User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 14

I've restored the comments at Talk:Race and intelligence and added the warning you suggested. Thanks for the tip! --JereKrischel 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article and Talk. You seem to have a clear NPOV in this debate and that is needed. I am not familiar with this topic. I am familiar with animal behavior-neuroethology and genomics. I think the genomic perspective would discount race and just call it human variation, although there are differences in populations. I have started reading the literature on this subject and it is contentious to say the least. Did this article spin off a human intelligence article? Thanks for the invite and I'll see if I can offer any opinions with merit! I am still pondering Evo-Devo. I have accumulated so much material. I just don't know how to organize it yet, but good things often take time to mature. GetAgrippa 18:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein I agree with your comments on intelligence (I was instructed the same). I have always thought that the octopus and capuchin monkey were extremely intelligent. We tend to compare intelligence to humans and we tend to make a lot of a fact that may be an artifact-race and intelligence. Given most animal behaviors are both genetic and environment, I doubt that this issue is any different. I wonder has eye color or distance from equator been compared. I remember studies of interracial children in the seventies that emphasized environment. I am curious about the initial studies and the distribution of IQ and the highest IQ's. Have comparisons been made of hispanics from Spain, Mexico, Puerto Rico, etc.comparing IQ's. It seems that bias (not prejudice) may drive much of this research. Didn't one of our early ancestors have bigger brains than we? I don't put much credence in overall brain size, but differences in specific brain structures does have appeal. I would think environmental experience (parenting and education)should be weighed, because the brain needs stimulation to develop after birth. Environment such as diet and water quality (lead and arsenic are third world problems that effect neuro and cardio function). The developmental history should be used as a parameter to segregrate data. Well as you see I have more questions than answers, but you have piqued my curiosity.

Yeah the Evo-Devo research was fruitful, I have gotten side tracked on hybrization and epigenetic influence and I want to pursue those also. The hybrid article is weak. I'm thinking of a NeoLamarckism article to emphasize epigenetics in developmental-phenotypic plasticity and hybridization and how they influence evolution. GetAgrippa 14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recollect a literature examining social intelligence in mammals and birds and comparing brain or brain structure size. I think you bring up a great point in comparing intelligence and the bird literature maybe helpful in comparing what we call intelligence. Memory studies might be helpful also. Context is important-isn't there some tale of island primitives recognizing a ship yet they were unable to recognize a painting of the same ship?I think you are correct to point out an evolutionary-neurobiological perspective that brings in bigger issues of fitness and success within an environment. Comparisons are neutral. Productivity and success(biological and social) are a better measure than examing any single trait. Comparisons do have benefit in relation to health and disease. Isn't there a literature of differences in Orientals in color perception. I don't see that has offered any measureable advantage in producing the greatest artist,etc. historically. An interesting topic. I think you should introduce your big picture perspective.GetAgrippa 16:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did find an interesting article related to differences in all organs (including brain) in blacks compared to whites and metabolism:: Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 May;83(5):1062-7.Small organs with a high metabolic rate explain lower resting energy expenditure in African American than in white adults.Gallagher D, Albu J, He Q, Heshka S, Boxt L, Krasnow N, Elia M.

I thought that was interesting in an evolutionary sense. All the fuss about differences in brain size may be metabolic and have nothing to do with intelligence.GetAgrippa 18:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are confident that this discussion is yielding fruitful results, then I am glad. Previously, editors seemed to be simply edit warring and posting their contrasting views on the talk page without actually seeking to find a middle ground. Now that editing is impossible they are forced to actually discuss. I will leave the article protected at least until you feel that unprotection is possible. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see User_talk:Wdhamilton#Username --WD RIK NEW 16:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do, it's been very helpful. But I think we got off topic, and tried to identify what I think the range of the debate should be -- I also filled in a few details of arguments I know of that have been made in this context. --WD RIK NEW 17:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it should acknowledge and summarize the relevant views especially as they have played a role in debates on the relationship between race and intelligence. -- most definitely. i think the race section should describe it to the level of detail commensurate with its importance. i think JK thinks it is something more. i think JK is taking these arguments made about race in itself out of their content and mixing them with arguments aimed at refuting any genetic causation. i may or may not be right about that, but i'm pretty sure that's what's happened. --WD RIK NEW 17:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct about the article title. It should be more like Psychometric Analysis of Human Intelligence. If it garners the title of Human Intelligence it needs a big dose of neurobiological perspective of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology and a evolutionary perspective of how it came about and reflect on social intelligence. I don't think I can help with the Race and Intelligence article, the science and social issue seem a quagmire. The move to change the article seems positive. I think the whole article needs a prelude of evolutionary neurobiological perspective of intelligence so difference can be seen a neutral light.GetAgrippa 22:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree, then I think we understand each other. Maybe part of my frustration goes back to over a year ago, when two editors went around basically acting as though they owned the article, turning down or talking circles around most anyone who had objections to what most people already perceived then was a definitely racialist POV. I saw editor after editor come in, state their objections, try to argue their point, but only to be eventually driven away for lack of obstination. Then last year, one of the two "owning" editors eventually dropped off when JK, a couple others and myself decided we would be as patient as they could be. That's unfortunately how the bulk of this protracted edit war began. Today, after being absent for over two months, I see from the diverse editors' comments it is now WRN who is in the definite minority, whereas there is a consensus to drive this article away from what many, many see as a racialist slant. Personnally, I believe WRN should eventually accept to surrender the article to the editorial consensus, however, he unfortunately seems to be only slightly more amenable to do so now than he was over a year ago. I can't say that I can't sympathize with his position, though, considering the vast amounts of time and effort he personnally put in the article. But all that being said, I feel that since I was there at the beginning of this edit war and was quite instrumental in starting it, I'd want to be included in seeing it to its conclusion. I'll do my best to keep my coments to a minimum until we are past this hurdle, but unfortunately, I'm seeing this as a case that will in all likelihood end in formal arbitration, with possibly disastrous consequences. I just hope I'm wrong on this last one.--Ramdrake 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I gave it another try and attempted to set an example by asking questions to both that I think are directly related to the current issues of contention (AFAIK). We'll see where this goes, if anywhere.--Ramdrake 19:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wanted to give you a caveat on this: "Thank you, Ramdrake. I have no objection to your edit as long as we all agree on groundrule 2 - that it not only has to come from the verifiable literature on race (or intelligence) but from a part of that literature that either addresses the relationship between the two, or has been cited/is used in published debates concerning the relationship between the two.". Since pro-racialist researchers (I'm thinking especially Rushton, but also Lynn, etc) are known to have used a lot of literatur in the debate (also known as meta-analysis, stuff like the twinning frequency of Blacks) which would otherwise have nothing to do with the relationship of race to intelligence, there may be a lot of articles that have been cited out there that the other side of the debate might say shouldn't be included, or vice-versa. Not sure how you would want to address this, but I think it needs to be addressed.--Ramdrake 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just another question: as one of the ways to frame this debate has been as "Are the causes of race differences in intelligence genetic or environment", what if any, is the place in this article of studies that demonstrate environmental effects on intelligence, without relating it to race (such as the references Futurebird provided)? I'm just not convinced they're OR, as "environment and IQ", even though not part of the title, is at least one part of the debate. What do you think?--Ramdrake 16:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can stay out of the talk page. But I will keep reading and expect to hear from me if (and when) things go wrong. Sometimes I wonder if anyone even understands what's wrong with this article... this whole experience is making me physically ill. You see a few weeks ago I put in an AMA request about this article and about WDH. Since then, I've been working pretty hard to be cooperative and civil. I don't want to be shut out of the final conversation... I worry that other's don't appreciate the subtitles of these arguments. I'm tired of being told I'm being unscientific. Like I'm just supposed to stand back and let all of these things be said when, they can't even get the numbers right? I'm talking about all of the bad statistics in some of the graphs on the page, and the mixing of different statistical sources. How can you compare data from different studies like that? Let's not forget the graphs without scales and with incorrect dates. For example, the bell curve graph was dated 2006 when I first saw this page a week or two ago, but the data are from 1981. That's a 25 year difference And WD just says oh, I made a mistake... That makes me so angry. All over the place sources are quoted selectively. Every one of these dishonest things has been done with this clear agenda to make Black people seem like natural-born imbeciles. (Forgive my frank way of putting it.) If we want to have this article, it ought to be sensitive, it ought to be correct. Do you think enough editors understand this?

I'll admit to being hyper-sensitive, but think of me as the canary in the coal mine--

Well, in any case, I'm glad that you're doing all of this work even if I complain a lot about it. futurebird 23:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SLR, (1) your attempts at mediation are most welcome, but what's really needed now is an educated third opinion -- or many of them -- attempts to explain to JK or I how we're mistaken, as we appear to be simply talking past one another. In case it's not clear, my concerns are (a) the removal of sourced material for inappropriate reasons (reasons that JK may have abandoned or perhaps just switched) and (b) the OR/NPOV implications of JKs suggestions about how to describe the research (in terms that its critics prefer rather than in the terms it is originally presented and later summarized by review sources like the APA report.) (2) Your concerns -- or the concerns you listed -- about SES and heritability are discussed here and in the sub-article. Almost all the evidence for any explanation of group differences is indirect. Opinions about the direct data do literally take all forms -- whether it trends towards a genetic or environmental explanation and whether the data is informative or meaningless -- all views have been expressed in approximately equal numbers. Unfortunately, the APA report uses this fact to claim that the "direct data" for a genetic hypothesis is weak (unarguably true but misleading), and then ignores all of the indirect data that's been proposed. According to the APA amongst others (e.g. John Ogbu), SES as an explanation is out. Many reasons are given for this, but proximally what it really comes down to (my opinion here) is that the SES*IQ correlation is far too weak (r~.33) and the BW gap in SES far too small; ultimately it suggests to the APA report and to Ogbu that cultural factors are involved. To Jensen it suggests the biological factors, both genetic and non-genetic must play a role (e.g. breastfeeding, low-birth weight). --WD RIK NEW 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite clear and AFAIK we agree. I know of no one. I'm suggesting that you try if you can. Otherwise, it will probably end up being Arbcom making the decisions. --WD RIK NEW 17:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the current responses to your "second attempt" thread to be moving us forward. One possibility is that I don't understand the points being made. Naturally, I suspect that instead the other commenters don't understand something -- and I think that something is in part related to what WP is and isn't. For example, Ramdrake seems to have taken the notion that references should be on topic to the point of saying that we should throw out all indirect evidence related to the cause of the BW gap. JK appears to have written an essay about thoughts about the use of race and the papers he thinks supports those views. (Michael J. Bamshad is an expert on race, but his thoughts do not constitute the first and last word on the subject. Risch would disagree with the statement JK quoted, for example.) --WD RIK NEW 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant others. I see a glimmer of progress maybe. --WD RIK NEW 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man I wish they would change the title to the "Controversy of Race and Intelligence", because it is based on historic bias (and still so to some degree) and really deals with isolating blacks from other races. I understand the need to deal with the subject, but it offends me that science can be deviated to ask the wrong questions and expect certain answers. I like your anthropological evolutionary perspective to examine the issue as a neutral phenomena. GetAgrippa 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Is this linked in the Race and Intelligence article? Thanks for the link and info. I haven't completed exploring, but it does look like an excellent teaching tool. I asked one of daughters (senior in high school) to look at the article and I placed her comments in the article for some general audience perspective. I thought it would be helpful. GetAgrippa 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you help develop this site? If so most excellent!! I have wished there was a similar minimovie for the Evolution article since so many people prejudge before reading the entire article (did that myself). I think your efforts in Race are paying off as the movement seems positive (slow but positive). GetAgrippa 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man I applaud your patience at Race and intelligence. I added a few comments from one of my daughters to provide an unbiased perspective and I thought the conversation was going well. It seems the editors discuss, discuss, discuss then stalemate. I think you are correct to focus on one issue at a time, and perhaps after all the experts make their plea you can request outside review by several non-experts to negotiate a compromise or solution. I would like to see solutions without a formal arbitration, but that is probably unlikely. Good luck!!!GetAgrippa 14:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that is what ArbComm deals with, I wasn't too sure how that worked. I use to teach, then teach and research, then research only. Now retired or semi-retired as I am seeking a teaching position. I miss the research. How about you? GetAgrippa 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be proud of your academic and publication achievements. It is difficult to juggle teaching, research, and writing. I haven't published a paper since 2000, but I have entertained writing a book. To be honest communication and writing aren't my strengths. I must have ADD because I have never been able to focus, and this is evident as I have published in the areas of neuroscience, immunology, and cardiovascular biology. I have more credibility as a cardiovascular biologist. My inability to focus has always been a criticism and yet my broad interest has been an asset in so many ways. I am addicted to science. This Wiki maybe a good venue to hone my writing skills. Thanks for the advice. GetAgrippa 17:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I want to emphasize that I believe the article has shortcommings. But for the moment we are discussing having or not having an article about the topic. The quality is some thing we can discuss in the talk page. Our current concern is about keeping or deleting the article. Take care. Sangak 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I understand your concerns about quality. On the other side, my three years of experience in wikipedia convinced me that currently a big fraction of articles in wikipedia have a quality much less than standard. And the best way to increase the quality is to keep the article and use a tag like the ones here[User:Alba/Workspace/Cleanup tag proposal] so that people come and contribute and hopefully over time it will reach to an acceptable status. But deleting the article and asking one user to make it in its talk page is not a good idea as one person is one person, too much responsibility and pressure on one (who is probably a non expert too)! Sangak 15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a chance, you may be interested in looking at Talk:Anti-Iranianism. A number of users have suggested drastic cleanup along the lines of what you proposed. GabrielF 00:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have high confidence in the ability of you and Ramdrake to work on the article constructively. I have low confidence in JK and FB. I have no idea what to do about this. Perhaps you do. --W.R.N. 22:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um. I archived comments, I didn't delete them-- if I did I made a mistake-- I'll look at the history... can you point me to it? futurebird 17:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time understanding what's missing from the page. Here is what I did: I cut large sections from the current talk page and pasted them in to the archive. I'll leave the archiving to you from here on out. I thought it was a good thing to archive everything then request people to restore if needed as you did. I think that's helping us to move forward.futurebird 18:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm restoring it now. I was under the impression that we needed to remove things that were cluttering the page, and because I started that section I thought it would be okay to archive it. Now that you have shown me what was missing I'm happy to put it back. futurebird 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the time you come across in a rather condescending way towards me. It bothers me. Do you think you could do anything about that? If I make an error could you point it out in a way that is more helpful and less like... well... like an attack-- it doesn't give me much confidence in this process when I'm treated so harshly by the person who's trying to be the 'arbitrator.' To be fair, I think you are just annoyed, and trying to sort things out-- or at least I hope that is the case... Though at this point I'm starting to wonder if you have something against me personally. futurebird 13:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here let's take a look at what I said:

Frankly, WRN, that's a cop-out. Just because the pro-racialist press strings together unrelated studies in a logical fallacy to promote a point in an unjustified manner, does not mean that we should simply report their statements as fact, or build their case for them point by point. <--This is a quote of what JK said a few paragraphs back, but you responded as if it was what I was saying.

All I said was this: But we ought to represent the fact that this POV exists and has been published. I agree we don't need to "build up" the argument on either side too much. But rather explain briefly and clearly what that side says. futurebird 21:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my method of quoting was not clear.

(I'm putting this here on your talk page since I don't want the discussion to go off on a tangent-- likewise, I think the comment you had about how I was participating the in the process rather than the process itself should have gone on my talk page... In fact, do you think you could move it there? )futurebird 14:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for getting futurebird blamed for my words - I'd like to make sure I explain myself though (taking all of your criticisms meant for me very seriously, of course). A very typical thing WRN has done is take a referenced body of pro-racialist work, like Rushton or Jensen, and instead of presenting their conclusions on a topic, he recreates their argument. For example, if Rushton said, "Blacks are sniforzily", it doesn't seem too far fetched to add that into the article. However, if Rushton says, "Blacks are sniforzily, because this test showed their big-toe correlated to their fingernail polish color, and this study showed fingernail polish color correlated to average age of senility, and this study shows average age of senility is directly correlated to sniforzilyness", what WRN has done in the past is completely recreate Rushton's detailed argument, giving direct citations to the big-toe/fingernail polish, fingernail polish/senility, senility/sniforzilyness studies, and presenting them as if this chain of citations is completely incontestable, instead of simply the opinion of one person doing a meta-analysis.

The problematic issue when dealing with this kind of point-by-point recreation (OR? not OR?), is that the response is often point-by-point. So if Rushton quoted Cavali-Sforza on his senility/sniforzilyness study, and took it out of context, or ignored Cavali-Sforza's own admonitions that it didn't apply to fingernail polish senility, we now have a counter-ref put in the chain of argument. WRN typically goes on to find a counter-counter-ref. Then I find a counter-counter-counter-ref, and so-on. At this point, the details have overwhelmed the particular section, and we've got something that in its entirety, I think, is both misleading and unreadable.

So when I say WRN is using a "cop-out" when he strings studies together, it is specifically because he is recreating the argument of the person doing the meta-analysis, and IMHO, giving unwarranted credence to the string of claims by avoiding direct citation of the original, and highly controversial, author of such a string. I hope that is a clear enough explanation for my concerns, and wonder if you have any insight on how such an issue may be managed - I've obviously failed at communicating to WRN how this concerns me, but maybe you have some ideas you could share with me on how better to present my issue? I greatly appreciate all the work you've been doing on trying to help us move forward, and apologize if my own inability to express my concerns is slowing down the process! --JereKrischel 17:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I didn't expect, when I came back to the article, that I would end up trying to mediate this beast. Well, at least this discussion is more serene and more productive than the one I was involved in on Foie gras just a few weeks ago. I feel it's actually going somewhere... slowly, but somewhere. I just hope you're not giving up.--Ramdrake 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Slrubenstein I need some assistance. There is an individual who keeps spamming the Evolution article, Talk, and editors with the bible. He has changed his/her name at least 4-5 times. Warnings are posted and they just make a new name and continue. Can we block their IP address or what can be done? Thanks.GetAgrippa 22:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SLR for the info for future reference about vandalisms. Man you should be a diplomat for the U.N. I don't see how you can referee the Race and Intellience. I applaud your diligence and being fair. I guess my pep talk sounded condescending. I have really taken to heart your comments as I have shied from writing articles (except one Smooth muscle which I just vomited info onto the page)and I am going to change that attitude. The whole point is writing a good encyclopedia-well better than that a role model for all encyclopedias. My trepidation about the reliability of this Wiki has subsided and my attitudes are really changing. Thanks for helping me in that regard.GetAgrippa 13:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you believe that a text has only one true meaning, generally that intended by the author of the text?".

Sir, if indeed you are a commited Post-structuralist, and if indeed you believe that all texts essential meaning is fluid, then would you agree that others may read your user-page and interpret it in their own way with absolute validity? 38.117.213.19 18:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way I could stop you? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are an admin, right? Can you explain why pages around here get locked as soon as people try to address POV issues by countering racist arguements? I've seen this happen to two pages today? Also, How can you mediate this dispute when you seem to have your own POV on it? I'm not trying to insult you here. It just looks unfair from where I'm seeing it. JJJamal 18:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fast response. The two pages are: Race and intelligence and Race, Evolution and Behavior futurebird has pointed out to me that both are locked and we both think this looks... well... fishy...

Also, thanks for your comments at Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) I'm thinking about how to fix those things now. JJJamal 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sl, I notice you're the person who has been archiving Talk:Evolution recently. Could it be time for another round? It's now up to 137 kb. People sure do talk a lot about this page.. EdJohnston 01:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but EnglishEfternamn, for example, was blocked at least partly because he made disruptive comments on an article's talk page that halted progress for some time. I admit, though, that my threat was partly a reaction to his flagrant arrogance and partly wishful thinking—a reflection of my desire for administrators to take a more heavy-handed approach in dealing with cranks. That wishful thinking, in turn, is the result of my recent stressful experiences with disruptive editors. In any case, you're right that the best thing to do is to ignore him. -- WGee 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking we might benefit from a template for artciles that compare and contrast between abrahamic religions. What do you think?

The idea would be that this new template has sections such as:

• The reigions - Judaism, Christianity, Islam
• Christianity and Judaism - Jewish views of Jesus, christianity and judaism, etc

and so on...

Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking more of a template for all those "compare/contrast" articles, which at present have a judaism and a christianity template, or a judaism and a jesus template. A single template for the various "compare/contrast" spectrum would simplify these. That was my thought. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement for "comparative religion"? That'd be a good idea :) Okay, yes, that helps. Not that I know much about it! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I getting really frustrated because I am responding to all of WD's feedback and making changes to the proposed text to try to address his or her concerns, however, once I do this, there is no response. Here are all of the open questions... one by one these have been dropped. I don't see how we can make progress if every suggestion I make is turned down, and my attempts to adjust the suggestion and compromise are ignored. futurebird 14:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CURRENT:

1. Change Media section- WD has raised some objections on the talk page of the sub-article and I have made changes to the text there to address those concerns, but there is still no response about making this change to the main article.
2. Change Utility of research- I removed text too meet the concerns WD raised on the talk page of the sub-article, but there has still been no response about this proposed change.
3. Possible revision of text about race as a proxy-I've proposed two revisions here, if they don't work... why? The conversation has just stopped...
4. New Intro Sentence No alternate proposals or responses to the revisions I've proposed...

OLD:

1. The new intro
2. My concerns about the references page.

I fear they would be subject to the same systemic bias that pervades this entire site. WD has been here longer than I have and he or she knows the rules better than I do. I certian WD could contrive some excuse to have me banned or blocked or whatever. I'm not going to become a "wiki-lawyer", just to add a little balance to this one article. I'm just doing my best to follow the rules in good faith and I hope others can do that too. My trust level is very low at this point, but I think it's be silly to simply give up. I'm in the process of finding people to help me better source and explain my concerns on this article. This isn't fun or educational, it's just sad. I wish I'd stuck to editing math articles!

But in the end of arbcom is the only option I'll try that. Could we try mediation first? Or is that already happening. This site is so confusing....

futurebird 14:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and thanks for you fast response. It WAS helpful. futurebird 14:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the study by Steele referred to here? I do not trust my source here, but if the characterization of Steele's (I assumeit is Shelby Steele) experiments is accurate, well, you see the value. I do not know his work well and know nothing concerning these experiments but maybe you do, or can find out. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

Here ya go!

futurebird 03:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W.R.N. is requesting protection of this article again. What do you think? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I am encountering problems replying to your recent email. I hope to have this resolved soon. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know. I am worried that we are enacting a tyrrany of the majority here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, I don't think the purpose of mediation should be to "meet in the middle" no matter what. It's possible that one view of the proper implementation of NPOV is actually the right one, and compromise isn't necessarily the best road if some people don't understand it in the first place, you know? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I am starting to think that Arbitration is the only way to resolve this issue. There's no need to worry about respect here. I think page protection was an attempt to see if discussion would resolve the dispute, and in this case that is clearly not happening. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your experiment has failed. [2] --W.R.N. 08:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean that protection is the best, or even a workable, alternative. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you go about getting a graphic deleted?JJJamal 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still seems to be protected. Can we open it up. It's holing up the edits, and causing confusion. I'm worried that the things I've added to the "explanations" section at Race and intelligence research will be lost in the shuffle. This has already happened three times:

1. WRN reverted page over multiple I made changes causing a few paragarphs I'd added to be lost in the process.[3] Had to restore the new things I added by hand.
2. Told WRN about restoring to older version without African information: [4]
3. WRN made a new page Race and intelligence (significance) and used and older version of the section on high-achieving minorities even after we talked about "being careful" on the talk main talk page. [5]
4. [6] deleting referenced criticisms.

futurebird 19:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I add my voice to this request as well? Currently Race and intelligence (explanations) is the only one still protected. --JereKrischel 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten way out of control again and the article has changed more in the last several days than in the last several years. Can you protect this article at the starting point of 7 days ago when it was unprotected, while we seek mediation? --Kevin Murray 04:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my concerns about the wording in mediation. I agree that the issue needs to be addressed, but the wording is rather one sided... What Can I do about this?

I'm also worried that now everyone thinks I was in an edit war. because after Ultra reverted this last time I saw that he/she had reverted to a version that skipped over some recent changes, so I decided to move it up to the last version before WDK reverted it. (god this is confusing)

The point is Kevin reverted it just before I did, so it looks like an edit war. But it's not. I try to stay out of that sort of thing... futurebird 05:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. (cur) (last) 04:43, February 19, 2007 Kevin Murray (Talk | contribs) (reverted to discussed change)
2. (cur) (last) 04:40, February 19, 2007 Futurebird (Talk | contribs) (I'm changing this to the version just before WDK made that big reversion since I had no major objection to changes up until that point.)
3. (cur) (last) 04:39, February 19, 2007 Kevin Murray (Talk | contribs) (revert to discussed change - reversing undiscussed action by UM) <<-- I didn't know this had happened!
4. (cur) (last) 04:37, February 19, 2007 Ultramarine (Talk | contribs) (rv to futurebird)
5. (cur) (last) 03:33, February 19, 2007 WD RIK NEW (Talk | contribs) (please please please don't revert without discussion - note the lead box and the goal of moving the edit dispute to the talk space)
6. (cur) (last) 02:04, February 19, 2007 Lumingz (Talk | contribs) (removed inaccurate reference)
7. (cur) (last) 01:51, February 19, 2007 WD RIK NEW (Talk | contribs) (→Test data)
8. (cur) (last) 00:54, February 19, 2007 SmackBot (Talk | contribs) m (Date/fix maintenance tags)
9. (cur) (last) 22:24, February 18, 2007 WD RIK NEW (Talk | contribs) (→Research - order)
10. (cur) (last) 22:23, February 18, 2007 WD RIK NEW (Talk | contribs) (→Interpretations)
11. (cur) (last) 22:21, February 18, 2007 WD RIK NEW (Talk | contribs) (→Interpretations - eample paragraph)
12. (cur) (last) 22:18, February 18, 2007 Futurebird (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 109149735 dated 2007-02-18 21:30:35 by Futurebird using popups)

Thanks for the advance warning. I've put the things I need in an easy to find place and put up a link in case others are looking for them. Archive away! (And thank you for being the one to archive... I know it's a lot of work... remember what happened last time I tried to do it... we don't need any more of that!)  :) futurebird 20:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, archive away.Ultramarine 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! JJJamal 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had noted you were being considerate about it, but that the page was still "ten times too long." I boldly went and cut out half because I figured you would have if you were there, and it needed doing anyway, regardless if the dates were relatively recent. Of course I wasnt too precise or thoughtful about where the cut was made - sorry about that. Didn't mean to step on your toes. By the way, WP:TARCH is more or less ready for beta testing. Im hoping that someone will come along and add some deeper sophistication to the templates for the task. -Ste|vertigo 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my experience with you in the past, I consider you to be a respectful, experienced editor. That's why I was disappointed to see that it was you, and not some more excitable editor, reverting my Bible verses and accusing me of pushing a fundamentalist POV. Jonathan Tweet 21:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"NPOV and NOR are sacrosanct to me. I did not mean to offend; I really respect all religious views of editors. But we just need to keep them out of the article." I'm sure you think you're being fair, and I know you're not one to push your own POV, but consider this sentence: " His teachings centered around unconditional self-sacrificing God-like love for God and for all people." No scholarly quote. No Bible reference. Clearly OR and POV by the standards that you have applied to me. Do you delete it? No. When I see you accept such sentences while you revert mine, I fail to see a consistent application of NOR or NPOV. That said, I don't expect editors to be perfect, and I've made mistakes myself, so I still think we can work it out. Jonathan Tweet 14:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the wiki is working, but it's way too much work. I guess that's just how it goes. I think the best advice is to try to add new material to balance things that seem off. I'm still disturbed by the high level of vandalism, and POV pushing on many pages. I still worry that everything I've added will be deleted or reverted and I still think the R & I articles need a lot of work-- in terms of organization mostly at this point, but also in terms of balancing, but at least now a reader will see there is more than one view point out there. futurebird 05:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also mystified about what motivates people do put so much energy in to pushing these ideas. It's a little scary. But, although some of my friends who have looked at this have suggested that we just need to found our own "blackpedia" I don't think that makes much sense. I'm intrigued by this idea that everyone is going to write this thing together, even people who don't agree on anything and can't probably even stand to be in the same room as each other. Maybe we can all learn something in the process. On the other hand, maybe it just makes people angry, so that they end up hating each other even more. You know? futurebird 05:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]