User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 8

hey
Hey Ludwigs, just writing to say thanks for your feedback and the welcome! Writing articles via wikipedia can sure be tricky!

Also, a question for the edit, would it make it more acceptable if i removed the how to use section?

Hotteeze (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's drop this
The discussion on WP:IAR was not meant to be taken literally. I don't understand what any of you people mean. I was just making a little joke. I did not know that so many people jump down your throat for saying something on that page. I'm done discussing it. Nobody was saying anything...comprehensible.  that "2D so-and-so" guy  talk, sign 16:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: I can be like the Chester Alan Arthur of signatures. I sometimes change it more than twice a week. Anyways...carry on with life.


 * no worries - the editors on that page tend to be tricksters. it's all in good fun.  but I'll let it go if that's what you like.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Might be time to let BR recover a bit.
Theres lots of other fun stuff to do :) Unomi (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * o. If he wants to back off, I'll let him go with grace, but I will not allow him to continue pushing specious reasoning as though it had merits as an argument.  This is not about him or about me, this is about rational discourse.  If we give up on reason, we might as well all go home.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You are banned from my talk page
Your version of "rational discourse" has long since degraded. You are hereby banned from my talk page after your last diatribe there. That was way over the top under the circumstances. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * diatribe? you mean where I explained how scholarly reasoning functions?  it's not my fault you need the lesson...


 * If I want or need to leave a message on your talk page, I will do so. you are free (of course) to delete anything I post there, but trying to 'ban' someone from your talk page is pointless and childish.  User talk pages are for receiving messages from other users, so deal with it.  and grow up.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

wikiquette
Hello, you said something about wikiquette, how can i do this? Thank you.iadrian (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * follow this link. you want to be calm, clear, and concise when you make post there, and you want to support what you say by including a good selction of diffs that show the behavior you are complaining about - the more, the better.  Be aware, if your behavior has been just as bad you will get a talking-to as well.  follow the instructions at the top of the page.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And i can address this matter of false accusations? To give links with accusations? Since i saw that this is mainly for dispute resolving. Sorry to bother you, but i want to be sure if i am goind to do this. 00:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * it's uncivil to make loads of unfounded accusations or other kinds of insults. just point to wp:CIV and ask people to ask him to stop casting aspersions against you.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. iadrian (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is it diff ? iadrian (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Verbal
Hello Ludwigs2. Verbal has been troublesome lately. If you look at the report I filed here you will see what I mean. Mitsube (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Three people who have agreed with him in the past showed up today, and one of them is now reverting some carefully discussed changes. I commented on his talk page here. What do you think of the issue? Regards, Mitsube (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that someone else posted on your page just after me, did you notice my above post? Mitsube (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ah, sorry, I missed that post. I've been perusing the page and thinking about the issue.  Verbal is doing his normal crap, yes, but I want a better understanding of the page before I start involving myself with it.  The article as it stands is borderline fringe advocacy - I don't mind the notion of reincarnation (I don't follow the belief myself, mind you, but it's no worse in my view than any other afterlife belief, and more sensible than many), but the idea of trying to apply western analytical science to eastern metaphysical constructs leaves me cold.  Not all buddhists and hindus agree on the meaning or sense of reincarnation, many of the more philosophical approaches to the issue would explicitly reject the idea that specific identifiable traits would be passed from one incarnation to the next, the premises of the research strike me as screwy, and I'm not sure that all of that is adequately covered.  I'm happy to tangle with Verbal on behavioral grounds, but I want to be clear about the content issues before I proceed.  As they say, even a broken clock is right two times a day.


 * Also, take a bit of care with ScienceApologist. he's far more communicative and much more reasonable than Verbal if you keep things civil and straight-forward, but if he gets his goat up about something there is no moving him.  I've been relatively impressed by him lately, so it is worthwhile trying to talk things through with him; just don't let it go down the wrong path.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. There are some behavioral issues at present, namely that SA has undone a recent change of mine without addressing my lengthy explanation on the talk page, and has removed reliably sourced content on the grounds that it is "speculation", which doesn't seem like a valid reason.
 * About reincarnation, every version of it I have read about does involve the idea that some traits (at least, certain tendencies) would carry over into the next birth. But as I pointed out on the talk page, the article is not about attempted proofs that reincarnation is a real phenomenon. The article described research into cases suggestive of reincarnation, which is a perfectly valid scientific enterprise. It is just the scientific study of a collection of cases with certain features in common like any other psychology research. Stevenson himself only named his book European Cases of the Reincarnation Type for instance, not Reincarnation in Europe. Mitsube (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well, dvaita hinduism tends to hold that the various 'coverings' of jiva (memory, emotions, intellect) are all discarded completely along with the physical covering at death. the notion of a 'self' that moves between lives is really more cultural tradition than religious philosophy.  Advaita hinduism rejects the self/brahman distinction in the first place.  The same is true (even moreso) in the more philosophical schools of buddhism - as you pointed out previously, buddha was unwilling to say much on the subject of the self - but again there is a strong cultural tradition around individual reincarnation.  You see the same thing in most religions, actually: the 'common man' interpretation calls for some continuation of the self after the end of life (be that in a new life, or in an idealized heaven/hell realm) while the philosophical interpretations are far more focused on the essence of existence.


 * The problem with the article, as I see it, is that the 'science' presumes unfalsifiable positions. why, for instance, should we assume reincarnation rather than (say) channeling, psychic reading, possession by ghosts, etc. etc.?  there's one question about whether the researchers are seeing the evidence they claim to be seeing, but an entirely separate question about whether the evidence they are seeing should be interpreted in the way that they are interpreting it.  I don't know enough about the material yet, and I haven't read the article thoroughly enough, but I'm getting the sense that the article is just a little too credulous,  give me some time with it, though, and let me see what I can see.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem separating the research from the conclusions. About reincarnation, all the Indian school believe that something is carried on, namely karma, and also ignorance. Buddhism interprets this the fruits of karma as tendencies; karma leads to conditions. See also sankhara for a concept which I thought was pan-Hindu. I would be interested in seeing some secondary literature on that. Mitsube (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SA just did a delete by redirect of the entire article. I have to leave for a bit. Could you please get involved? Mitsube (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * relax and go slow. SA's redirect got reverted, and you need to think about these issues in the long view.  remember that the point of that kind of editing is to upset you and make you do rash things, so let it slide and just keep in mind that a week (or two, or three) from now the complexion of the page will be different.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

He ignored the result of his unsuccessful AfD. It's time to ask for a topic ban. Mitsube (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AN/I Post
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. Mitsube (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New proposals
I have some new proposals that I think might help calm things down. Could you let me know your thoughts? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

mediation
Ludwigs2, i hope my efforts not to engage in questions about your character was evident to you. I do want to emphasize what i wrote: that I think for the mediation to be a success it is important for the range of participants in the conflict to be involved, and that one important role of the mediator is to set up and maintain an environment/process in which as many people holding diverse views as possible find it worthwhile to stay inthe mediation. And when people drop out, I thin one of the best things you can do is find out why and try to bring them back in. I am not questioning your efforts to maintain this kind of environment or process, or the sincerity of your efforts. But I think they have not been effective insofar as Ramdrake, Wobble, and Futurebird (who at different times werve among the most active editors at R&I) seem to have disappeared. I know you cannot move mountains, but I think it would mean a lot if you at least tried to get them involved again, especially if upon consideration you think they had reasonable concerns that led them to withdraw. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I agree with you. but it's almost impossible to get people to engage something when they have (for one reason or another) disengaged.  my current plan is to get a working outline, set David.Kane onto it so we have a working draft in article space, and then send a note to everyone listed as a participant saying, effectively: "We have created a new working draft of the R&I article based on mediation, and are now entering into a review process.  please visit the mediation page and weigh in on the draft".  people will often respond with critiques where they do not want to engage in the process of creation, so I think we will get good commentary back from them at that point and can make necessary revisions to improve consensus on the article.  I am anticipating that DK will do a good, neutral job of it, and so the critiques should be productive rather than contentious.  fingers crossed, anyway.


 * don't mind the silliness at ANI. I have bruised some egos in different areas of wikipedia, and this is payment/karma tracking me down.  as the Buddhists say "This too shall pass..."   -- Ludwigs 2  17:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig's nice response (R/I)
ludwig said:
 * My aim right now is to produce a conflict-free mediation - that's it

Great goal! And thank you for being nice. But that can NEVER happen. It's impossible, given the positions of, for example, wanaponda and rubenstien as well as the positions of others like myself who insist that published research not be summarily ignored. It doesn't matter what you say, what experts say, what's been published, or even what's true. rubenstein and his stooges will NEVER consent to stuff they don't want in the article, period. It's like arguing with republicans at the washington post site; they MUST declare everything obama says as wrong. Trying to gain consensus is like trying to argue with graffiti on a wall.

You need to deal with THAT fact, which involves setting down principles or ground rules about conflicts--rules which should be axiomatic and unchallengeable in future "litigation".

One of those rules should be the policy Dr. Pesta suggested: that anyone publishing anything anywhere does not have the weight of someone who spent their whole life researching this. That means Gould's opinions in a layman's book written 20 years ago should NOT be presented as a legitimate "other side of the debate" when every expert in the field says he's full of crap. (like the 52 experts who signed  the 1996(?)  statement of mainstream understanding)

This means saying "no" to people who will likely challenge your decisions in the future. "Racist Ludwig wouldn't allow Dr. Gould's well-respected refutation into the article!" But that is okay if your "no" is based on the very reasonable and explicitly stated policies Dr. Pesta recommended:


 * --published research in peer-reviewed academic journals trumps ANYONE'S opinion


 * --opinions of experts in X trump experts in something else


 * -- "mainstream" means the conclusions of experts who agree, as expressed in the main journal on the subject.

These should be like axioms in a formal proof; everything else must be consistent with them. Had you established this policy, you could have pointed out that Lynn is not a white supremacist from stormfront, but one of the most respected researchers in the world. And you could have quoted Dr. Pesta's to back that up. But instead, you pulled down your pants, meekly bent over, and censored information which was published in a respected academic journal.

Ludwig, I like being ass-fucked too, but it's not a valid decision-making method in a serious environment.

Maybe you don't challenge the bias because you don't like the truth about R/I. I don't like it myself. But while I completely sympathize, but it's why we're not getting anywhere because others of us hold truth in higher esteem than avoiding conflict with people who don't like the truth.

Or maybe you refuse to establish content policies because you're being like Judge Ito, who was so obsessed that a future court would call his decisions "racist" that he rejected any jury members who say they watch TV news or read the newspaper. This resulted in a jury of ignorant dullards who were pliable by Cochran's bizarre, irrelevant, pulpit-like appeals to "teach the white man a lesson about racism". I agree that the white man has ravaged and ransacked the world more than everyone else combined, but it's irrelevant to the fact that OJ killed his wife.

> Please don't feel like I'm singling you out. I personally would very much like you to continue contributing, because I think your contribution is valuable: I just want you to contribute in a calm, focused way.

Yeah, that'd be great! But it's not what happens. I asked if we'd include the brain volume data. You said you wouldn't believe it unless you see a ref. So I provided half a dozen and offered more, then asked again if we would include it. But you ignored it. When I asked again if you would confirm that we'll present the MRI results,  you not only didn't reply, you collapsed the conversation.

What am I to do? Ask a fourth time?

Yet you've never asked wapanonda to back up his wild handwaving with academic literature. Rubeinstien, being intelligent, presents more sophisticated paeans for bowdlerization, but they need to be politely declined when they conflict with the principles you have failed to establish.

> If I tend to refactor more of your material it's only because you tend to go off-topic a lot

Yes, I understand.

> stick with it, keep focused, and allow me to help you with any problems you see before they get out of hand. ok?

Mmmm... ok. I just hope I'm not being naive again when someone's trying to give me the business. Techno Faye Kane 22:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I am a bit naive, and I always try (though I sometimes fail) to assume the best of people. I think it would be better if you didn't use the whole "so and so and his stooges" type of language - whether or not it's true, it tends to put people on edge.


 * I must have missed your second posting about the brain size research, sorry. you know my view: if you're going to use the brain-size difference studies (I have no reason to doubt the validity of any of them) you need to present some sources that talk about the relationship between brain size and intelligence.  there is a theoretical leap from saying A's brain is larger than B's to saying A is smarter that B.  note, for instance, that women on average have something in the order of 5% smaller brains than men (if I remember correctly) but women on average are 4 or 5 points higher than men in IQ.  if you can't make that connection through sources, the argument either falls apart, or becomes you connecting dots between research that researchers haven't yet gotten around to connecting themselves.  Unfortunately, we can't do that on wikipedia; we have ti wait for it to appear in source


 * Please try to remember, as well, that you and I have had academic training. that is not true for the majority of wikipedia users, and there are just some habits of thought which you and I find natural and easy that they struggle with. be compassionate.


 * I will watch out for any particular PC rationalizations in the mediation. I'm not particularly concerned about being seen as racist; I'm only concerned with accurate representation of the actual science. If you see anything problematic, make a short (non-judgemental, please) comment on the mediation page, or leave a note here in my talk, and we'll take the issue up.   -- Ludwigs 2  23:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (Note: Though it's largely irrelevant to the mediation, you might find the (still tenuous) conclusions of some of the research on male/female differences in neuronal density and grey matter to white matter ratios interesting in relation to the brain size issue. I found interesting as hell. )

They are interesting, and in fact, I refer to them below.

> I must have missed your second posting about the brain size research, sorry.

Don't apologize, Ludwig! It's my mistake: I must have used a 2-point font. Here it is a third time:

STATEMENT: On average, people calling themselves "African-American" have a brain size 5% smaller than the brains of people calling themselves "white" and 6% smaller than people calling themselves Asian.  SOURCES:


 * The Chair of the APA’s Task Force on intelligence: Neisser, U. (1997). Never a dull moment. American Psychologist, 52, 79–81.


 * Richard Nisbett, the major opponent of the hereditarian model: "According to a number of studies, Blacks have smaller brains than Whites." Nisbett, R.E. Intelligence and how to get it: why schools and cultures count. New York: Norton 2009.
 * Harvey, I., Persaud, R., Ron, M. A., Baker, G., & Murray, R. M. (1994). Volumetric MRI measurements in bipolars compared.


 * Beals, K. L., Smith, C. L., & Dodd, S. M. (1984). Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines. Current Anthropology, 25, 301–330.


 * Ho, K. C., Roessmann, U., Straumfjord, J. V., & Monroe, G. (1980). Analysis of brain weight: I and II. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 104, 635–645.


 * Johnson FW. Race and sex differences in head size and IQ. Intelligence 1994; 18: 309-33.


 * Simmons K. Cranial capacities by both plastic and water techniques with cranial linear measurements. Hum Biol 1942; 14: 473-98.


 * Rushton JP. Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence 1997; 25: 7-20.
 * Rushton JP. Mongoloid-Caucasoid differences in brain size from military samples [and NASA]. Intelligence 1991; 15: 351-9.

> my view: if you're going to use the brain-size difference studies you need to present some sources that talk about the relationship between brain size and intelligence.

Sorry, I must have used white text on white background. Here it is again ...in black and white:

SOURCES RELATING BRAIN SIZE AND IQ:
 * Richard Nisbett, the major opponent of the hereditarian model: "It is true that the correlation between brain size and IQ may be as high as .40." Nisbett, R.E. Intelligence and how to get it: why schools and cultures count. New York: Norton 2009.'''
 * Gignac G, Vernon PA,Wickett JC. Factors influencing the relationship between brain size and intelligence. In: Nyborg H, Ed. The scientific study of general intelligence: Elsevier 2003; pp. 93-106.
 * lots more on request, as (unsurprisingly) this has been studied a lot

To insure it won't escape your notice again, perhaps I should enter it as boldfaced text! Say, is that what they mean by "be bold"?

> note, that women on average have something in the order of 5% smaller brains than men (if I remember correctly) but women on average are 4 or 5 points higher than men in IQ


 * a) If it is a legitimate objection, the experts will have resolved it. But our job is merely to feed their conclusions to the commoners through Wikipedia. If mainstream opinion is divided, we should report that too.


 * b) That kind of objection, when coming from the heriditarians in this mediation, gets your handwave and "I don't want to hear about it unless it's published in a source". That difference is biased moderation.


 * c) I have the source of your statement. You're probably referring to Nisbett's latest book, wherein he attempts to explain away the IQ gap and thereby mollify the populace. But if so, you're misquoting him. Nisbett observed that the sexes have equal IQ, but men have larger brains. Furthermore, Rushton points out that Nisbett cherry-picked the data. It's only true in children undergoing rapid growth in brain size, and over age 15, males have both larger brains and a 4.6-point IQ advantage.


 * d) That 4.6 is probably the "4 or 5 points" you remember, but you remembered it in the wrong direction. It is males who are smarter.

Note that the statement "males are smarter" is unremarkable because I am female. But had a man said it and a woman raised hell, it would have gone to the arbitration committee like wanaponda's bizarre complaints. But really, BOTH sexes and ALL races should feel free to tell the truth without being attacked and threatened with sanctions.

However, your prejudiced style of moderation makes that very difficult, and resulted in my spending almost a day defending myself against his whacko charges. He would probably not have had the balls to formally accuse me of racism had you told him to shut up when he made his irrational/nonsensical/unintelligible objections to me in the mediation.

Though 7 admins told him "G'wan, beat it!", the 8th admin he sang his song to made him go away by warning me. Your impartiality failure resulted in my now having the unfair and untrue charge of "racism" on permanent record at wikipedia--and the internet--forever. --frequently fucked-over faye Techno Faye Kane 02:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well, all I can say is take the argument above, strip it of excess material and personal comments, and re-present it in the mediation. I have no problem with it as an argument, and I can't say what other editors will do with it, but if you present it in a concise, calm, and civil manner I will see that they give it proper consideration.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

good faith edits
thanks for assuming good faith with the edits of Identity (social science)but any further edits like this begin to look more unconstructive. Cheers Earlypsychosis (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. I'm thinking (at the moment) that this is a college freshman or sophomore, enthusiastic about the subject but not yet able to distinguish proper sourcing.  My guess is he's pulling ideas he got from lecture and presenting them.  hopefully we can guide him to productive editing; he doesn't seem like he's trying to be a vandal, anyway.


 * we'll see what happens. -- Ludwigs 2  19:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * rollbacked today Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * with a WP:AGF message on their talk page. Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well, so much for wp:AGF... -- Ludwigs 2  21:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * their edits still fits with your theory about their developmental age! Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm wondering if s/he was such a novice that they just had no clue about using their own talk page?  I think the indef block was too harsh, and I'll ask the blocking admin to drop it to a 1 or 2 day thing.  I'm debating on sending the user an email - I'd like to help, but I'm not sure I want to give my email to someone I haven't really communicated with at all.  -- Ludwigs 2  11:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Reincarnation
Can you please take a look at what ScienceApologist is doing there are give me some advice? He is ignoring talk and making no attempt at neutrality at this point. Mitsube (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * what do you expect me to do, M? I'm just an editor like yourself, and I have issues with the article that make me hesitant to do anything quickly.  I understand the petulant approach that skeptics take to editing articles on wikipedia, but if I choose to do anything about this article at all, I will do it it in my own time, when I feel I understand the topic enough to make valid contributions.


 * They are trying to irritate you, and they are succeeding. relax, settle back, and think about the big picture.


 * and SA - please don't use my talk page for that kind of crap. -- Ludwigs 2  18:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not irritated. I know why they are treating me this way. Mitsube (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ok, good. that's the first step.  second step involves two things:
 * remembering that as twisted as their behavior might appear to you, they honestly believe that they are helping to improve the encyclopedia
 * remembering that what happens this moment or the next is not important; in the long (if you're persistent) things will work out the way that's best for the encyclopedia. this may be your side of the argument, or theirs, or somewhere in between, but over time reason will work its way through the discussion
 * I used to fight with ScienceApologist all the time (and yeah, we still squabble on occasion) but I've realized that while I despise his methods at times, I can't really fault his point of view. It's gotten to the point with him where - so long as we remember not to bite each other's heads off - we actually work together productively.  That's part of the reason I'm reticent to get involved quickly here: I can tell he's got his goat on, and so I'm waiting for the situation to cool down a bit so that reasonable communication is possible.
 * that's why I keep saying to relax. time is the encyclopedia's ally, and your best friend.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sage advice. I'm willing to do an RfM or any other step. SA doesn't have a case, in my view. You are right about him having his goat up. I tried to help him calm down on the talk page. Mitsube (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

IA author
Thanks for the help with the (now renamed) last night. Much appreciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * you're welcome. and incidentally, if you want to refer to a template, use template tl, like so:
 * IA author produces IA author
 * otherwise the template transcludes, and (in this case) you make me much more famous than I am. .  -- Ludwigs 2  11:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very, very disappointed in you
> I'm trying to work with you Faye,

No you're not.

You just wiped my ENTIRE list of statements.

> and don't appreciate getting my hand bit for it.

What did you do that was "nice", ludwig? What did you do that should not have gotten your hand bitten? Your boss just told you exactly what I have: that you're moderating this to the benefit of your political beliefs.

There's no WAY a "real" moderator would let waponda say all his shit. And you didn't enforce the VERY reasonable rule that experts in the field trump experts in something else.

And when I filled your conditions to put the brain size data in, you just IGNORED it.

When In say I'm "disappointed", I mean it literally. I really thought you were a cool dude.

But it's always about either money or politics. Truth is in, like ninth place. That disillusionment is THE specific reason I abandoned so-called "humanity" and moved into a cave

Sadly,

Techno Faye Kane 14:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Faye a couple of points:
 * Mathsci would (currently) just as soon piss on me as look at me. I happen to agree with him that the page has gone a bit out of control, and so I'm putting a stop to it, but if you think that's because of some enduring affection between the two of us, you've misunderstood the situation utterly. I don't really give a fuck about Matchsci's on a personal level; the fact that he's being a bit of a bitch on the ANI page is irrelevant, and I can handle that without too much trouble.  but he does happen to be right about the state of the page, and I'm not going to ignore the fact that he's right just because he's doing his best to get on my nerves.
 * I will be handling Wapondaponda with the same heightened awareness that I am going to start giving to everyone else.  it's unfortunate that he started that ANI, but that will resolve itself as it will.  if you have any future problems with him, please notify me here in talk and allow me address it
 * please do not use the mediation talk page for extended rants about your perceptions of the political motivations of other editors. I will archive material like that without hesitation.  Only discuss article matters on that page.  I would encourage you to start a separate page in your userspace where you can keep a journal of your thoughts about the mediation, and you may link to that page if you like, but do not put them into the mediation space.
 * I am not here to make decisions about the content of the final article (though I can see that I'm going to have to push a little harder than I like). I am here to move the discussion along.  if you have a reason to include this brain size data, then you need to discuss it with the other editors and reach some agreement about it.
 * if you choose to be disappointed in me, that is your business, and I'm sorry if that's the case. however, that is unlikely to influence me.  my only concern is that you be clear, concise, on-topic, and civil, and I will be requiring that on the mediation page from this point on.  please do your best to conform to that.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a serious problem with you collapsing this discussion as well, for two reasons.


 * 1: Some of these points actually are agreed on,


 * but most are NOT agreed on. Their purpose was to isolate the statements and discuss them individually in a systematic, ordered, trackable way.  I initialized them with what I thought was correct, and fully expected others to change the status to "under discussion" and say why.  But instead, you seem to have taken them as unchallengeable assertions by me and killed all the discussions.  Techno Faye Kane  22:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * and we spent quite a while coming to agreements about them. Examples of this include that the herediatian hypothesis is not “fringe”, the meaning of “race” as it will be used in the article, and the fact that SIRE is an acceptable proxy for race’s biological aspects.  Despite the fact that these points had been resolved in the past, certain users were continuing to dispute them, and you agreed in  this discussion that for this reason we needed our resolved points to be summarized somewhere.  As of today they still haven’t been, other than in TechnoFaye’s list.


 * 2: You told us you were going to make a summary of these resolved points yourself. You told us you were going to do this “today” on March 17th, and then four days later you not only hadn’t done it, but hadn’t provided any explanation for why you hadn’t.  Because we had already agreed that this summary was something we badly needed, and because you weren’t keeping your agreement to do it yourself, TechnoFaye attempted to pick up the slack with this.  You’ve shut down her own attempt to do this, but you still aren’t doing it yourself.


 * We’ve all agreed that we need something, you promised to provide it yourself, another user tried to do it in your place when it became clear that you weren’t going keep that promise, and now you’ve taken action to prevent them from doing what you’d promised to do and aren’t doing. Do you not see the problem with that?  As the mediator, your job is to provide the things that we agree we need in order to help revise the article.  Not only are you not providing them here; you’re actively preventing other users from providing them when you don’t.


 * If you don’t see what’s wrong with this, or you do but you aren’t willing to do anything differently, then this seems like it’s an example of the same irresponsibility that Mathsci was talking about in the AN/I thread. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Faye, Occam: I request that both of you give Ludwigs some credit here. This is not an easy job, and having Mathsci dick around with it for the sake of dicking around with something isn't really helping the situation. The mediation talkpage is essentially secondary - what matters is how the actual revision is handled, and I see no reason to assume that Ludwigs won't manage that part of the process with fairness and impartiality.

Ludwigs: As far as the list itself is concerned, are we invited to add to the list you've started at the top of the discussion page (not to your list, naturally, but to add notes which we think should be incorporated)? If so, I have a few... -- Aryaman (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Occam, I'm willing to rescue and reopen any particular points you think are relevant and useful; I only archived it because there was a lot there that was not based in consensus and was at risk of creating arguments. please let me know which points you want to retain and we'll work it out.


 * @ VA: pelase make any comments in the section I made, but leave it to me to update the list itself. I want to be sure that what goes in there has consensus.-- Ludwigs 2  19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwig, perhaps I was a bit harsh—I hadn’t realized you were accepting suggestions from the rest of us about items that could be added to that list. I’ll mention there what additional points I think ought to be added. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

____

Ludwigs, you may have read my recent comments on Occam's talkpage. In light of the latest batch of developments, my position on this is solidifying. If the mediation is going to be closed, I don't think I'm alone in the opinion that that having it close under its own power with a resolution is greatly preferable to having it closed by a third party in an unresolved state. Strictly speaking, we've already accomplished what we set out to do, which was get the fringe/undue issue resolved. I know that seems minor and perhaps even trivial when viewed in light of the massive amount of work that's still ahead. But other forces are at work now, and you know as well as I do that there is at least one finger simply waiting for the opportunity to revert David's revision, salivating at the prospect of the general havoc such an action would cause. Of course, I remain willing and eager to carry on with the mediation, but I would like for you to carefully consider what I'm proposing. -- Aryaman (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Varieties of noticeboards
Hi Ludwigs, I noticed your idea over on Mitsube's talk page HERE about some sort of noticeboard to help counterbalance the skeptics who tend to form themselves into a pack to inappropriately stamp out coverage of ideas they don't like. I've hardly ever used the noticeboards to date myself, so I don't have a well-developed sense of what might work and what wouldn't. But conceptually, I wonder if there'd be grounds for a noticeboard to discuss areas where scientism is relevant. That is, there is a fringe theories noticeboard; could there be a scientism noticeboard? The point in each case might be to ensure that the perspective (scientism or a fringe theory) does not get inappropriately pushed into Wikipedia's voice (except, I suppose, in the occasions where a mainstream view in a scientific field truly does involve scientism). Anyway, just a thought that occurred to me... as brainstorming, without any claim that it would in fact be able to work, but perhaps leading to other ideas that would work... (note: I believe you've said you are a social scientist; I am also, with dozens of publications in peer-reviewed social science journals, though I've not mentioned this on my user page...) Health Researcher (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a fantastic idea. I have secondary sources critiquing scientism (by which I mean dogmatic materialism that rejects phenomena suspected to be non-physical as fantasy) that could be used to develop such a page, and guidelines for it. I would probably need help though. It is important that the quasi-religious orthodoxy among some is not stated as a fact, as in for example the recent attempt at reincarnation to put into the intro that the belief in reincarnation has been called pseudoscientific by the NSF, and put the article in the pseudoscience category. Mitsube (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I'll tell you... I like consensus, and I don't like agonistic politics. setting up a scientism noticeboard would simply fuel the fire in the pseudoscience wars.  you have to remember that the worst-case scientismists (???) use exactly the same logic as full-fledged pseudoscientists (basically they all make assertions about what science says that flies in the face of scientific methodology - doesn't matter whether they are making positive or negative assertions), and are prone to the same types of violently-assertive behavior.  for my own tastes I'd like something that is not focussed on a particular content area, and not on taking a particular side, but just on trying to maintain an atmosphere in which consensus discussion is more productive than tendentious editing.   -- Ludwigs 2  02:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, we don't want to create a structural feature that simply "fuels the fire". Why do you think it would fuel the fire? (note: I am not disagreeing with you, merely seeking to draw you out, since I consider myself to be open-minded about which dynamic would predominate). In a best-case scenario, I'd envision such a noticeboard being able to mobilize editors who understand the nuances of the distinction between science and scientism. And who through repetition, can develop skills in articulating that distinction to those who are slow on the uptake (BTW, this idea occurred to me after seeing the very lengthy recent interactions at Talk:Ghost by you and others). Plus, a noticeboard could provide a convenient point of focus for developing educational materials to help those who are caught in scientism to recognize what they are doing. I second Mitsube in thinking that there are many resources to be drawn upon -- for example, check out: Goodwin, J. S., & Goodwin, J. M. (1984). The tomato effect. Rejection of highly efficacious therapies. Journal of the American Medical Association, 251, 2387-2390. It gives an amazing historical analogue: colchicum was used as a treatment for gout for about 600 years in the middle ages, but it was then discarded in the renaissance, probably because of theoretical reasons (i.e., an imperfect renaissance analogue to the scientistic dogmatism that is abroad these days). With a good body of such educational materials, plus a cadre of editors who are sensitive to the science/scientism distinction, I'd see (in a best case scenario) the noticeboard being a wonderful resource that complements a consensus-based approach to editing. What do you think? Health Researcher (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well, even if we had the best people, and the best intentions, the mere fact of such a noticeboard would mobilize the more extreme members of the fringe theory noticeboard against it. In reality, the fringe noticeboard should (theoretically) be a board for providing a neutral, balanced, scientific perspective, and in many cases that's just what it is.  it's just that with certain 'trigger' topics, the editors who respond tend to throw scientific detachment to the wind in their efforts to combat some what they see as gross misrepresentations of science (and in fact, there have been some doozies of editors who argue with great sincerity and persistence for the most ridiculously outlandish viewpoints).  I know more about science and scientific methodology than the vast majority of wikipedia editors, yet I am consistently accused of being a pseudoscientific POV-pusher when I try to bring some scientific common sense in to certain topic areas.  setting up a noticeboard for it would simply get the noticeboard attacked as a fringe-pushing noticeboard, and there would be all sorts of ugly ANI sessions.


 * If you wanted to do what you seem to want to do, my advice would be to join in on the Fringe theory noticeboard and argue for scientific points there. If enough editors got involved there they would tend to offset the the hard-core skeptics, and would find a certain amount of support from the more moderate fringe noticeboard people.  it would be an uphill battle, though.  The thing you really want to avoid is letting yourself get pushed off the mainstream: you need to be very focused on presenting a moderate scientific viewpoint as the proper encyclopedic viewpoint.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs, again, you raise important concerns. My guess is that establishing the principle that Wikipedia's voice should (except in rare instances) avoid scientism is a battle that is likely winnable: Surely the WP community overall consensus can see beyond scientism. But if there were such a noticeboard, the hard-core (scientistic) skeptics might argue that in principle, it's OK, but in practice, it functions as a POV-pushing forum. Are there safeguards we could build into the functioning of the noticeboard to minimize its potential for POV-pushing abuse in that manner? How do people defend the existence/functioning of the Fringe Theory noticeboard? (I agree, there really is a close relation, even an ironic overlap, between the two sets of issues) How do people document that a noticeboard has functioned "properly"? Health Researcher (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence
Xavexgoem is chair of the Mediation Committee, probably one of the most experienced mediators and observers of mediation process that we have. I suggest that if he closes something, you respect that closure. It's pretty clear that it's going nowhere right now and equally clear that some at least of the participants don't accept your continued mediation. It's not the end of the world. Walk away and leave them to find another resolution - this may well end up in arbitration, you're best advised not to be seen as any part of the problem if that happens. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Guy - sorry, I just now noticed that you and JzG are the same user.


 * please read the ANI - Xavexgoem has retracted his opposition and now is willing to allow me to continue, so long as (in his words), I don't extend it unnecessarily. I hope you will give me the same consideration.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a comment at WT:MedCab concerning this whole deal. Also, I read through some of the discussion and it seems to me that you're doing pretty damn well. (particularly with the no-one likes, so let's use it sourcing compromise :-) ) Xavexgoem (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Orgone reply
Moved it down when I found was used at head of the cloudbuster article, as noted in history. If you want, put the colour one on the latter page. Just avoiding boredom for the diligent reader. Redheylin (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * not a big issue, I was just curious if you had a reason. all is well.    -- Ludwigs 2  02:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
I agree with Xavexgoem's suggestion that mediation should continue for a further two weeks. After that I understand that mediation will be closed and unmediated editing recommence. This seems like a fair compromise. Mathsci (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the unmitigated and unjustified attacks you launched against me recently, I am not willing to discuss with you the details of my agreements with other editors. I cannot - as a matter of evidence - trust you to be open-minded, fair, or civil, and so in order to maintain an open-minded, fair and civil attitude with respect to you I prefer to leave you out of any discussion I have that does not explicitly involve you.  You are, technically speaking, a participant in the mediation, and so you will receive exactly the same functional opportunities for involvement and discussion that every other participant has. But I do not care to engage you on anything resembling a personal level.


 * Your opinion and assumptions are noted, without comment. thanks.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that the suggestion of at least two weeks further mediation was yours. I'm sorry if I overlooked that. Incidentally, in spite of the wikibreak, I did notice that in the straw poll I insisted on a fourth mediator on the 26th of January when Xavexgoem dropped out. Since the agreements for the fourth round were made shortly afterwards and I could not participate, I will not involve myself in any of the current mediation discussions. Despite what I might have said, having looked today extensively at all the talk archives I think I must agree with Xavexgoem's appraisal of your mediation (you should probably get a survivor's barnstar if I knew how to award you one). I wish you luck in what is likely to be an almost impossible task. Mathsci (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ok. to be honest, even though I am angry at you I would still like it if you would participate in the draft review process; if you so choose.  I can't fault your perspective, and I think that the stability of the article will benefit from it.  It might be carried by others (I announced this on wp:FT/N nd wp:NPOV/N, for breadth), but just so you know where I stand.


 * the rest I will consider when I've cooled down a bit. -- Ludwigs 2  18:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just responding on the R&I Talk page
Wish me luck! David.Kane (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Luck isn't needed - I have faith in you.   -- Ludwigs 2  20:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's go "camping"...
Ludwigs, I know you have a lot on your plate right now, but I feel the need to at least document an objection in case it's needed in the future, yet don't want to inject it into the mediation as it would serve no constructive purpose. Sorry for kacking up your talkpage with it, but I feel somehow required to let you at least know about it.

I'm getting more than a little tired of being pushed into some "hereditarian camp" in the comments of some editors (which started in the AN/I thread but has bled over into the mediation discussion). The view for which I have regularly pleaded is agnosticism based on the conclusions of the APA report, i.e.: "6. The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."

That's the view of the American Psychological Association, and that's the view I'd like to see dominate in the article. As far as I'm concerned, the whole damn article could be stubbed down to the summary of the APA report and then locked for all eternity. It's frustrating as hell to see my involvement in the article repeatedly characterized as pushing a "minoritarian" (not my choice of wording), "fringe" or "hereditarian" POV when I'm trying to get the article to reflect the APA's conclusion on this issue, and if there were anything I could do about it outside of accosting other editors directly, I would.

Again, sorry for posting this here at this time, but I needed to get it off my chest. Thanks. -- Aryaman (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, you needn't have worried, for two reasons. first, I knew this; I've never seen you come anywhere near pushing a POV. second, I'm intentionally keeping blinders on as to who believes what, so that it's easier for me to treat everyone equally.  The problem with this article, really, is the tension between editors on the genetic side and editors from the wiki-skeptic camp, each of whom have been overstating their perspective and doing their best to undermine the other side.  I'm hoping that if we can get the article in place and force discussion away from philosophical abstractions to concrete sourcing issues, both sides will get leveled to their correct prominence.  we'll see, though.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

real life
Hey, it is bad timing but real life means I have to take a wikibreak now. I think I have made my own views very clear on the mediation page and sure hope that they are helpful right now. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * damn, that's too bad. I'd appreciate it if you could (at very least) leave some quick comments about the draft in the review section. you don't need to hang around to defend them - I'll take the responsibility of making sure that they are heard and discussed properly - but you are a reasonable voice on a page that needs reasonable voices at the moment, and it would be painful to see you go without at least some last comments.  up to you, of course, but I'd appreciate it.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed Mediation Cabal
So sorry I didn't see your message until today. We likely will be moving the whole rewrite from the drafts page to the talk page very shortly and I expect the editing will get quite lively/contentious. I guess we should leave it closed until (unless) we feel the need to reopen it. Thanks for your interest and help. LoreMariano (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not meddle with my edits again on the mediation talk page. Please stop and exercise a small amount of self control. You do not WP:OWN the page and may not fiddle around with other people's edits. You are not there to comment on content. If you want to do that, you should have involved yourself as an editor. If you want to be the subject of a future ArbCom case, you are certainly going about it the right way. The same rules apply to you as any other editor on the mediation page. You can be blocked for refactoring other users' edits on talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * please read the mediation rules, which you are obliged to follow. personal attacks or other non-article related personal comments (such as implying POV-pushing) are off limits.  I strongly suggest you refrain from them, and I will ask you to refactor any that you have already made, but if you refuse to refactor personal comments I reserve the rights to remove them myself.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. What you have written above is just meaningess nonsense. You might want to justify yourself a little more carefully than you have have done here on WP:ANI, where I have brought up this latest act of disruption by you. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to do what you want, but on the mediation page you will refrain from anything resembling a personal comment. those are the mediation rules, so please abide by them.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions for you
I've left a couple questions/comments for you that I'd appreciate your response to on my talk page and in the mediation case for race and intelligence. The one on my talk page is in our most recent discussion there, and the one in the mediation case is in the "Rewriting Article from March 30 to April 1" section. If you disagree with what I said in my most recent reply to you on my userpage, I'd also appreciate it if you could explain your reasoning. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, Mustihussain has been making several attempts to make changes to the article that he hasn't discussed with any of us. He apparently isn't willing to discuss his edits on the mediation page, but I don't want to have to edit war with him over this.  How do you recommend handling this?


 * He's in 3RR territory: 1, 2, 3. I'm not one to run to the wikilawyering pages, but someone should perhaps inform him of the situation he's in and try to get him to use the talkpage before this gets any worse. -- Aryaman (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, make that 4. I've never warned anyone about this kind of thing before. Help, please? -- Aryaman (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I closed the discussion about restarting the debate or moving the page - I expect there will be some argument about it, but I would ask you guys to ignore it and go back to discussing improvements to the draft. I've also left a note for Mustihussain, and will keep an eye on it.


 * Occam, I'll respond on your page, or in the mediation, which ever seems more reasonable. let me go see what you said. -- Ludwigs 2  15:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It’s two separate questions. One (on my talk page) is about how to respond to the points Muntuwandi has been making about what’s responsible for his lack of agreement with other users, and the other (in the mediation) is just about when I should start posting my feedback for David.Kane’s revisions to the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence II
hello, ludwigs2! i just don't understand what the problem is. look at my additions to subchapter 2.3.1 (health and nutrition). the correlation between iodine deficiency and reduction of iq is an established scientific fact reported in several papers for years (see e.g. the copenhagen consensus). this reduction is usually calculated to be between 12 to 15 iq points. racial theorists and other pseudo scientists, of course, try very hard to hide this and other incriminating medical facts. in chapter 2.3.8 (physiology) i added the results of john lorber's research, but i could have gone further. the whole chapter is misleading (albert einstein's brain weighed only 1230 grams!). in addition, there is increasing evidence that rearing conditions (subchapter 2.3.2) affects the iq...the list can go on!

for now, however, i am just trying to add info that racial theorists are deliberately omitting; additions that are well inside the consensus reached.

mustihussain 15:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)


 * Mustihussain: I have no objections on the grounds of content. the problem I'm having is that I'm in the middle of a very tense mediation, and having you get a bit pushy about including the material directly (4 reverts???) is likely to create some excess stress for the participants.  we have a mediation page with a thread for comments - Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence - why don't you present the material you want to add there, so that we can discuss it.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * i understand. but do you really think it is a good idea that i participate in a mediation that already looks like a kafkaian nightmare? besides, what i wrote about iodine deficiency is a medical fact. it's nothing to discuss. the consensus version of the article notes:


 * "factors including lead exposure[37], breast feeding[38], and nutrition[39][40] can significantly affect cognitive development and functioning."


 * it is already there! i just added a figure! if i am not allowed to even provide a complementary proven fact to a subchapter then there is no hope. the whole "discussion" is a charade. the racial theorists have hijacked the article.mustihussain 16:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that your edits were reverted several times is a really good indication that you should discuss the matter. just say what you said here, be factual, concise, and make it clear that you don't think the edit is all that contentious, and wait to see what people say.  There is no need for you to enter into the political squabbles at all.  if people say no, then accept it for now, wait a week, and try discussing it again (the emotional climate in the mediation goes up and down on a regular basis).  -- Ludwigs 2  16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ok, i'll give it a thought. thanks for the advice. mustihussain 16:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)

Ludwigs2, I think you had better check mediation policy. The purpose of mediation is to resolve a dispute among specific editors. The mediation page is a forum for accomplishing this. But it is not a substitute for the talk page of an article. The talk page of an article is for any discussion towards improving the article.

I think you need to distinguish between specific conflicts among specific editors that led to mediation, and any new conflicts. If Mustihussain was part of the conflict that led to mediation, and then made an edit on a point being discussed at the mediation, then I could see your objecting to her action.

But Mustihussain was not part of the mediation, because he was not part of the conflict that required mediation. It is wrong for any editor, Captain Occam, me, anyone, to object to his editing the article on the grounds that it was not approved by the mediation page. This simply means that the mediation page is usurping the role of the article talk page.

You wrote, "The fact that your edits were reverted several times is a really good indication that you should discuss the matter." This is inappropriate. Captain Occam and Mikemikev reverted Mustihussain's edits sseveral times but always with the same reason: that the edit had not been approved by the mediation page. They never asked if the edit made by Mustihussein violated any Wikipedia content policy; they did not care whether the edit was an improvement to the article because it added another sourced view, for example. It is Captain Occam and Mikemikev who were acting inappropriately. They cannot use the fact that they are in a mediation as a pretext to keep people who are not part of the mediation from editing the article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, after making his edits David Kane invited people to "edit boldly" now that he was done. The only question in my mind that we should have about any future edits to the article are the same one's we would ask of any edit to any article: is it compliant with NPOV, V, RS, and NOR? Is it written in an appropriate style? Is it encyclopedic? If someone objcts to an edit on the basis of one of thse criteria, they should take it to the articl talk page per Wikipedia policy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwig, do you think it’s a good idea for us to be inviting editors to add or remove material in the article at this point, without discussing it in the mediation? I don’t.  Everyone is agreed that the current article is a first draft, and the mediation is in the process of determining how it should be revised.  If we allow an entirely separate discussion to take place on the article talk page, which reaches its own separate conclusions about how to revise this draft, it’s more likely than not that those conclusions will be different from the ones we reach in the mediation.


 * If you do decide to allow separate and parallel discussions about how to revise the article, I think you need to come up with a plan about what we should do if the conclusions of those discussions end up conflicting with one another, because the odds are against two separate discussions on separate pages independently coming to the same conclusion. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @ slrubenstein: I'd normally agree with you, but unfortunately this mediation got opened to the entire world, and I am adapting to that situation as I can. The fact that he got reverted several times (as is true on any page) does mean that he should discuss the edit with other editors, and the mediation page (given the current situation) is as good a place to do that as any - better in some ways, since it keeps the conversation contained in one location.


 * Right now, I have one goal - to get you guys to produce a good, neutral, balanced article. Circumstances not of my making and outside my control have made that far more convoluted and difficult than it ought to be, so I find myself having to ignore some otherwise sound procedural issues that (in this situation) will only get in the way of producing a decent article.  If you want to contribute to building the article, please do so.  If you want to make a substantive complaint about something that you think is interfering with creating neutrality or balance, please do that as well.  But you're complaining here about me asking someone to discuss their edits in one place rather than another place, and that is a procedural issue of absolutely no consequence to the development of the article, and not something that I am interested in arguing about.


 * As I said elsewhere: if you want to be part of the solution, I will welcome you with open arms; if you don't, that's too bad, but that is your right. But don't stir up inconsequential procedural issues, because at this point that will only get in the way of building the article.


 * @ Occam: I have no set opinion on people adding material to the article itself. if what they add is an improvement, who would object?  if what they add is contested, then we'll stick by wp:BRD. Anything that gets added can be adjusted as the review discussion progresses, if need be.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * P.s. of course, mediation participants are obliged not to edit the article without first establishing consensus in talk. I assume that is clear...-- Ludwigs 2  19:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, guys, if you do not agree with David Kan'e invitation on the article talk page, then say so, to David Kane, on the article talk page. In the meantime, the mediation page is to mediate specific discputes among specific parties.  You cannot make it a requirement that anyone wishing to edit the article join the mediation or seek your/our approval. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't make it a requirement, all I did was ask him to bring it up there because there was a clear disagreement about its inclusion. or would you rather I left it to turn into an edit war?  There is no more to be said on this issue, so drop it and go review Bryan Pesta's comments at the mediation page.  I'd love to hear your opinion on them.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * i totally agree with Slrubenstein. there is a template on the r&i page saying: "you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well". it didn't say anything about getting the approval of editors that are themselves stuck in a "mediation" quagmire. the fact that some editors claimed that i needed an approval to state a medical fact is shocking. it is assumed that iodine deficiency causes a huge loss of i.q. points in the world (i.e. in the developing world, see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_intelligence#Micronutrients_and_vitamin_deficiencies). even racial theorists like lynn and vanhanen are clever enough to mention that iodine and other micronutrients are essential for the development of cognitive abilities!


 * i also find subsections "physiology" (2.3.8) and "rearing conditions" (2.3.2) quite poor (for different reasons). in the physiology section it is stated that:"studies have reported correlations that range from 0 to 0.6, with most correlations 0.3 or 0.4.[51]". sorry, but this is not serious. the point has to be elaborated. such a huge variation in correlation is most probably due to statistical fluctuations (i.e. lack of statistics) i.e. there is no way to determine what the real "correlation" is as long as there is not enough statistics... "0 to 0.6" doesn't tell the reader anything at all. in the "rearing conditions" section, references to newer findings are missing (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/books/review/Holt-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/books/review/Holt-t.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 , http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23wwln_idealab.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2 , http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23wwln_idealab.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2). mustihussain 02:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also nothing on the page that says you are allowed to ignore wp:BRD. please read and understand that page.  If you want to make changes, nothing is stopping you.  if you get reverted, discuss the matter.  I don't care (personally) whether you discuss the matter in mediation or on the article's talk page (I thought it would be easier for all concerned to discuss it on the mediation page but it seems your interests lie elsewhere), but if you engage in tendentious editing of the sort you engaged in earlier I'll report you for edit warring.


 * Understood? -- Ludwigs 2  02:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point, Ludwigs2. BRD only works if the revert is made in good faith. A good faith revert is: this violates a core content policy. Or, this adds not content but disrupts the flow of the prose. But Captain Occam and mikemikev were reverting not for any of these good reasons, but because Mustihussain was not part of the mediation. They were demanding he join the mediation as a condition for editing. That is wrong, and is edit-warring, not what Mustihussain did. Understood? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SLR, that is bullshit. BRD means someone makes a bold edit, someone else reverts it (for whatever reason they may have), and then the two of them go to talk and discuss the matter.  mustihussain did not (and unless I've missed something, still has not) made any comments in talk whatsoever.  The three editors who reverted him were perfectly within their rights to do so, and mustihussain made the error of not trying to discuss the matter with them.  enough.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but when reverting an edit it is customary to then create a section on the talk page of the article in question, and explain the reason for the reversion. I am not defending Mustihussain, but neither does anyone have cause to defend Catain Occam or Mikemikev. If they had a problem with Musti's edit, they were fine to revert him but BRD means that they should have initiated a discussion on the article talk page. You have to have a reason to revert, a reason that opens up a discussion. Captain Occam and Mikemikev did not. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you raising yet another minor procedural point to justify your first minor procedural point?


 * rube: I get it, I understand the issues you have the article, I understand that you're angry, I even understand the political techniques that you're using here to try to achieve your goals (filibustering on minor procedural issues, making numerous complaints to administrators in various locations, etc. - I could go on with a more detailed analysis if you like). I even sympathize with you, and I am trying to give you the opportunity to get past all that and make a decent article.  So do us both a favor: let it go and get back to editing.  ok? -- Ludwigs 2  16:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, if you cannot talk about it like a grown up, fine, sorry I hit a nerve. At first I really thought you just misread the situation in responding too quickly. Now it is clear that this is not the case. By the way, filibustering cannot happen at Wikipedia. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * whatever you think is fine. let's just get back to revising.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Side note: If you would like to me do a second rewrite incorporating comments from Aprock, Bpestas, Occam and others, then it would have to be either Tuesday or Wednesday this week. (I could also do next week, but my sense is that you want to move this along.) No worries if you would rather have someone else do it. DJ, among others, is a much better writer than I am! David.Kane (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)