you possibly edit here? Alun (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW CtD your knowledge of biology is as pitiful as your knowledge of cricket. A lion is a cat and a chimp is an ape, indeed we are also apes. An eagle and a sparrow are different species, to equate the difference between very different species to the difference between populations of a very recent and relatively undifferentiated species with that of different species that have a much more distant ancestry and that form discrete lineages (no human group has an independent lineage because we are all the same species, and unusual in our lack of differentiation compared to most mammal species) is to display a breathtaking level of ignorance. Go and study some basic biology before spouting gibberish. Alun (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You know exactly what I meant, Wobble/Alun. I will go ahead and offer two extra comparisons then, if those are such gibberish. The Tiger as opposed to the Lion, and the Gorilla versus the Chimpanzee.
 * And Wobble, having a neutral article isn't one where every fact is followed with a lie, it is where nothing but facts are presented. --Confederate till Death (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I would assume the reason you're interested in the question has to do with things tied up in your user name, which is unfortunately the reasons that get attributed to anyone who points out the differences. The reason I suspect the "race is just a social construct" ideologues do it is because they have Marxist sympathies, and the existence of inherent race differences invalidates the assertion that white people are primarily or solely responsible for the average differences in life outcome, which derails the entire dialogue and set of justifications for the ideology.  Or, alternately, they realize the scientific case is overwhelming, but they assign it "profane" status intellectually, because in the detached Olympian perfection of their minds, they have come to the irrefutable conclusion that only evil can come from this knowledge and no good.  I think a much more rational argument is that no improvement to any condition can be achieved when one deliberately misunderstands the problem, and people trying to subvert the mainstream science in the name of some higher principle they think they are in touch with might as well just go join the Creation Science movement with their intellectual brethren. 70.91.235.10 (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It read somewhere that research shows that people with low IQs tend to believe in "race" and those with high IQ tend not to. I wonder if there is a genetic difference between these groups? Maybe we should be told? Something new for Jensen to study? Alun (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can come up with some respectable research that shows that, which would be a situation comparable to the Race and Intelligence article, I think you should add a section to the "race" article and carefully footnote it with your data. 70.91.235.10 (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Elementary cognitive task
An editor has nominated Elementary cognitive task, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

race and intelligence
Hi. your comment was oblique. are you consenting, or not consenting to mediation? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've expanded (and then expanded, and then expanded) my thoughts on guidlines for the aricle Guidelines for the Race-IQ edit war Nick Connolly (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

mediation
Good news if you have some insight into the source of miscommunication. I do think mediation would help. Have you looked at Tim Vicker's user page? I do not kno him well but he is smart and has integrity and I think he would make a very good, neutral and effective, mediation, but you woul dhave to agree. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

mediation request
can you write up a veru concise statement of the key issue(s) that need to be mediated, here? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation open
Hello, you have been named as an interested party in a request for mediation on the Race and Intellegence Article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Race_and_intelligence_2 Please stop by and indicate whether or not you wish to participate in this process. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops - you have already been notified! - sorry. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Benevolent dictatorship
I'm working on a sort of meta-article as a field guide to the genetic view of Race and IQ. The idea is to get a decent survey of what the issues are without worrying too much about OR, SYN or edit wars. Ramdrake has joined in and added some stuff. I think you might be interested. It exists as an essay on my user page User:Nick Connolly/RaceIQ. It isn't meant to be a replacement for the current article but hopefully it could be useful in some future article. Nick Connolly (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
Per your edit summary, you shouldn't be edit warring either, please read WP:3RR and find consensus for the content you wish to add. Dreadstar †  19:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

overwhelmed
I realize I misread your comment, sorry - hope work is letting up for you! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Psychology Wiki
Psychology Wiki is part of Wikia and aims "to provide an up-to-date, authoritative statement of knowledge, theory, and practice in the whole field of psychology". --Jagz (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of African IQ
I have nominated African IQ, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/African IQ. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Alun (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)