This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mathsci. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Its the (deserved) three month topic ban on Ayn Rand that persuaded me the route is a good one. No problem with you putting the comment in, deleting it straight away really plays into the hands of those who think you game the system. I've looked at weighing in a couple of times as I do think you are being ganged up on, but the present exchange is poisonous. --SnowdedTALK10:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Mathsci, I really hate to get involved in this sort of mess, but I'm going to politely ask that you retract your comment about Capt. O being involved in Holocaust denial. True, the blog posting which you cite as your source for your claims about Capt. O is not optimally worded, but to interpret from it that he is a denier is a little too much of a stretch. DS (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahem, first of all you have incorrectly described what I wrote. On WP users other than me have discussed the precise off-wiki post, which I made no link to (Occam gave the account himself). Secondly, according to an email Maunus sent me, he redacted my post at least twelve hour before you wrote your message.[1] Were you aware of this? Mathsci (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Before your edit, there was one section marked "controversy." You rewrote the article like a science review, as if it were some objective article, using just the primary source. It was initially a letter to the WSJ drafted by Linda Gotfredson and cosigned by 52 people whom Linda Gottfredson she knew. She subsequently got it published in the journal of which she and some of the other signatories are editors. Some editors who are notable and mainstream, like Flynn and Sternberg, or plenty of other experts like Jencks, were not cosignatories. I have no idea whether this "letter" was discussed in any reliable secondary source. I wouldn't be surprised if it hadn't, since it appears to be an opinion piece, a bit of lobbying. Mathsci (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I think normally we'd look for secondary sources. For example I found this discussion quite quickly by Eleanor Armour-Thomas in the Handbook of racial and ethnic minority psychology, ed Guillermo Bernal. I'm sure there are lots of others. Mathsci (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm all for improving the article via the introduction material from reliable sources, and I encourage anyone to do so. Yet, you seem to either overlook or willingly ignore the fact that the "Controversy" section you refer to was nothing other than a collection of references to The Bell Curve - not to Mainstream Science on Intelligence. To my knowledge, there is no "controversy" surrounding the publication of Mainstream Science on Intelligence. If one were to write a statement on the role Mainstream Science on Intelligence played in the unfolding of the modern debate surrounding race and intelligence, I certainly would not object. But I don't appreciate the implication of your edit summary, i.e. that I have eliminated "all criticism" from the article in an attempt to whitewash the subject. I first proposed my changes on the talkpage, presenting my rationale, and then waited for a full week before undertaking the edits as per WP:BOLD. If I were still intent on editing the article, I'd request that you reply to the concerns I raised there so we could work out a mutually agreeable solution. As it stands, however, I'd bored to tears with the insinuations and generally fanatical atmosphere surrounding all of these articles, so you're free to do as you please. That goes for all of them. I do request, however, that you leave me out of your future involvement with them. --Aryaman(talk)12:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I don't quite see the point in writing an article by summarising a letter/editorial without giving any context using secondary sources. At the moment I am locating secondary sources for History of the race and intelligence controversy where this will be added, without a detailed description, in connection with the other books and articles written in response to the "Bell Curve". Mathsci (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Adding material from secondary sources is, of course, to be encouraged. I do not consider the article "finished" in any way. At the same time, I don't feel obligated to attempt "completion" with every article I edit. Though I generally make it a point to add more material than I remove, and to make sure that the material I introduce is properly sourced, removing substandard material is as far as my involvement with this particular article went. Criticism regarding the lack of secondary sources in the article, while justified, should be directed towards the article, not towards individual editors. Provided you refrain from making those kinds of remarks in your edits, we should be able to prevent our paths from crossing in the future. --Aryaman(talk)13:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mathsci. You should either explain your tags or allow them to be removed from Mainstream Science on Intelligence. It is not fair to generally tag an article without an explanation. There is no hurry, you can remove the tags yourself and then add them back when you are ready to explain them. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
R & I and History section
I would like to keep the History subsection of Race and Intelligence "in sync" with the History of Race and Intelligence article by having the former be identical to the lead of the latter. Would that be OK with you? David.Kane (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Mathsci. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
After I reverted your edit, upon closer examination I noticed that you’d modified the text from what it was before more than I’d initially realized. I was intending to self-revert and leave it for others to decide whether or not your new wording was acceptable, but you reverted my edit so fast that I didn’t have the chance.
You ought to be more careful about reverting. In this case it was completely unnecessary, since I would have self-reverted if you’d waited more than five minutes before reverting it yourself. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
That's probably true. On the other hand, you (Captain Occam) might want to be more careful about reverting as well. You apparently reverted Mathsci's edit before actually examining its content, and now you're criticizing him for being too quick on the trigger. You waited exactly 5 minutes before reverting Mathsci's edit, which apparently was not enough time for you to actually examine its content. I would suggest that people are unlikely to take your advice seriously if you yourself are unwilling to heed it. MastCellTalk23:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I’ve admitted that my revert was a mistake, and that I would have self-reverted if given the chance. All I would like is for Mathsci to admit to his own mistake the same way that I’ve admitted to mine.
I’m not sure if any explanation beyond this is necessary, but the reason this happened is because I was so used to Mathsci repeatedly re-adding the same material to this article that when I examined his new edits, I misread some of what he’d added as being the same as it was before. I was tired, and distracted, and was so used to the same pattern of behavior from him on this article that I didn’t realize it was something different until after I’d clicked the “save” button. That’s when I tried to self-revert, but found that Mathsci had reverted it already.
Even though I admit that I made a mistake here, Mathsci’s combative style is not making this situation any easier. It’s also evident from the current WQA thread about him that I’m not the only person who feels this way at the moment. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Email
Hi, I sent you two emails - one was very short and appears to have gone through but the second one bounced.
The first one was short and after I sent it, I thought of a better way to explain what I meant, so I wrote a longer one. It was, in part, toning down what may have sounded blunt in the first one. Let me know if you got either of them, and if not, please email me again with an alternate address? Thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race and Intelligence 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—
Please don't accidentally kill the topic ban requests by filling them with fights between you and the other guys. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
This was removed by me because it distresses the subject. ArbCom is well aware of the evidence behind the remark, having also been emailed by another editor. To wit: "Evidence to submitted privately to avoid outing. Hipocrite (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)" Cool HandLuke17:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I assure you this isn't an emotionally-charged message. Hipocrite gave us a very good email on the subject with links to the various sites. As such, there's less cause to hammer it out publicly. Cool HandLuke00:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You got reported at WP:ANI#1RR violation unenforced by Spartaz by the way, the reporter forgot to inform you. From discussion at 3RR and ANI consensus supports that you have not - not this time anyway - violated 1RR. However I remind you that a liberal definition of 1RR can be used when enforcing, and the scope of a 'revision' is fairly wide - please take care not to even come close to breaking it. Thanks S.G.(GH)ping!11:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I sent you a WP email about the R&I dispute. Just to see if I could help move the argument forward a bit. A brief reply if you have a minute would be appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI: Your name came up in a sockpuppet investigation
Of course, there are those who will also be quick to point out that "History of the race and intelligence controversy (422 edits),Race and intelligence (123 edits, new material for rewrite), Snyderman and Rothman (study) (111 edits, complete rewrite), Mainstream Science on Intelligence (54 edits, complete rewrite) could all be construed as edits to race-related articles (at least 714 edits), which can be construed as clashing with the other statement of: "Number of content edits to race-related articles from 2006 to March 2010: around 50".Just my tuppence worth that we need to be very careful about the numbers we present as evidence here.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
All those contributions/articles were written after April 1 2010 (mostly in April and May). I did start editig Orgelbüchlein (44 edits) in May, but preferred to work complete Clavier-Übung III first. Mathsci (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you asked about de:Datei:Sophienkirche Dresden Orgel 1910.jpg. Since it's from a print publication from 1912, it's clearly public domain in the US [2], so no problem that I can see. The author of the book was born in 1863, so it's quite possible (though not certain) that it also fulfills the 70 yrs p.m.a. rule of German law. But in any case, it shouldn't be problematic for en-wiki. Fut.Perf.☼19:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
MathSci, D, think the NPOV policy needs to provide more guidance about how properly to identify a view. I would like to know what you think. I want to propose something to the NPOV policy along these lines: that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). Do you see the sense in this? If so, could you take a stab and coming up with an elegant, clear, and appropriate way of wording it? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, you are committed to using reliable secondary sources, and you are commited to NPOV, so I think you are a great person to ask! I will give a trivial example: one secondary source may identify an article by Jensen as racist or at least racialist. We cannot from that infer that all articles Jensen wrote are racist. (ditto statements by Watson etc.). This can be construed to raise NOR issues, but I also see it as a matter calling for more clairty or guidance at NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk10:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't think anything published by Jensen could be described as racist. I am aware that historically various figures made charges of racism against him in very precise circumstances and at very particular times. Statements like that can reported if the correct context is provided along with a clear attribution. Mathsci (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Mathsci, it was just an analogy. Would you prefer: secondary source a can ascribe point of view m to publication x, writen by author p. But this is not sufficient therefore to ascribe POV m to publication y, also written by author p. In fact, in general we should try not to ascribe a POV to author p as if we sould then deduce that anything author p writes - x, y or z - forwards that POV.
My point is that we may use sources x y and z in an article, but we shoud not just say they all represent the same POV m because they were all written by author p. One author may write different things forwarding different views. Is this clearer?Slrubenstein | Talk12:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mathsci. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
