Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & MBK004 (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Coren (Talk)

Per [1], Hipocrite has given permission for me to correct spelling in his #Evidence section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2

So far, all the evidence presented has been against Ludwigs2. Although I feel he has done wrong, I don't think he's the only one, but I can't construct evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to add the stuff about the other guys. Ludwig2's behaviour was so blatanly in-your-face that I just had to get it off my chest. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

lol - lots of pots, but just one kettle... --Ludwigs2 03:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to MathSci to correct evidence claim

MathSci: You write "David.Kane, self-identified in real life as opposed to black intake in elite colleges". This is not a true statement. Please remove it from the evidence. I do not oppose "black intake in elite colleges". I have some concerns with the current amount of affirmative action practiced by elite colleges and favor more transparency with regard to their actual policies. (What reference this has to the current discussion is beyond me. But I am glad that this arbitration is providing a forum for you to demonstrate your standard approach for dealing with editors with whom you disagree. Keep up the good work!) David.Kane (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What about this [2]? Did you not self-identify as the "David" that made that comment on Oct 4, 2009 during WP:Articles for deletion/EphBlog and is this not in fact an ongoing subject on that website? I can certainly expand the phrasing, if you wish. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

MathSci: You seem confused. If you think I am "opposed to black intake in elite colleges" then you should be able to quote me writing something like "I am opposed to black intake in elite colleges." So, quote me! The link you provide is to a long discussion about the responsibility (if any) of Williams to make clear the graduation rates of various subgroups of students. And, indeed, I think (I am the David there) that elite college should be more transparent about this. Isn't it obvious to you that these are different topics? "More transparent about graduation rates" is not the same thing as "opposed to black intake." David.Kane (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I might have misinterpreted what you meant when you wrote, "Looking at the 6 year data from the Diversity Initiatives, you are three times more likely to fail to graduate from Williams if you are black then if you are white. Does Williams have an obligation to tell this to admitted students?" (Your bolding.) Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You have, indeed, misinterpreted it. No worries, though. I am happy to assume good faith. Simply remove your false claim from the evidence section. In the quote I am (obviously?) reporting the facts of differential graduation rates at Williams. (I believe that the same is true at other elite US colleges.) David.Kane (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this phrasing acceptable: "David.Kane, self-identified in real life as being in favour of making higher failure rates of ethnic minorities at elite colleges known to admitted students, volunteered ...."? Mathsci (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, my first question is what relevance you think that has to the arbitration? To the extent you insist, then I would prefer a more neutral and accurate summary. After all, I do not know the data for all, or even many, elite colleges. Also, some ethnic minorities (like Asian Americans) probably have lower failure rates. Anyway: this would be a fare claim: ""David.Kane believes that elite colleges should be more transparent when it comes to reporting student performance, for example, graduation rates by student sub-group." (I think this policy should apply to other dimensions besides race --- athletes, for example.) You can even cite this comment for your source. I think that links to off-wiki writings are somewhat rude. David.Kane (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I will make the phrasing specific to Williams College. You did not talk about athletes, you talked specifically about black students being three times more likely to fail than white students—in fact you put that expression in bold face. You're free to give your own explanation in your section if you wish. If you find references to off-wiki writing "somewhat rude", why did you create User:David.Kane/EphBlog, an article on that off-wiki site? In that article you named and shamed Robert Shvern, sombody who can't be very old. That article in your user space has been partially blanked because it was a BLP violation. Isn't putting that kind of personal information on on a very public site like wikipedia, which appears almost immediately on a google search, also "somewhat rude" or possibly even worse? Mathsci (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made the change to something that agrees (a) with what you've said here and (b) what you wrote on EphBlog. I hope it's OK. Mathsci (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

MathSci: No, it's not. You are making it very hard to assume good faith here. First, you insist on bringing up off-Wiki statements that have nothing to do with race and intelligence. Second, you mischaracterize my views despite my repeated requests that you stop doing so. Your new version is includes the claim that "in favour of making the higher failure rates there among minority groups, such as African Americans, known to incoming students." This is so misleading as to be false. Why can't you simply describe my opinion accurately? I even provide you with a quote above. Imagine that the topic was capital punishment and I was in favor of it for murderers. You then claim that I am "in favor of capital punishment for minority groups, such as African Americans." Don't you see how misleading that would be? I am, in this hypothetical, in favor of capital punishment for everyone. So, to fail to tell the reader that is the equivalent of lying. And the same is true here. I am in favor of making graduation rates for all groups public. To imply that I am only in favor of doing so for minority groups, as you continue to do, is the best possible evidence of the sort of bullying and intimindation that you regularly engage in on Wikipedia. David.Kane (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's very hard to know what you believe. It's certainly not what you wrote, which is unfortunate for you. For example look at these links [3][4][5]. You seem to be using wikipedia as some kind of extension of your blog to push a rather extreme point of view and asking other like-minded people to help you. When I read those kinds of statements, they seem to have an unambiguous meaning. Similarly your libelous EphBlog article. In that article you were harrassing real life people in a vindictive way: you are now doing the same to me. You haven't answered the question on Robert Shvern. Do you have an explanation for that as well? Mathsci (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

MathSci: I have no interest in "harrassing" people. All I am trying to convince you to do is to describe my views accurately (to the extent that you have some strange compulsion to do so). Is that too much to ask? You should realize that your refusual to do so is not the wisest strategy. With regard to Robert Shvern (to the extent that anyone cares), his exploits were thoroughly reported in the Williams Record. I have not made any claims about him on Wikipedia that were not already reported in this reliable source. David.Kane (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

2nd Request to MathSci to correct evidence claim

Mathsci: Xaveogem did not set a two week deadline - I volunteered a 2-week deadline, primarilly in order to get you to cease hounding him. In fact, I've corrected you on this point once before. do you need me to dig up the diffs, or will you just go ahead and correct it? --Ludwigs2 03:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you must be a little bit confused. You were certainly not the editor who suggested terminating the mediation. Anyway when I prepare the diffs over the next few days, I will correct any inaccuracies that might have accidentally slipped into the initial statement. I hope that you will also take similar care with your evidence. I would also request, in view of the strong language you use when addressing me on wikipedia, that you try to avoid interacting with with me during this ArbCom case. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)The request I made here was serious.

don't take it personally - I use strong language when I talk to most everyone. I'm blunt, and honest, (and prone to deep, bitter sarcasm) which is an occasionally brutal combination. and no, of course I was not the first person to suggest terminating the mediation, but I did (in fact) volunteer the two week time limit, and I'm reasonably sure that I have corrected you on this point once before. I suppose I'll need to dig up the diffs for that, though. --Ludwigs2 04:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Diffs: where I suggested the two week limit and where I corrected you previously.

Ah, one other thing: I'm not pro-Fringe, and there's not a damned shade of evidence you have that would suggest that I am. I know more about science than you do, my friend, and my problems with brangifer stem from his complete lack of competence with scientific issues. The man worships science, I think, in the manner of a Golden Calf, but he has proven himself time and again incapable of following basic scientific reasoning. More to the point, I had been avoiding mentioning him in this ArbCom case because he's not in any way concerned with R&I at all (yes, I am well aware that your full-scale assault on me began a scant 2 or 3 days after I threatened to start an RFC/U on him, even though I hadn't interacted with you for months, but that little machination of yours - if true - is just too incomprehensible to address). I'd ask you to refactor him out of your comments as off-topic. If we have to get into the AltMed/brangifer/pseudoscience/Fringe thing in any detail, then this arbitration will start expanding like mildew in a YMCA. Don't get me wrong, I would enjoy that debate - it would give me the opportunity to bend arbcom's ear about mistakes they made with their last judgement on pseudoscience - but this procedure would become unwieldy. Better to keep this discussion simple and on point. --Ludwigs2 05:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are a well known fringe advocate. If you are alleging you have any real world credentials, you should self-identify. Hipocrite (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that, you've been listening to people who have a habit of talking out of their asses. I have no interest in discussing real-world credentials, and no interest in self identifying. I'm simply telling you that I know science (as a general topic) better than the vast majority of people on the project - something I can prove in conversation at need, to anyone who bothers to listen (which, to date, has not included anyone from your little clique). I wouldn't dream of competing with an expert outside my own field, of course (e.g. my math skills, while decent, would not be up to Mathsci's level), but scientific reasoning is my thing. would you like me to give a short list of the errors in scientific reasoning that brangifer habitually makes, or maybe take a stab at sussing out some of evidentiary and discursive errors that you seem to make?

My problem to date, H, has been that I have made the unfortunate mistake of challenging people who imagine themselves as firm defenders of scientific principles, when they are (in fact) actually advocating for some sadly unscientific positions (possibly for noble reasons, but still...). These people thus decided that I must be the enemy, and because their enemy is fringe advocates, they decided that's what I must be (a misconstructed syllogism which still makes my eyes roll). I don't consider any of them serious threats, although I've gotten tricked into being blocked by some of the slyer ones. more often the hard-line, anti-fringe rhetoric they try to use on me simply misses its mark, and they end up tripping over their own words. I still find it hilarious that Mathsci actually thinks I disagree with him about R&I; I don't know whether that's a simple refusal to give me any credit, or whether he has not completely grasped the distinction between content (where I largely agree with him) and process (where I find his behavior execrable).

but whatever: I think he's too angry at me now to think clearly. c'est la vie.

So look: if you want to treat me like a fringe advocate, go ahead. All that really does is assure that I will never lose an argument to you. The label is irritating, as is the constant squabbling that goes with it, but it is compensated by the advantage of knowing all your salvos are aimed in the wrong direction. You can keep trying to politic for it if it makes you happy: I've had people trying to hang the fringe label on me for years, but it always falls off when push comes to shove. Just don't say I didn't warn you. --Ludwigs2 07:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

'I know more about science than you do' and 'I have no interest in discussing real-world credentials' seems a bit contradictory to me. If you had no interest in discussing your real-world credentials then why did you bring them up as though they should be respected? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't - Hipocrite brought them up. all I said was that I know a hell of a lot more about science than most people (which is true) and I can prove that easily in casual discussion. If I need you to respect my scientific opinion, then I will convince you to respect it by force of reason. The issue only came up because of some brainless accusations that I'm a fringe advocate. I have little use for labels, and less respect for people who use them unwisely. --Ludwigs2 22:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually your claim of greater scientific expertise (than Mathsci) came before Hipocrite's post. The post wherein the claim was made has no attempt to use force of reason to back up the claim that I can see. I do see the opposite, where you are making judgments about another editors scientific ability and attempting to lend weight to those judgments by claiming your own scientific ability as greater. From there it seems perfectly reasonable that your claim could and should be questioned, but you declined as is your right. Of course it also means that no one has any reason to take your claims as anything but chestbeating. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

take it any way you want, IP. if it becomes an issue then we'll see what happens; if it doesn't, then it doesn't really matter what you or I believe. I do not want you to believe that I am "the kind of person who would be right" about scientific issues; all I request is that you analyze any specific scientific issues that arise with appropriate reason and detachment. If you can do that, we're good. If you can't, that is so entirely "not my problem" that I don't even know where to start with it.

Do you have anything else to say on this issue? --Ludwigs2 18:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I put a similar assertion of Ludwigs2 in my evidence. This diff [6]. Ludwigs2 wrote: "I understand the scientific perspective - there are few people on wikipedia who understand science in general better than I do, and you are not one of them". The only person who's made statements like that to me on wikipedia is User:Abd. Wasn't he going to patent jamjar tests for the general public to verify cold fusion in their own kitchens? Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where we expanded the universe of editors to deride? Please strike your comment re: User:Abd. You're not scoring points here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, what Ludwigs2 wrote was a personal attack. And secondly it was similar to the comments that Abd made here on the talk page of cold fusion and elsewhere. The discussion there involved hydrino theory, a fringe theory that is apparently not accepted in mainstream physics. Probably Rushton's adaptation of life history theory is a similar kind of fringe theory. Mathsci (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, peters, that's a standard tactic. Mathsci can't think of anything to criticize me with directly, so he compares me to someone he feels he can criticize, in the hopes that some of the badness will rub off. it's a shitty, stupid thing to do, and every time he does it (which is fairly frequently) my opinion of him sinks a little lower. but, such is life on wikipedia. It's like trying to write an encyclopedia in a frigging daycare. --Ludwigs2 22:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would think of refactoring "It's a shitty, stupid thing to do" and "frigging daycare", because of WP:NPA. You have been blocked for that recently and making that kind of exaggerated and offensive statement on an ArbCom page is not advisable.

I haven't criticized either you or Abd. But both of you have made statements about my own competence in science. Diffs of statements like those are used as evidence in ArbCom cases (for you R&I, for him Abd&WMC). Actually I don't directly edit any parts of articles on dodgy science or science outside my expertise. Why would I? I will summarise reviews of books by Richard Lynn. I will write about the history of a controversial subject involving dodgy science when it's well documented in WP:RS. But when I write about science, it is usually about something within my professional expertise, e.g. FBI transform or Plancherel theorem for spherical functions or Commutation theorem. Mathsci (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

and I didn't criticize you either - not unless you are under the impression that no one could possibly be more knowledgeable about science than you are. You are not one of the people on wikipedia who understands science in general better than I do (that I know from experience). That doesn't mean you're not good at science in your own field, and I would never make such a claim. Nor would I compare you with someone I disliked just to score points. Nor would I habitually try to label you with some dumb pejorative label (I have done that to you on occasion, out of pique, but nothing compared to your constant name-calling towards me and others).

I understand and respect your desire to maintain the image of a high-minded, conscientious wikipedian, Mathsci, but please do yourself a favor and stop trying to claim that image right after you do something lowbrow. I can't resist the irony of it. oh, and thanks for he advice.--Ludwigs2 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I edit or create articles. I'm not here on wikipedia to have WP:FORUM discussions on science. I do discuss secondary sources. On WP:FTN I offered you the possibility of corresponding off-wiki to put an end to this kind of sniping, but apparently you refused my offer (I haven't checked my email). We are judged on wikipedia by the articles we write or contribute to and how much we write. I also don't bear grudges. In the case of CoM and Ottava Rima, I did not participate in the ArbCom cases, except in ORs to try to help him when he delivered an OTT ultimatum on the workshop page. As explained on WP:FTN, Elonka and I have had dinner together (she had the foie gras with figs) and I've bought Charles Matthews a tomato juice. Mathsci (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll jump into this oh-so-productive discussion to point out that mathematics is not science any more than lens-grinding is astronomy. Glad to be of service. Rvcx (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

yeah, it's time to end this thread. I've said all I need to say here anyway. but don't diss Math - the core of science is its style of reasoning, which has a lot in common with mathematical reasoning. Math is science that somehow got detached from reality. --Ludwigs2 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics is generally regarded as a science. That is certainly the way it's classified by the University of Cambridge. In fact in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences (Cambridge) we have several astrophysicists and cosmologists some of whom are quite close colleagues of mine. Outside universities, my employers have been the Royal Society, the Miller Institute and the CNRS. All these are fairly well known scientific institutions. Mathsci (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse funding and organizational structure with ontology. Pure mathematics is funded in the UK by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and you'd hardly claim that mathematics was engineering or physical science. What's more, the very term "mathematical sciences" suggests that sciences can be mathematical, not vice versa; pure maths is usually lumped in with the sciences at the university level for convenience sake. Rvcx (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not how the University of Cambridge sees it, but I'm sure you know better. Mathsci (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge lumps the mathematics faculty in with the school of physical sciences. Mathematics is not a physical science. Thus: some minor mislabeling for convenience sake. The "Centre for Mathematical Sciences" is the name of a collection of office space, not any academic organizational structure. Apparently both Cambridge and I do know better than your stab at ontology. I will now disengage from this thread. Rvcx (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a philosophical discussion for another forum, but I'd draw clear distinctions between mathematics (deriving consequences from a known set of laws), science (deriving laws/models from observable data), and engineering (using partially known laws/models to create systems with a set of desired properties). The actual practice of any discipline usually requires a balance of all three, but it's fascinating how little many academic mathematicians seem to know about scientific notions of evidence, proof, and truth. I'll stand by my initial statement: mathematics is a tool employed by scientists, and the tool can't be mistaken for the job it's being used to perform. (And I say this as a mathematician, at least by formal qualification.) Rvcx (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics is not about deriving consequences from a known set of laws. Quantum field theory and general relativity, the two theories that try to explain the very small and the very large scale structure of the universe, are formulated wihtin and give rise to new forms of mathematics. String theory and conformal field theory are particular parts of these theories that mathematicians study a lot because of completely unforeseen predictions. That cannot be called "deriving consequences from a known set of laws." Structures in mathematics, particularly in number theory, mirror those of quantum field theory. That's part of the geometric Langlands program. By formal qualification do you mean Ph.D. or something higher? Mathsci (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty sketchy understanding of what constitutes pure mathematics (and "new forms of mathematics") for someone who claims to be a mathematician. I'm not going to be the next victim of your outing attempts, but I will admit that I've drawn funding from EPSRC on occasion. Rvcx (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Vertex algebras are new forms of mathematics, are they not? They will be part of the Part III graduate course I give in the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos next year, As for claiming to be a mathematician, I have spoken at an International Congress of Mathematicians and was tenured faculty at DPMMS, before my current permanent research position. Since ArbCom knows my real life identity, I'm not sure that this way of attacking me will be very helpful for you. Mathsci (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

How easily I forget that every conversation with Mathsci is about dick-measuring and personal attacks. Shame on me. Rvcx (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor this personal attack immediately or you are likely to blocked by a clerk. You simply cannot behave like this on an ArbCom page. Please refactor. Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) @Mathsci, you started this latest degeneration by insulting an editor, Abd, having nothing to do with these proceedings (your selling jamjars comment) just to deride your editorial opposition. You respond that you "didn't criticize" Abd? I'm still waiting for you to strike your insult and we can close this sorry thread. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What insults? Abd's business has been mentioned on the evidence page of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley and it talk page (my last ArbCom case)—I believe the experiment involves something like a jam jar—and is described by Abd here on wikiversity.Mathsci (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Was your comment meant as a compliment out of respect? Abd has nothing to do with anything here. Whether there's a real Mason jar out there somewhere or not is immaterial and its existence does not change the nature or intent of your comment. You engage in derisive commentary and then try to pass it off as mere factual observation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I've taught structured programming to undergraduate and graduate students at Cooper Union, one of the premier engineering schools in the U.S. I might have even been doing so while you and other editors at R&I were still being weaned. Big deal, more diversion having nothing to do with the topic at hand. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 wrote on this page, "I know more about science than you" There's also a similar statement in my evidence. I don't why he says this, because science is not very much involved in this case, at least the bits of the article I have edited. History is involved. I haven't said I'm a better mathematician or scientist than other wikipedians. Rvcx did cast doubts on me being a mathematician, so I gave him four or five facts about my career which would confirm that I have had the career of a pure mathematician. And I mentioned that ArbCom knew my real life identity Rvcx has already said on WP:ANI that I'm a poor editor because I don't use the preview button properly. I can't do very much about that. I am in fact 2 years older than Elonka. As you'll see from the modified message above, Abd's business was part of the evidence in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley and was discussed on the talk page. Abd was the previous person to make remarks like Ludwigs2. Rvcx was the next one. Mathsci (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So let's be clear, Mathsci - on the numerous occasions you've referred to me as a Fringe advocate or supporter of pseudoscience (or any of the other variations on that theme you've used), you intended those as compliments to my intellectual abilities? I had no idea you cared so much! --Ludwigs2 02:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci, alas, apparently not being weaned (though I'm still older), all the more reason you should consider dispensing with the puerile denunciations and your seeming fixation on who said what about whom. As I said, Abd and Abd's business have nothing to do with matters here, I really don't get why you keep implying it does, or seem to be indicating you brought it up for any reason other than to be derisive of your editorial opposition. Clearly you're not going to strike your comment and you're old enough to know what good manners are, your choice. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Possible improvement by limiting list of sources used in this article

I have a new idea for how to improve the process of editing this article. But, before suggesting it on the evidence page, I wanted to get a sense as to whether anyone but me thought it a good idea. Should we limit the sources used for this article to a select (less than 20) group of the most highly regarded articles and books? This idea is inspired by MathSci's repeated (and correct!) insistence that using excellent secondary sources is the best way to edit an article like this. I agree. But just because he and I (and others?) agree means nothing since any other editor can use whatever reliable sources she wants to. This leads to endless fighting over issues of source quality and WP:UNDUE. But, if we restricted the article to just 20 or so sources, all those problems go away. And, in fact, I bet that we could agree on such a list. (MathSci and I, at least, agree that sources like Mackintosh, Loehlin and others are excellent.) We could then revisit the list once a year or so. Thoughts? David.Kane (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to post a reply out of sequence, but I request that an Arbitration Committee clerk move this section to the workshop page, as this is not evidence. On my part, I disagree with the substance of the suggestion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On the face this is appealing; at the moment, however, I believe that while the best understanding of the topic requires reputable sources editors agree on (a list worth maintaining), it also requires including the better known "contentious" sources and positioning them appropriately in the larger narrative. "UNDUE" is not the product of the insertion of a source; it is the product of insertion of a source without appropriate contextual narrative. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a "list of approved sources" is already the problem: there seems to be an implicit list of secondary sources which are assumed to be reliable beyond any question, with anything not on that list dismissed as fringe. Sadly, that's not how reliable sources work: every source is written for a particular purpose and from a particular perspective, and each one varies in its reliability from topic to topic. This is in addition to the issue of undue weight raised by Vecrumba—the fact that something is a reliable source is not an excuse to give prominence to some minor detail appearing therein. Rvcx (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a consistent problem (across multiple articles). Primary sources are (of course) not to be preferred, but sometimes they are the best (or even the only) sources to adequately convey a particular aspect of a scholarly debate. The issue needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis; trying to impose a 'blanket' rule about sourcing is counter-productive, and sometimes flies in the face of NPOV. --Ludwigs2 18:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is quite impossible to avoid primary sources, as they (studies and those who conduct them) are the fount from which all interpretations flow. Secondary sources are required to document "feedback" from the scholarly community, if you will. Article narrative includes the original study/inferences/conclusions, reviews from reputable secondary sources, and the inevitable reviews by secondary sources (which may also be primary sources) of each other. Per comments already and below, it would be useful to have a list of sources which editors could generally agree to not dispute, but the issue, of course, is representation of said sources, which a mere list does not address.

   I also have to say I take exception to characterizations which have been put forward that there is a conspiracy on the part of some to create content at R&I which institutionalizes the genetic inferiority of blacks versus whites. Such contentions constitute a gross disservice to the R&I topic, and, indeed, completely misrepresent the topic and purpose of the article: conclusions of genetic inferiority, superiority, or equality are all equally inappropriate.

   P.S. It's not rocket science to figure out that (despite the best efforts of researchers) by its very nature there must be some cultural bias in determining what cognitive skills correlate to what one considers to be "intelligence." (That does not mean the article therefore has "systemic bias.") Genetics, environment, and what studies test—and do not test— and attempt to quantify as (presumably) correlating to the somewhat amorphous "intelligence" are all factors to be considered and discussed as part of R&I. It's our job (that we have volunteered to take on) to do so with objectivity and respect.

   P.P.S. I suppose I should add that if someone believes my assessment is flawed, I'd like to understand how and why. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about it, technically:

1. The study and data are the primary source
2. the interpretation is already a secondary source
3. other secondary sources may choose to interpret the primary source differently

So, we can't simply report A, B, and C scored X, Y, and Z without the scholarly interpretation(s) of said results. Conflicting analyses of the same set of data are common. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment There are many good secondary sources in this case by the world's top psychometricians; they cannot simply be dismissed by editors that don't particularly want to read them. That is merely an excuse for writing bad and biased articles using primary sources that no wikipedian can evaluate. Most of the secondary sources come to the conclusion I outlined. I did not invent that conclusion: I read the sources and then summarised what they said, That is the wiki way.

The book of Mackintosh has a section of 34 pages on ethnic groups and carefully gos through the arguments for the hereditarian case. In the case of adoptive mixed race studies of Eyforth, Tizard and Scarr-Weinberg (151-156), he concludes, "If it would be rash to argue that they refute the genetic hypothesis, it would surely be absurd to argue that, taken as a wholem they support it. If we recall the cautionary note sounded at the outset of this discussion—that is a racist society it will never be possible to bring up lack and white children in truly comparable environments, the results of these studoes are surely consistent with the possiility that if the environmental differences could be miraculously eliminated, the —two groups might well have approximately equivalent IQ scores." He then examines environmental causes of black-white differences. Observing that US test score for blacks in 1995 are comparble to those of whites in 1945, he writes, "Although we have no serious idea about which factors are responsible for these changes over time, there can be no doubt that they are environmental. By the same token, then, even if we cannot identify the environmental factors for differences in IQ between blacks and whites, there is no reason for asserting that the differences must be partly genetic." He then consider other ethnic groups and test bias. He discusses Jensen notions of Level I and Level II abilities, but points out that Jensen never claimed it to e a fully-fledged theory, just a simple empirical generalization from a simple set of obervations. He then writes that, "Although Jensen and others have sometimes argued that the validity of Spearman's hypothesis proves that black-white differences must be genetic in origin (an argument no doubt responsible for its rejection), this conclusion does not even remotely follow. Just because a test is a better measure of g, it does not follow that it is more heavily influenced by genetic factors. Many psychometricians, Jensen among them, have argued that Raven' Matrics provide one of the best measures of g. But scores on Raven's Matrices have probaly been increasing faster over the last 50 years than scores on any other IQ test, and we know that these gains are environmental in origin." In his conclusion Mackintosh notes that, "it is not a simple matter to decide whether an IQ test is biased. It requires the evaluation of alternative explanations and the balancing of probabilities, rather than confident, glib pronouncements." Of other cultures, such as Africa, he comments that, "Administering such tests to people of other cultures may well tell us whether they do or do not share the same values. But it will not necessarily tell us much about their 'intelligence'."

John C. Loehlin in "Group Differences in Intelligence" on pages 176-193 of Handbook of Intelligence (not used in the article, accept en passant) writes the following in conclusion (page 189). Like Mackintosh, he says that no inference about the genetic hypothesis can be drawn from the adoption studies because of "confounding of variables". He continues, "So we are left with the usual conclusion: More research is needed." He then suggest various directions.

James R. Flynn's latest writings on Race and IQ can be found in Where Have All the Liberals Gone? Race, Class and Ideals in America (Cambridge University Press 2008). I've briefly looked at this on the web and probably will pick up a copy tomorrow (I get a 20% reduction in Cambridge at the C.U.P. shop).

I think that primary sources should not be used in the article, except possibly in a final short and tentative "future directions" section and there only with great caution if at all. I looked at this interminable discussion on WP:RSN about using the results of a non-scientific blog to speculate about genes that contribute to intelligence [7]. The article certainly cannot go that way; speculative, unevaluated research has no place in an encyclopedia like wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm dismayed by the direction of this discussion. Primary sources are discouraged because the relative importance, the veracity of the source, and the quality of the research is not something that can be determined from the source itself. Secondary sources, sources that are attributed to well qualified experts in the field, are where we should be always be looking for our material because wikipedia editors are not here to interpret or judge the works of others. If it is 'impossible to avoid primary sources' for any given topic, then perhaps we should not be covering that topic at all.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No way on the "restrict to 20 approved sources" idea. Folks, this is wikipedia. If editors can't edit these articles with the same policies and tools that apply to all the other articles throughout the wiki, without imposing "special criteria" on sources, claims, etc., they shouldn't be editing it at all. And the use of primary sources is narrowly limited at wikipedia. Since most of the few instances where I've seen them used in this dispute were clear misuses, offered as "backup" for or against some disputed interpretation of the study published in secondary sources, we should be extra wary of using them in these disputed articles. Representative experts and other published authorities interpret primary sources, and we say what they say. Unfortunately, some editors who have this mistaken notion that achieving WP:NPOV means wikipedia should "set the record straight" where experts irl have "got it all wrong" resort to primary sources in order to add weight to their own conclusions and claims and circumvent those of secondary sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both RegentsPark and Professor marginalia. The number of sources cannot be limited a priori. It is necessary to identify experts in the area and to bear in mind that new reliable secondary sources can be published while the article is being written. History of the race and intelligence controversy has over 80 sources and more are added as the article evolves. Similarly the book of Richard Nisbett appeared in 2010. The book of James R. Flynn Where have all the liberals gone? (C.U.P. 2008) already referred to a draft version of the book. In his book Flynn devotes Chapter 3 (pages 68-111) to the black-white IQ gap and the race and IQ debate. Here is what he writes in conclusion:

Excerpt from pages 110-111 of Flynn's book Where have all the liberals gone?

What do we know? First, we know that the black-white IQ gap disappeared in Germany. But the numbers are scant, there are unknowns that could have biased the results, and one study should not convince anyone. Second, that the g pattern disappeared in Germany. This shows that the German environment at least addressed the root causes of the IQ gap insofar as it is environmental, something America does not seem to have done to date. The contrast focuses attention on the peculiar black subculture that exists in America. Third, what causes the g pattern is a special inability to deal with cognitive problems the more complex they become. Therefore, we could do well to look at anything in the American black subculture that signals a less cognitively complex environment. Fourth, about a third of the traditional black-white IQ gap has disappeared. This is encouraging, be we do not know whether it is due to hearing aids [a previous analogy of Flynn] or addressing root causes. Fifth, there is reason to believe that the black loss of ground on whites with age is environmental. I believe this is plausible because of the steady trend to lose 0.6 IQ points per year after infancy. But more to the point, at each age, there seem to be environmental factors that would engender a less complex cognitive environment. Sixth, if that is so, and if hints that black and white are equal in terms of their genotype for IQ at conception are not deceptive, then the entire black-white IQ gap is environmental. The number of "ifs" tells the reader why I believe all conclusions are tentative. And why I said at the start that anyone who claims to know that black and white are genetically equal for IQ is too bold. The race and IQ debate has raged for almost 40 years. I have been entangled in it for thirty years. It has been a constant and unwelcome companion, rather like living with an uncongenial spouse from an arranged marriage, It has occupied the time of legions of scholars and laid waste acres of trees. Will we ever see the end of it? At least the debate is entering a new and more sophisticated stage. Given the relatively high values for black IQ in infancy and age 4, the focus should now be on whatever causes the decline of black IQ (compared to white) with age. If that can be settled, the main event will be over. The significance of the debate should not be exaggerated. Everything I say in this book about what afflicts American blacks, the injustice they suffer because of their group membership, and what could be done to give them access to a good life is untouched by the outcome. If there is a genetic component in the racial IQ gap, blacks will have less favorable statistics compared to whites for academic achievement, occupation, income, and mortality. However, the intense feelings that surround this question are largely a product of human misery. If America afforded access to a good life to all of its citizens, blacks would have as much interest in why there are fewer black than Irish doctors as Irish have about why there are fewer Irish than Chinese accountants.

Mathsci (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) @RegentsPark, I think you misinterpret the intent behind my comments on primary sources. By that, I mean, being able to summarize a study including the author's interpretation, not for WP editors to interpret it in any way; the purpose is to provide that as an anchor for what secondary sources say about the study. Where discussion of quantitative results is concerned, you can't talk about interpretations of results without indicating what results are being discussed in the first place. In particular, I would emphasize that it is not the role of editors to use their personal judgement of what is "discredited" (a Wiki code word used to suppress "I don't like it" sources) and what is not. I trust this clarifies, I do believe we are on the "same page." (Also with reference to @Professor marginalia's comments.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been re-reading the article, and I do think the current article organization ("he said, she said" format which structurally gives the advantage to "the last word," also tending to polarize the presentation as if there is no middle ground) does not benefit presentation of the subject matter. The placement of lower scoring groups first in all discussions also repeatedly focuses the article on emphasizing what is perceived as a negative—after all, there have been no complaints that I've seen regarding hereditarians promoting the "Asian superiority hypotheses." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment on RFC by not-very-involved editor

I think it would really help to draw up a list of relevant secondary sources the article could draw on. (I always think it's a good idea to do that.) You could even go on from there to prioritise them using some more-or-less objective criteria, namely how recent, status of the academic publisher, how close to topic, comprehensive book-length treatment, how well reviewed. The last criterion I mentioned there could of course give rise to much argument because the book that one side loves is exactly the book that the other side hates. But the process should help the article move on. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already begun compiling such a list of sources. It can be found as a subpage to my user page, titled Intelligence Citations, and any Wikipedian is welcome to suggest additions to it. I haven't finished typing in all the sources I know partly because I have had very successful library visits on which I have gathered dozens of additional sources, and I have been busy in my off-Wiki life. But I still intend to keep adding sources to that citations list so that all Wikipedians who edit articles on intelligence can check the sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I can think of several additions that I’d like to suggest. Where would you recommend suggesting them? On this page, in your user talk, or somewhere else entirely? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The subpage on my user page includes a section I already put in to collect suggestions from other editors. I'll be on wikibreak while traveling to meet some of the people I share my professional research results with, but you or anyone reading this is welcome to post source suggestions on my user subpage meanwhile. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Update on minimal source list and further comment request

Many thanks for the comments above. Before I formally propose this, I would like more feedback. (Feel free to add your comments underneath each individual point below. That will help keep the discussion organized. Once I get some feedback, I will make a formal proposal at the Workshop page.)

• Here is a proposed list of 10 sources. I think that an excellent article could be written using just these. (Would anyone dispute that claim? What facts would you want in the article that are not covered in one of these sources?)
• Assume for a moment that the arbiters actually go with this idea. Are there any sources that should be removed from this list? (I think we could safely lose Deary.) Are there any that you would want added?
• The idea is not to fix this list forever. Each year or so we would have a big discussion about what new sources to add.
• Using this method would obviate 95% of the debate and edit-wars that currently plague the article. Would anyone dispute that claim? Again, it could still be a bad idea to have a special policy for this page, I just want to establish what would happen if we had such a policy.
• I agree with many of the comments above along the lines of "This is not the way Wikipedia does (or should) work." True! But whatever one might say about Wikipedia in general, its standard practices have failed on this article for years. Isn't it time to try something else?
• Thanks to MathSci for bringing many of these works to my attention and for convincing me about the importance of secondary sources. I also agree with several comments above that, on occasion, primary sources are needed. So, some are included on my list.

Thanks in advance for your comments. Note that the voices in favor and against this proposal seem to cut across some of our usual cleavages in interesting ways. David.Kane (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the list, I can't say I find this necessarily productive. If the list has primary sources, and additional secondary sources commenting on those primary sources are found, they should probably be allowed. However, I probably won't object unless I were to investigate and find either:

1. An WP:UNDUE weight violation, and additional sources are required for balance, or
2. A primary source is on the list, and secondary sources are found that significantly change the reasonable interpretation of that source.

I do not think that any 10 or 20 sources would be adequate to cover all notable points of view on this issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I can't think of a single notable point of view that is not covered in at least one of these sources. Can you provide an example? David.Kane (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

General comment on minimal source lists: In my opinion, a minimal source list will work only if that list is restricted to review articles that are published in A level peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Primary sources, as well as sources that have not been peer-reviewed (this includes books) should not be included. If the list is not restricted to A level journal review articles, questions of POV and fringe will continue to haunt these wikipedia articles. --RegentsPark (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. Again, I continue to find it interesting that the debate on minimal sources cuts across some of the usual groupings. For example, both MathSci and I think that Mackintosh is excellent, regardless of whether or not it ever underwent a thorough peer-review process. RegentsPark, reasonably enough, disagrees. My point is not to argue for my particular list but to claim that this change has a better chance of "breaking the back of the dispute" than anything else that folks have suggested. David.Kane (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether you can't think of a single notable point of view that is not covered in at least one of these sources, limiting the sources to any preset number of sources is a recipe for POV unbalance and potential NPOV disaster. I see no good coming out of such an initiative.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ramdrake: Could you be more specific? I can think of reasons why my plan is bad, mainly because it goes against standard Wikipedia policy. But I, honestly, can't think of a scenario in which having a limitted set of sources (assuming that you, me, MathSci, Occam, et cetera can agree on this list, which I bet we can) is any more likely to lead to "POV unbalance and potential NPOV disaster." In other words, haven't you argued in the past that the article already has POV/NPOV problems? If so, then what mechanism involved in a limitted source list would make this problem worse than it is now? It is perfectly reasonable for you to argue that this plan would not make the article better on this score, but how could it make it worse? Again, one main concrete benefit is that we can stop the huge amount of edit warrning surrounding the addition and deletion of random fact X from not so important study Y. David.Kane (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It would basically delay integration of potentially valid but recent secondary sources until we come up to our "yearly" (or whatever) review of sources. Therefore it could increase NPOV imbalance (probably should have used a conditional there the first time around) by introducing a delay in integrating new sources. In addition, I don't see that there is anything to be gained by excluding a priori valid secondary sources just because we've "reached our quota of sources". 'Tis all.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would delay things in theory. But, how about a specific example? What specific source from 2010 or 2009 or 2008 or whenever does this article have to have in order to avoid POV problems? I can't think of one. David.Kane (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(I can't find the name of the logical fallacy.) If the sources are selected to support what the major editors agree what should be in the article, of course there wouldn't be specifics as to added sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Policy#The privileged nature of mediation

The above-mentioned section suggests that none of the disruptive activity during the mediation, by parties to the mediation, should be considered, unless intentionally disruptive. If accepted by the ArbCom, it makes most of the evidence presented inadmissible. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The mediator is not protected by that. The goal is to protect the parties, not the mediator. Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that interpretation. It does seem to mean that we cannot use evidence from the time the mediation was open against those parties, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it protects their actions outside of the mediation though, does it? Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there has ever been a serious test of the concept of the privilege of mediation; insofar as how exactly it applies and what scope it has. It's fairly clear, on its face, that things that come out in the course of good faith arbitration should not be held against the participants (given that the intent of the privilege is to allow that mediation to take place). It also seems clear to me that being engaged in mediation should not become a carte blanche to misbehave either.

At a first guess, I would estimate that only behavior by parties, in the course of mediation, and done in good faith by the parties, is privileged. This obviously excludes behavior unrelated to the dispute being mediated, editors not parties to the mediation, and behavior disrupting the mediation itself. — Coren ^(talk) 00:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

well said. --Ludwigs2 06:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Case timeline

I intend to post a proposed decision sometime early next week to give enough time for discussion before committee activity falls off due to Wikimania and summer vacations. If there are key points of evidence or workshop proposals you feel must be expressed, they should be posted by next Monday (June 21st) if you want to make sure that it has been examined in detail. While we keep an eye on the workshop and evidence pages during discussion and voting on the proposed decision, the focus unavoidably shifts away from them and they tend to receive less attention. — Coren ^(talk) 01:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Previous MathSci involvement with ArbCom

I was unaware that MathSci was involved in a previous Arb Com case. Note one of the remedies: "Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to edit war — especially not on arbitration pages — and to avoid personal attacks at all times." Avoiding personal attacks has not been, uhhh, MathSci's highest priority in his interactions at Race and Intelligence and related articles . . . David.Kane (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane misunderstands that case which was involved with me removing my name twice as a party during the RfAr: that was deemed to be edit warring. The other point concerned comments on Wikipedia Review. It might perhaps be advisable for David.Kane to read that ArbCom case more carefully before making innuendos. The case has been courtesy blanked, but each page can be read by clicking on the link provided. ArbCom members and participants in that case (such as Shell Kinney) are well aware of what happened then. Indeed ArbCom did not consider the interchanges on Wikipedia Review to be admissible for comment. Coren's redrafting of Stephen Bain's original proposal did not make that clear. Likewise one of the current arbitrators, prior to being elected to ArbCom, made comments to me on Wikipedia Review that would probably be deemed uncivil if made on wikipedia, but are completely the norm on WR. David.Kane should perhaps worry more about his own wikipedia editing record: the userfied article User:David.Kane/EphBlog contained major BLP violations against living people until largely blanked by Professor marginalia. Mathsci (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, you take umbrage at editors bringing up your past conflicts yet feel free to bring up other editors' conflicts (or to bring up editors from your past conflicts) having nothing to do with the matter here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Who has the burden of proof?

User:Rvcx accuses me of personal attacks - I have no idea who this editor is and don't recall any interaction with her, so I do not know how she could file a complaint against me at ArbCom.

Captain Occam accuses me of personal attacks and an absence of good faith. He provides as an example the time I accused him of being a charlatan during the discussion of regression to the mean, when he and mikemikev were making claims about regression to the mean that are just false. If this were the Arithmetic article and someone argued that sometimes in base ten number systems 2+2 equals 22, I posit that anyone who cares about writing a good encyclopedia would accuse that person of being a charlatan and declare that they cannot assume good faith from someone who makes such arguments. I continue to believe this. I believe i have an obligation to Wikipedia to point out that Captain Occam and Mikemikev's insistence on lying about the regression to the mean means that one now has adequate evidence to conclude (not assume, but conclude based on evidence) that they are acting in bad faith.

We all know that the claim that average differences in IQ are genetic in origin is fringe science. Biologists and biological anthropologists who are experts in genetics understand this; cultural anthropologists and sociologists who are experts in race know this. Alas, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and very few geneticists or sociologists are active editors. So the burden is on a few people who consistently make reasonable arguments and provide reliable secondary sources (like Aprock or MathSci, who have demonstrated their commitment to the encyclopedia by adding valuable content to many other articles) to protect the scientific integrity of Wikipedia.

I have merely pointed out that to claim that people of a certain race are on average innately less intelligent (meaning, g, general intelligence) is to make a racist claim. This to me is obvious on its face and needs no further evidence or justification. Well, the internet is free. People can write what they want to. I am just calling it as I see it. But let's be clear: this is not a personal attack. It is the claim that blacks are inherently (or genetically) inferior, at least in general intelligence, that is an attack on all black people. It is an attack that is made without evidence, but that does not stop people from making the attack. Oh well.

In the meantime someone has accessed my e-mail account through Wikipedia to send me this e-mail:

From: John Doe Sr. <[email protected]>

Slrubenstein,

Where is your evidence? If you're going to actively resist the possibility of a partly genetic explanation to the black/white IQ gap, call those who accept that possibility racists, and carry on with that behavior for years on end, then maybe you should be putting forth more effort here. May I suggest that you are a die hard adherent of Bosnian anthropology, which is evidently held in high regard at Columbia University, his former employer.

This is typically warped. No one has yet to provide any evidence at all that the cause of average IQ differences between races is genetic. What is to resist? Do I also "resist" traveling faster than the speed of light, or being able to identify the speed and direction of a subatomic particle at the same time? Uh, okay, I guess so. You call it "resisting," I call it "waiting for evidence. Yawn." As to adhering to Boasian anthropology advocated by Columbia University, well, I have to say this is another one of those "accusations" I wish I received more of. Boas was a world-class scientist and no one yet has been able to discredit his work (except through the syllogism that he was Jewish and therefore his research was Jew science and therefore it is wrong). Columbia University is one of the leading universities in the world. Please, keep the insults coming! Can I be one of those Quinean philosophers those morons at Harvard seem so stuck on? Can I be one of those MH Abrams literary critics those idiots at Cornell take so seriously? Whatever. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

@Slrubenstein: Regarding "I have merely pointed out that to claim that people of a certain race are on average innately less intelligent (meaning, g, general intelligence) is to make a racist claim. This to me is obvious on its face and needs no further evidence or justification." This is part of what makes the article contentious, that there are editors who are racists, were racists (per Mathsci) or make racist ("by definition") statements. The article is about measures and quantifications. There is plenty of debate over "g" and what it really means, including that it's not particularly discerning. I don't see any impediment to discussing an inclusive set of studies and scholarship about those studies and avoiding "claims" regarding "intelligence." If you state there is (absolutely) no link between genetics and (group) intelligence, and stating there is a(ny) link between genetics and (group) intelligence (in any manner) is racist, then in essence you are stating any editors who advocate for any genetic link, no matter to what degree (i.e., any "hereditarian"), is racist. That can be taken as a personal attack on anyone who is not a 100% environmentalist, slice and dice it however you like.
   "Inferior/superior" does not belong in the article or in any discussion except for discussing the historical origins of testing which was initiated in support of the meme that blacks are inferior. If we stick to measures and quantifications, we can discuss those rationally; the article is categorically not a soapbox for racist versus non-racist. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

By Slrubenstein's logic, anyone who suggests that Japanese are genetically shorter than Scandinavians is also a racist. If we are to assume good faith, we must assume that Slrubenstein simply doesn't know what the epithet "racist" actually means, so let's clarify: racism means putting race before individual differences. It means using racial differences as an excuse for discrimination—asserting that different races have different rights. Even if it were conclusively proven that the overlap between the intelligence distributions for two races was tiny—if only one in a hundred Europeans were more intelligent than one in a hundred Chinese—that statistical assertion would not constitute racism as the term is used in modern society. If editors ever begin advocating (as opposed to documenting) decision-making on the basis of race, which has never happened in the history of these articles, then there would still be no need to accuse them of racism because the real problem would be using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy instead of as an encyclopedia. Frankly, what is being advocated (whether palatable or otherwise) would be completely beside the point.

I want to make this very clear, from one editor to another: calling someone a racist is a vile personal attack with no relevance to our mission here, and such behavior merits an immediate ban. Rvcx (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Your statement is irrelevant because Slrubenstein wrote No one has yet to provide any evidence at all that the cause of average IQ differences between races is genetic. Also, we are not talking about a hypothetical "tiny" difference: editors are skewing articles to assert that a large difference in IQ scores is due to genetics. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I was very specific about this: even a huge statistical difference in IQ between races would not be racism. It would be a statistical assertion, which could be true or false, but it would not be racism. And frankly, genetics is a red herring in this racism issue. If statistics show a 15-point gap in mean IQ between two races, and this gap does not appear to be closing (these are both conclusions a wide cross-section of experts have endorsed; both the MSI statement and the APA panel) how is saying it's genetic any different than saying it's because of culture or Vitamin D deficiency or baggy clothes? Why would one be racism and the other not? This whole argument reveals two things:

* Editors are refusing to accept the difference between facts and values. Whether or not there are differences between races is a fact, subject to scientific inquiry. There are no value judgements inherent in objective studies of reality. Arguing that a fact can't possibly be true because if it were the consequences would be dire is utterly irrational. (On this particular issue, such consequentialist reasoning also reflects an incredibly fragile framework for egalitarian ethics, but I digress.)

* Editors continue to anoint themselves experts capable of deciding what facts are true and false, and that's not an editor's job. There are reliable sources documenting notable researchers who refuse to rule out genetic causes for racial IQ disparities. Whether or not an editor has ruled out these causes or not is completely beside the point, and I'm shocked that editors would so freely admit to using Wikipedia as a way of advocating their own personal beliefs.

Can we please get back to the task of editing an encyclopedia instead of arguing our concerns about race? Rvcx (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

<sigh...> no one debates that there are differences in test scores between (purported) races. Everyone debates the causes of these differences. Science doesn't really care about the moral implications of the results it produces; it just produces results, and leaves the rest of us to argue over what they mean

I personally share Slrubenstein's belief that there are no meaningful genetic differences between races (with respect to intelligence, or with respect to anything, really). I recognize that scientific study has produced a racial-difference result that needs to be explained, and I recognize that scientific theory has not yet adequately explained the result. I have no interest in prejudging science as to what that explanation should be, and nether should any of you. And that's all that really needs to be said on the matter. If you cannot restrain yourself from advocating for your beliefs on this matter, than you should find another hobby than editing wikipedia. --Ludwigs2 06:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is ths Rvcx who has never contributed to the article? Just another googler who thinks this is a discussion forum? First of all, comparing intelligence to height is a stupid comparison, because no one important believes that being short means that one cannot make important contributions to society or makes one unfit to vote; intelligence is a singular trait in that it is connected to a peson's ability to succeed at a wide range of important activities. Second, it is the racist who is ttacking other people. To call someone a racist is to point this out, it is not in an attack. If I accuse someone of violating our NPA policy, have I just attackd them? That is absurd. Third, the reason this is an issue is not because of what I think of any editors (I called Captain Occam and Mikemikev charlatans, not racists, and the reason had to do with their repeated misrepresentation of statistics, no value judgements at all). Jensen may be a racist because he suggests that his research would justify eugenics programs. Racism becomes an issue when a host of people, including people with PhDs, ignore evidence, misrepresent the absense of evidence, and persist in advocating fringe science despite decades of debate and discussion voiding their claims of any scintific merit. let's be clear here: the claim that racial differences in intelligence are innate is wrong because here is no evidence to support it. It is racist because people believe it despite the fact that the vadt majority of scientists do not, and use it to promote discriminatory social policy. That is an attack, and Wikipedia should not be used to support this attack against others. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Your first two sentences are ad hominem personal attacks; please refactor them. 2) Your view that intelligence equates to value as a human being while height does not is a personal view and has no relevance here. 3) The epithet "racist" is commonly interpreted to address beliefs, not behavior, and it is thus an inappropriate attack. 4) I hope that you will make an effort to edit neutrally in spite of your confessed biases on this topic. Rvcx (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Rvcx, you have made assertions about "race and intelligence" which cannot be backed up by any reliable secondary source. Why should anybody at all on wikipedia be in the slightest bit interested in your personal opinions or theories if they are at odds with reliable secondary sources? Wikipedia is not some kind of WP:FORUM and I think that you have a basic misunderstanding of how articles are written or sourced. Mathsci (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, I find your lack of diffs disturbing. Editor after editor has provided reliable sources which assert that there is no compelling evidence for either the strong environmental or strong hereditarian hypothesis (and in fact that many aspects of the environmental hypothesis have been refuted). Reliable sources are hardly obscure. One signed by 52 prominent researchers was published in the Wall Street Journal; the American Psychological Association convened a panel to address the issue (which was clear that genetic causes could not be refuted), and their leading journal published eleven different responses laying out data suggesting causation. None of these are primary sources; they are commentary by notable scholars on studies that have been performed by others. Often many studies. The repeated refusal of some editors on the R&I articles to acknowledge the scientific legitimacy (which is distinct from "truth") of any of this work stretches assumptions of good faith and neutrality to their limits. Rvcx (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to my evidence, please remember to click on the blue links to subpages which give large numbers of diffs. At the moment I am preparing a subpage on Mikemikev's WP editing patterns—not so hard since his total number of edits on WP is less than 500—together with a chronology of mediation with diffs. The articles you mention are all primary sources. You do not seem to understand the difference between primary and reliable secondary sources: that's not so surprising since so far, as detailed in my evidence, you've had very little experience in editing serious wikipedia articles. Above you gave your personal interpretation/evaluation of a full page statement in the WSJ and the status of its authors: you call them "prominent" but none of them for example is a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences, the highest and most prestigious institution in the US. Christopher Jencks and Richard Nisbett are members. Similarly none of the UK signatories are Fellows of the Royal Society. Nicholas Mackintosh is an FRS. On the other hand many signatories are grantees of the Pioneer Fund. But what use is your personal opinion in this case? The APA report is a primary source: it is is mentioned and discussed in numerous reliable secondary sources. Your comments on wikipedia connected with the subject of race and intelligence display no intellectual grasp of what is in the reliable secondary sources (some are reproduced or summarised above, like the long excerpt by Jim Flynn, but even those you don't appear to have read). Meanwhile, please click on the blue links to see all those diffs. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, for all your rhetoric about "reliable secondary sources" you don't seem to have any understanding of what a secondary source is. Original scientific publication of novel experiments is a primary source. None of what I mention above is such a publication. Secondary sources make evaluative or analytical claims about primary sources; everything I mention above falls into this category. The sources you seem to prefer are tertiary sources: textbooks and the like, which attempt to summarize the analysis in secondary sources. Tertiary sources have value, but their reliability regarding secondary sources can be inconsistent, and the secondary sources themselves are generally considered preferable. I suggest you read the policy in detail. Hope this clarifies some of the issues you've been confused about. Cheers. Rvcx (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Rushton (who you cite above as a secondary source) is one of the most prominent and prolific researchers into race and intelligence, and most anything he writes about the topic is as an insider. Including sources by Rushton is certainly a good idea, but as they are generally primary sources, they must all be handled with care.aprock (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, please refactor all allegations against me of lying and manipulating statistics. mikemikev (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mikey, I am specifically responding to a charge Captain Occam has made against me. There is no point in my refactoring anything I have written here as long as he continues to make that charge (or rather, cites me as calling you a charlatan as "evidence") Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who claims that racism refers to a belief and not a behavior is simply whitewashing atrocious behavior. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Another e-mail from Mr. Courage, the man who has the guts not only to hide behind anonymity, but also to use e-mail to try to move debate, rather than ou transparent talk pages:

John Doe Sr. <[email protected]>

"Anyone who claims that racism refers to a belief and not a behavior is simply whitewashing atrocious behavior."

Rubenstein,

You are undoubtedly one of the biggest douche bags I have ever encountered in my life. I have absolutely no respect for you. I think Boas would think you are a douche bag too.

Well, maybe I am, and maybe I am not, but the fact remains that racism refers not only to beliefs but to behaviors. I am happy to discuss this in an adult, rational way, if there are any adults and rational people who care to discuss it.Slrubenstein | Talk 10:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is a racist

John Doe Sr. <[email protected]> View Contact

"The epithet "racist" is commonly interpreted to address beliefs, not behavior, and it is thus an inappropriate attack."

The point of Rvcx's comment above is that an editor's beliefs are not something you should attack on Wikipedia, you should be more concerned with commenting on their actual behavior on Wikipedia. But even their behavior on Wikipedia is not subject to personal attacks per Wikipedia rules.

Thus your reply, "Anyone who claims that racism refers to a belief and not a behavior is simply whitewashing atrocious behavior.", while having some truth, does not respond to Rvcx's comment. But since I have noticed that you commonly give responses that are self-serving rather than actually replying to the intended meaning of an editor's comments and that you are apparently an intelligent person, I have concluded that you are likely doing it on purpose, which is disruptive.

Okay, let me get this straight, is it true that "The point of Rvcx's comment above is that an editor's beliefs are not something you should attack on Wikipedia?" I do not know, Rcvx would have to tell me.

But if Johnny Courageous here is right, the he, Rcvx, and others are revealing their bad faith. Wikipedia articles provide views. The view of editors do not matter. I have pointed out that a view that whites are gnetically superior to blacks is racist. I am clearly talking about the only views that matter: Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, etc. Their ?science" and conclusions are gneally laughable.

Now why on earth would any editor apply my critiism to himself? I can conclude only that the editor was trying to put his own view in the article.

I have never supported the division of editorians into two groups, hertidatians and social constructionists - that makes the views of editors special in a way that is highly counterproductive. What matters is the views of real sceintists. Are you suddenly claiming that status? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOAP. Please don't bring your email conversations here, let alone to grandstand and hurl epithets ("Johnny Courageous"?) at correspondents. Rvcx (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think these email conversations are extremely relevant - the go a long ay towards showing that at least one editor on one side of the debate does not find himself too good for making crysal clear violations of WP:HARASS.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This guy has e-mailed me also. Based on what he’s said in his messages to me, I’m quite certain that this person is Jagz, who’s been indefinitely blocked for more than a year. The reason he’s e-mailing us is probably because he’s disallowed from commenting on talk pages directly. He isn’t involved in this debate as an editor at all, so I agree with Rvcx that these e-mails really aren’t relevant. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it is Jagz, it fits - he was definitely a racist, and a moron. And in that case I will stop quoting them on this page. In any event, it is important to me that all editors here know that when I refer to racism it is the racism of Jensen, Rushton, and Lynn that is an issue, and I still do not understand Rcvx's comment about racism. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A dictionary definition of racism is the belief inherent differences among races determine their cultural or individual achievements, and it won't help us here to pretend otherwise. And in articles entitled Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy, featuring the efforts of figures persistently linking race and intelligence, a substantial portion of which have been, for decades now, underwritten by a 70 year old organization dedicated since its foundation to race distinctions, not IQ, I'm curious what explains the tendency some editors have to want to whitewash the "race" parts and pretend this is really just about inheritance and individual IQ? Professor marginalia (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Writing in others' sections

... is specifically prohibited in /Evidence pages; editors are encouraged to provide their own rope speak freely. Note that I referenced permission to spell-check Hipocrite's section before doing it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

A claim from Mathsci, Ramdrake, Maunus and others is that Captain Occam, David.Kane, and Ludwigs2 are misusing and overusing primary sources to synthesize new arguments that have no extant support in secondary literature. Aprock cites Race and crime in the United States as an example (although less troubling in crime than intelligence because criminal data is maintained and published regularly by the government). Can users provide more and more specific examples of this alleged misuse of primary sources?

On this talk page, David.Kane claims to be on board with the concept of limiting the articles to 20 or so influential secondary sources. That said, none of the parties accused of synthesis seems to have said anything on this matter in their own evidence sections.

I think this may be a key element of this case, and I would appreciate if parties addressed it more directly in their evidence. Cool Hand Luke 17:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Professor Marginalia's recent commentary makes a good overview of the primary source/blp issues.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the sort of evidence I would like to see more of. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! This mishmash from Professor Marginalia is the sort of "evidence" that you want to see more of? I can barely make sense of it and it is about me! Anyway, let me see if I can unpack this.

• Professor Marginalia has problems with my work on EphBlog. Fair enough! But that has nothing to do with the topic of this arbitration. Moreover, as the deletion discussion makes clear, several uninvolved editors (Milowent, Modelmotion, Dream Focus) were in favor of keeping the article, in precisely the format that Marginalia finds so objectionable. Maybe they are all idiots, but it is obvious (to me) that Marginalia did not closely examine the discussion and citations to reliable sources. Once he does, I am happy to provide a point-by-point refutation.
• Professor Marginalia accuses me of game playing with regard to BLP.I have summarized that topic here. Isn't it obvious that Marginalia summary is not as neutral as it ought to be?
• Perhaps it is useful to go through a single example which illustrates how tendentious Marginalia's "evidence" is. He claims: "David.Kane wasn't willing to budge to allow "contentious" claims to be sourced by anybody except Jensen himself." Untrue! MathSci added this criticism of Jensen by Jencks and I accepted it explicitly, adding an edit summary directed to Professor Marginalia: "Delete potential BLP violation. Professor M, please read WP:BLP. Contentious material will be removed until consensus is reached. Note that material from Jencks has been accepted without a problem" In other words, I explicitly pointed out to Professor Marginalia that I accepted criticism of Jensen as long as that criticism did not misstate Jensen's own views. That Professor Marginalia would purposely try to mislead Arb Com about this does not speak well for his ethics. I formally ask that he retract that claim.

Again, I hope that I have misunderstood Cool Hand Luke as to what evidence he finds useful. David.Kane (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, a "refactor" is just not happening. If the standard is "secondary sourced claims aren't allowed until you can produce a quote with cite where Jensen said exactly that very same thing in a primary", it's in all essential respects the same thing as demanding "all contentious claims must be sourced to Jensen himself." Professor marginalia (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that EphBlog isn't the topic of this case, but Marginalia believes that you're applying BLP in an uneven-handed way toward Jensen for POV-reasons. At any rate, I find diff-backed evidence about alleged misuse of sources useful—even if it's exaggerated, as I agree this is. I do not similarly find benefit from aspersions such as "Isn't it obvious that Marginalia summary is not as neutral as it ought to be?" (Likewise, claims of racist motives, etc., do not help us here.) Cool Hand Luke 18:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I think some parties have given too much attention to what David.Kane may have written off-site. Evidence should be focused on Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 18:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we are in agreement then. I have removed several examples of false statements made in reliable sources about Jensen's work. Marginalia provides several such diffs. I believe, in good faith, that such false statements violate WP:BLP. If Arb Com (or some other authority) clarifies BLP to allow such statements, then I will stop removing them. I hope that Marginalia will grant that I have left many criticisms of Jensen's work in this and other articles untouched because, in my view, these criticisms (when they do not make false statements as Campbell does) are a critical part of good encyclopedia articles. I have never removed such false statements made about dead people (like Hernstein, Burt and others) involved in race and intelligence because, obviously, BLP does not apply to them. David.Kane (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, I agree that what David.Kane may have written off-Wiki isn’t relevant to this arbitration case. However, there’s something I would appreciate you (or another arbitrator) clarifying here.

Mathsci and Hipocrite have provided several links to off-wiki pages involving David.Kane that he has never linked to or discussed on-Wiki. These include recent posts from EphBlog which he’s never linked to or discussed here (although he’s discussed this blog in general in the past), news articles about EphBlog that include personal information about David.Kane that he’s never disclosed on-Wiki, and Gene Expression posts purportedly written by him even though he’s never stated on-Wiki that he writes for this website. I can provide links to specific examples of this if you’d like, but several of them are already discussed in my evidence, and several more are part of the arbitration pages themselves so you’re probably aware of them. Is discussing and linking to this off-Wiki information about David.Kane that he hasn’t disclosed here allowable under Wikipedia’s policy regarding outing? I mentioned in my proposed principles that I would like the Wikipedia’s policy regarding outing to be clarified in order to cover this sort of thing, but since an arbitration ruling is still probably a few weeks away and in the meantime this issue is ongoing, I would appreciate some sort of interim decision about whether doing this should be considered acceptable for as long as the arbitration case lasts. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, some parties over-doing it on this case, in my opinion. I think this sort of stuff should be handled by email, and I appreciate those who have sent such evidence to us that way. That said, it's not unusual to find this sort of borderline material in an arbitration case—these cases are focused on users, after all.

However, I think that gratuitously referencing another's blog posts during content debates on talk pages, for example, would be the sort of harassment that falls under OUT. If any of this has occurred, please post some evidence about it. Cool Hand Luke 21:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm on this list - most of my time on this article was spent as mediator, and so I never got around to adding or arguing for/against sources. There was (to my mind) some clear synthesis from TechnoFaye (who seems to have disappeared), and some entrenched (if minor) synthesis on specific content points from Occam and Mike. There was also a lot of wikilawyering from Mathsci's side (aimed mostly at trying to eliminate or minimize sources that disagreed with him, or so it seemed to me). I reined all that in as best I could without stepping over the lines I'd set as mediator, and fixed a couple of SYN problems in the article after the mediation was done, but mostly I walked away from the article after the mediation. do you need me to present evidence on this for some reason? --Ludwigs2 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you should be on any such list. I would just like to know the evidence. Much of the commentary on the evidence page strikes me as long on labeling the purported POVs pushed, but somewhat short on identifying habitual policy violations such as WP:SYN. ArbCom needs to ground its decision in policy, so the latter is the most important kind of evidence. Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke: Indeed, I think that limiting this article to a specified list of sources is an excellent idea. As you may have noticed, I proposed it more formally in the workshop. Further comments: 1) Whether or not my list includes only "secondary sources" is a matter of dispute since some editors would deny that anything written by, say, Arthur Jensen could be secondary source. So, I try to refrain from this usage. My proposal is just for a limited list of agreed sources, whether they be primary, secondary or tertiary. Second, one reason, I think, why some editors resist this idea is that they see that it leads down a road they do not want to travel. Any list of such sources would include a clear statement of the hereditarian viewpoint and, at all costs, these editors want that discussion minimized at or removed from Wikipedia as WP:FRINGE. Having an approved list of sources makes that impossible. (Apologies to any editor who objects to this plan for other reasons, as I know some do.) Anyway, I agree with you that this is one of the few (only?) ideas with any chance of breaking the back of this dispute. Good luck! David.Kane (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A secondary source quoting Jensen, however, is fine in any event. That would be sufficient demonstration that whatever was said was of appropriate significance; nor should it be any impediment to providing a well-rounded presentation of Jensen's position. (Not everything said about Jensen focuses solely on the derogatory.) Unfortunately, much of this sort of secondary commentary tends to be in journals and so outside any "core", hence I don't think the "core" solves anything in the long term. It would be more helpful for editors to simply agree that two, three at most, reputable references for potentially contentious content are sufficient. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba: I think we all agree that a secondary source quoting Jensen is fine. That is not the dispute. Consider the start of this debate. A reliable source reports that Don Campbell claims that Arthur Jensen "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites." The problem is that this is not true. Arthur Jensen never recommended anything of the sort. (Despite Jensen's voluminous writings, no one has provided any evidence of this.) So, how should BLP handle untrue claims about living people, especially if those claims are inflammatory? David.Kane (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest:

1. If referencing to a sole source, the sole source must include the Jensen quote it is representing (and in the article the quote is included in the <ref></ref>)
2. If the Jensen quote/position being represented is only being represented, i.e., no original text, then the article narrative must state that, for example, "Jensen has been widely represented as... whatever" and should (in the event of something not complimentary through to something which would be considered WP:BLP violating if made as a direct statement) be sourced to at least two or three independent sources (that is, not three sources daisy chaining on each other).
3. Uncomplimentary to potential WP:BLP violation reports in the press (i.e., reporters not academics) need to be specifically attributed to the press in the article text.

I would think this is a reasonable and not unduly burdensome solution. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Will the arb comm draft new BLP policies just for dealing with Campbell? Whoah. Slow down. Whether or not the Campbell cite was a significant one (personally, I don't think so in the context it was used) BLP is being overplayed with it. a) Campbell's not the only source that said this-David.Kane has deleted or supported deletions of other good cites which also said it. b) There is a full context surrounding and running throughout Jensen's paper which is focused on how to close a white/black achievement gap and c) In Jensen's paper, per his diagnosis and recommended interventions, most blacks and whites would certainly be receiving very different educations. "Separate but equal" educations were outlawed in the US a decade before this paper was published. Desegregation programs were court ordered throughout the country to actively enforce racial balances in schools. It continues to be illegal in most cases to use IQ tests to prescribe "different" curriculum to children if racial imbalances are their result, and this would be an expected outcome of Jensen's recommendations. Campbell wasn't personally "attacking" Jensen in this citation. He was rebutting the assertion that the race/IQ research was explorational only and agnostic and removed from their social policy applications, whereas Jensen, who signed his name to the assertion, had involved himself in recommending changes in social policies based on his research. This is why secondary sources get the big bucks--for researching issues, analyzing policies, serving on advisory boards, writing books, and giving opinions. It's their job to do this, it's our job to describe what they come up with. We don't have to turn the wiki-world upside-down to protect Jensen and other BLPs from their professional peers. So please leave the policy alone. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize that the apoplectic shouting is getting tiresome. My proposal was who-said-what-about-whom-specifically agnostic. Perhaps you can simply respond to my proposal instead of rehashing past conflicts. Would my proposal help to significantly reduce or eliminate getting sidetracked at the article with WP:BLP violation accusations? Stop arguing about content, arbitration doesn't rule on content. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"[Who] have written/ contended/ alleged/ accused that XYZ's contentions [ref'ed, quoted per my suggestion if a single source], taken to their logical conclusion, would result in... [ref'ed]" is what you are saying above. I believe that would satisfy concerns regarding WP:BLP violations if it were also simply written that way. Is that a problem? (To either side of the shouting exchange.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, no, I don't think they would help. If you want to understand why I don't think they'd help, it's because Campbell is the example mentioned previous to you arguing there is a "need" to change policy, and the content demonstrates why there isn't really any "need" revealed with Campbell to change policy from what it already says. Yes I know arb comm doesn't "rule on content"-but that's what we need to do before automatically assuming any "policy changes" are necessary. And I'm sorry if I'm the last to be told, but since when does arb comm draft new policy either?? Professor marginalia (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So, Vecrumba, the text should read "A[1], B[2], C[3], D[4], and E[5] have reported Jensen as advocating separate education of Blacks and Whites."? "Widely reported" is just WP:WEASELly. I actually don't think your proposal is helpful, but I'd like to what it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not being helpful because you are using my example for something where (a) the word "racist" is not being used (not a potential WP:BLP violation) and (b) it should be a simple thing to reference Jensen quoted in a reputable source, so the "X" says "Y" construct is not required unless the source is interpreting Jensen where Jensen actually said something somewhat different (but taken as meaning...). I'm not trying to overcomplicate, just looking to deal with a specific type of editorial issue so it doesn't lead to WP:BLP violation accusations and future impasses. Hope that does help. I'm not proposing policy, just a simple referencing and attribution mechanism to avoid issues when content makes accusations against individuals who aren't dead yet. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Campbell quote

Above, Professor Marginalia writes: "Campbell's not the only source that said this-David.Kane has deleted or supported deletions of other good cites which also said it." Untrue! As best I can tell, Campbell is the only source for "this." Keep in mind:

• Campbell claimed that Jensen "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites." This is the precise quote that we are arguing over. The problems, obviously, are: a) This is an serious accusation. Only extreme racists propose separate curriculum based on race. b) There is no evidence in Jensen's voluminous writings that Jensen thought this. Despite repeated challenges, neither Professor Marginalia nor anyone else has been able to provide a citation.
• It is convenient that this allegation is so specific. It leaves Jensen/Campbell no wriggle room. "Curricula" has a specific meaning in the context of education. The implication is that Jensen wanted all whites to learn calculus but no blacks. He wanted all blacks to learn Latin, but no whites. Or whatever.
• Professor Marginalia (and others) try to get around by claiming that other citations support Campbell. But they don't! I challenge Professor Marginalia to provide another citation in which someone claims that Jensen supported separate "curricula" (or courses of instruction or class sequences or whatever) for all blacks and whites. I bet he can't.
• The germ of truth in Professor Marginalia's argument is that others, beside Campbell, have claimed that Jensen wanted to separate out blacks and whites. (Segregation is, obviously a different policy than separate curricula.) Some of the other citations that I deleted are along those lines. Others are much more reasonable. After discussion, I could imagine keeping them. (Ornstein is probably in this category.) Jensen believed two separate things: 1) low IQ students should be educated differently than high IQ students. (Lots of people think that.) and 2) Blacks have lower IQ than whites. (Much more controversial.) His ideological enemies have tried to synthesize these two beliefs into something like: Jensen thinks that black students should be treated differently than whites. His dishonest enemies turn what might be a reasonable conclusion on average (although still highly misleading) into a totally false claim that Jensen wants to treat all blacks (including high IQ blacks) differently than all whites. He never proposed that and, on the contrary, argued the exact opposite on many occasions.
• Again (and again and again) I have always just followed BLP and invited editors like Marginalia to discuss these topics on the talk page. I am ready to be convinced. I am ready to seek consensus. I am eager to discuss. But BLP requires such claims to be deleted until discussion is complete.

I hope that this clarifies things. David.Kane (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Untrue!" - {sigh} Freeman:[8], Tucker, reverted by Captain Occam with backup from you, photo of reference text page delivered on a platter to you here here and to which you'd acknowledged awareness of discussion here. This is such a time sink-how many repetitions and how many cites will it take before it will register? "Blacks ought better to be educated for the more mechanical tasks to which their genes predisposed them."[9]-adding, your interpretation of primary source material is irrelevant to this question. Read these couple of pages visible in the google book link-it will point you to several other authoritative sources characterizing Jensen's plan as a continuation of the same "unequal educational policies" which had long victimized blacks. It's not about what Jensen meant. He's a scientist--his published works are intended to be interpreted by the scientific community, and they must stand on their own merits. -- Professor marginalia (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC) revised 20:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of commentaries like this. Here are some other examples: [10][11][12][13] Mathsci (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lots of links, none of which (besides Campbell) mentioned "curricula", "curriculum", "courses of instruction" or any variation thereof. When you come across one that does, please bring it to our attention. Semantics aside, I have already conceded above that many of Jensen's (dishonest) critics claimed that he wanted separate educations for blacks and whites. (You provide a set of links that we have (I think) seen before.) But, in fact, Jensen does not want that. He never wrote that. (To be clear, I have read less than 1% of Jensen. As soon as you or anyone else can provide a quote of Jensen saying he wanted "separate curricula for Blacks and Whites" or whatever, I will gladly concede.) The unresolved ambiguity in BLP remains. At some point, it may be more productive to move this discussion to the talk page for Arthur Jensen since that article is the most likely location for this material to go into. And, again, if after discussion, the consensus on that talk page went against me, I would also conceded. My main point is that BLP requires the contentious wording to be removed until consensus is reached. David.Kane (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And this only gets better! MathSci link bombs us, perhaps hoping that we won't check that the links he provides support the point he is making. But I check those links and the first two support my position! (That is all that I have checked so far.) Consider:

Jensen is no racist. He advocates a plural education system, not a segregation on the basis of race.

not a segregation on the basis on race. Eureka! I believe that my work here is done. We have a reliable source Children of the dispossessed: Far-West preschoolers 30 years on by Barry Nurcombe, P. R. De Lacey and Susan-Lee Walker which explicitly claims that Jensen did not want to treat all black students differently than all white students. Anyone, like Campbell, who wants to claim the opposite now has a very high burden of proof before BLP will allow such a claim in Wikipedia (according to my interpretation of BLP at least). David.Kane (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

<= Choosing two sentences from one source is usually called "cherry-picking". Here's the paragraph:

Jensen was no racist. He advocates a pluralist system, not a segregation based on the basis of race. His conclusions about educational policy are somewhat similar to those recommended in this book (see chapters 4 and 6), although he and I have reached these conclusions by different routes. There can be no question that Jensen has a genuine concern for minority groups. He believes that if there is a racially determined difference in potential, a different policy may aid those who are at present disadvantaged by inappropriately designed curricula.

The last sentence is the relevant one. You do realize that when you read books as sources for wikipedia, you might have to read one or two pages, even more perhaps, and take them in. It's not a parlour game where you get to choose one or two sentences to prove your point. I can also help you reading the other three references. But with Tucker and Freeman, what was the problem? Mathsci (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the Freeman quote:

Jensen matched black and white chidren for socio-economic level and measured their IQs. He found that the black children's IQs covered the whole range, but that their average IQ was about 15 points lower than that of the matched white children. He interpreted this as meaning that black intelligence was different from white intelligence and so could not be measured on the same tests. He proposed that different forms of education, more appropriate to their kind of intelligence, should be given to black children. There would be less conceptual flights of fancy and more rote learning for them.

Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the quote from the first link (Pyle):

Jensen argued on the strength of these conclusions 'compensatory education has been tried and has apparently failed' and mostly because the young negro supposedly has a lower genetic potential to benefit from any compensatory help given. In Chapter 1, Jensen's ideas on the nature of intelligence were discussed - Level I being held to be 'associative' ability common to all social classes, and Level II being 'cognitive' ability which is based on Level I, buto not equally available to all. He sees the main implications of this line of reasoning to be that children of allegedly low genetic potential should have an educational curriculum based on Level I material (mechanical memory and rote learning) and those better endowed should have a more conceptually demanding education, in line with Level II.

Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

MathSci: Step away from the shovel. Jensen argues that "children of allegedly low genetic potential should have an educational curriculum based on Level I material" Correct! We all agree that Jensen (1969) suggested that low IQ children should be educated differently from high IQ children. This is different from claiming that all black children should be educated differently than all white children. Feel free to continue to gather reliable sources that make my point. David.Kane (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(I was reading the workshop page, and I had to reply to this) From the "Jensen is no racist" book, in page 44

"Jensen considers that (...) American blacks can be considered a separate race (...) Blacks do as well as whites on test of associative learning, but they fall behind on abstract thinking. The education system should attend to this discrepancy and devise a more pluralistic approach. The current system puts minority groups (aka blacks) at a marked disadvantage, since it overemphasizes g-type thinking.".

This seems to be the current state at the R&I topic:

• any small discrepancy is posited as absolute proof of the position being defended,
• statements are taken out of context or context is simply ignored,
• if 6 sources say "X" and 1 source says "Y" then X is posited as a false statement because one source contradicts it, even if a closer reading of that 1 source makes clear that it's also saying X,
• "a very high burden of proof" is requested in the name of BLP,
• multiple secondary sources from several RS are rejected on the grounds that they have to be accompanied by a primary source that explicitely uses a certain wording, etc.

I say that all of the above points appear in the exchange above this comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Enric. That just goes to show that sources have to be read slowly and carefully. Mathsci (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane has not "explained" the quotes from Joan Freeman or William tucker. He appears just to be playing a chidish game of semantics. He is forcing your own interpretation, as always, rather going about editing wikipedia in a normal way. Indeed he is trying into some kind of parlour game that he will "win" and then write comments with eclamation marks. But that's not how wikipedia is edited. This method of gaming the system was exactly what David.Kane did with the quote about the "lot of blacks", apparently a major BLP violation. However the original quote was, "As a social policy, avoidance of the issue could be harmful to everyone in the long run, especially to future generations of Negroes, who could suffer the most from well-meaning but misguided and ineffective attempts to improve their lot." He blanked Tucker's version which spoke of the "well-meaning but misguided and ineffective atempts to improve [the] lot" blacks. [14]. On the other hand the quote from Yehudi Webster was apparently acceptable, "the article claimed that there is a correlation between intelligence, measured by IQ tests, and racial genes. In 'empirical' substantiation, Jensen carried out a series of tests on black and white students and concluded that black intelligence was congenitally inferior to that of whites, and that this partly explains unequal educational achievements. He argued further that, because a certain level of underachievement was due to the inferior genetic attributes of blacks, compensatory and enrichment programs are bound to be ineffective in closing the racial gap in educational achievements." Most editors who are interested in building an accurate and informative encyclopedia do not play these kinds of games. Mathsci (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The account on pages 167-168 of Valencia and Suzuki makes the same point.

Given that compensatory education programs (e.g. Head Start) were based on the plasticity of human intelligence, Jensen questioned whether the efforts of these programs to raise children's intelligence were being misdirected. A reasonable and rival intepretation, Jensen suggested, is perhaps that these children lacked the cognitive capacity for higher level learning. To support this contention, he drew from his research on "Level I-Level II theory of mental abilities." ... Level I, Jensen claimed, involves lower level skills (digit memory, serial rote learning, paired associative learning). Level II, by contrast, involves higher order skills (e.g., concept learning, problem solving). Jensen hypothesized, "Level I ability is distributed about the same in all social class groups, while Level II ability is distributed differently in lower and middle-SES groups." Jensen went on to conclude that ... '"he genetic factors involved in each of these types of ability are presumed to have become differentially distributed in the population as a function of social class, since Level II has been most important for scholastic performance under the traditional methods of instruction ... There can be little doubt that certain occupational attainments depend more upon g than any other single ability. But schools must also be able to find ways of utilizing other strengths in children whose major strength is not of the cognitive variety ..." In sum, Jensen hypothesized that compensatory education failed to boost, to any appreciable degree, the IQs of "disadvantaged" children in such programs because these children had limitations in Level II ability, which Jensen said is measured in cognitive tests with high loadings of g. Jensen then moved into the area that would prove incendiary in the eyes of many. He discussed evidence that "social class and racial variations in intelligence canot be accounted for [almost entirely] by differences in environment but must be attributed partially to genetic influence." This is a reasonable hypothesis to raise, Jensen asserted. ... [He] concluded, "So all we are left with are various lines of evidence, no one of which is definitve alone, but which, viewed all together, make it a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference ... "

Mathsci (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The last passage is from Pumfrey & Verma:

Jensen identifies two different kinds of learning abilities which he calls Level I (rote learning) and Level II (conceptual learning). It is claimed that the former is distributed similarly in different populations. In contrast, the latter is distributed differently. Blacks are good at rote learning only whereas whites are competent in both.

Mathsci (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

On Page 166 of "The Evolution of Deficit Thinking", Valencia writes:[15] (fully viewable on amazon.com)

Thus, as did genetic pathology theorists before him, Jensen also offered recommendations for schooling. In his Level I-Level II theory of learning (which basically is a theory of educablility), he suggested that curriculum for low-SES and black children should concentrate on lower level skill development (Level I) in that they are unable to master the higher level cognitive skills (Level II).

Is this so hard to absorb? Mathsci (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci "On the other hand the quote from Yehudi Webster was apparently acceptable". No, it wasn't. Teamed up with Captain Occam to delete that one too.[16] -- Professor marginalia (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Somehow it did get in. Here is Occam's revert [17], your insertion of the material [18], David.Kane's reversion as a BLP violation [19], your reinsertion because NBLP was invoked inappropriately by David.Kane [20], Captain Occam's POV-pushing and inaccurate paraphrase claiming falsely that I agreed [21], Occam adds opinion to the summary section [22], original material from Webster restored [23], Occam inserts another mangled version of Webster, not a paraphrase at all [24], final balanced version with mention of Flynn and Mackintosh [25]. Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the same kind of "somehow" recycled throughout the history of the article, starting long before David.Kane grabbed on tight to the BLP policy for justification. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There was also the 1982 article of Allan Ornstein:[26]

(1) Blacks average about 15 points below the white average on IQ tests;this is due to the genetic differences between thetwo races in learning abilities and patterns.
(2) Blacks as a group and 'disadvantaged' children have more difficulty than do others in abstract reasoning — the basis for IQ measurements and for higher mental skills; unfortunately, the schools have assumed that all children can master higher cognitive skills.
(3) Conversely, blacks and 'disadvantaged' children tend to do well in tasks involving rote learning — memorizing mainly through repetition; these aptitudes can be used to help raise their scholastic achievement up to a point.
(4) Compensatory education, which is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year (actually billions), has failed and will continue to fail because it is trying to compensate children of limited intellectual talents with learning processes and concepts that are really geared to students of average or above average talent

Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is all arguing over content. Unfortunately, it's only the arguing part ArbCom can rule on, so this thread is not advancing the case unless folks are here to prove they are argumentative, nor are sources being presented and discussed in a collegial fashion, bringing us back to the arguing part. :-( PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba, your contributions to this ARbCom case seem neither helpful nor constructive. David.Kane has been edit warring to blank multiple pieces of sourced content under the false pretext of BLP violations. It is that behaviour which is disruptive and problematic. Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, you have not been hearing what I have been suggesting about presenting accusatory materials in a manner which I believe would satisfy the WP:BLP concerns expressed. That you describe those concerns as false pretenses—that is, merely a ploy to wage WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal of content—is your personal (not editorial) opinion, indeed, an assumption of bad faith unless you have a direct psychic link to editor David.Kane, which I believe you do not. Moreover, you are also ignoring the point that one does not need to divine the origin of an expression of concern; as long as the concern can be taken as genuine and reputable materials can be presented in a fashion which does not place WP in the position of stating potentially defamatory conclusions regarding living individuals, then we can move on.

   It's rather odd that the only editors so far who believe I have been unhelpful with regard to how to include materials accusing individuals of certain beliefs/agendas are the very editors lobbying for inclusion of said content. So, are we here to argue or to figure out how to address stated concerns at face value? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

We were still discussing David.Kane's assertions that the "accusatory material" came only from one source. Turns out that it comes from multiple good quality sources.

About the manner of presentation, Mathsci has used a summary from one of the sources[27]. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

MathSci edits the article to insert his preferred version while Arb Com is deciding the case

Is this sort of behavior what Wikipedia is seeking to encourage? We are having, in good faith (I hope!), a discussion about how BLP related to claims that Arthur Jensen wanted all black students, regardless of IQ, treated in a specific way. Jensen never wrote that and no one can provide a citation to his work showing it. We all agree that many writers (who I would describe as his ideological enemies) claimed otherwise. The issue here is: Does/should BLP require a higher standard of proof before inserting such claims in Wikipedia? Instead of waiting for the Arb Com case to finish, or of engaging in good faith discussion, MathSci tries (again!) to insert precisely the claims that are under dispute: "he suggested that curriculum for low-SES and black children should concentrate on lower level skill development (Level I) in that they are unable to master the higher level cognitive skills (Level II)." This claim makes the reader think that Jensen wanted all black children treated in a certain way when, in fact, he wanted all low IQ children (some white, some black) treated in a certain way. Moreover, this interpretation is directly contradicted by other reliable sources.

Leave aside the substance. Isn't it a sign of bad faith for MathSci to stick this passage in the article before any arbitrator has even offered an opinion on the topic? David.Kane (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No. That's a content question. If that were inappropriate, then no edits should have been done to the article (which was advocated by some). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm, no, it's a procedure question. As someone who personally has advocated for edits to continue, I have since advised discussion only pending completion of the arbitration—per the clear and unambiguous urging of more than one uninvolved editor at article talk. It is disingenuous to indicate Mathsci is only doing what others advocate when those advocates have, in fact, desisted from change in deference to the proceedings here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What? This is impossibly confusing for me. When it's discussed here, you say it's a content issue and arb com doesn't judge content. When it is taken to the article, David.Kane says it's an issue before arb com. Which is it? And, who and where can this "unambiguous urging of more than one uninvolved editor at article talk" to engage in "discussion only" be found? Can we at least agree now that the "only one source" or "unreliable source" objection is but a red herring? Professor marginalia (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This is not my "preferred point of view." This is commentary found in multiple texts; and that is what we report on wikipedia. In this case it comes from an article from a 1997 book in a prestigious Stanford University series. It is an article written by Richard Valencia, professor of educational psychology at the University of Texas, Austin and Daniel Solorzano, professor of social science and comparative education at UCLA (see the box quote above). It is what they wrote. David.Kane is hardly in a position to question or evaluate material from an impeccably reliable seondary source. His tag team mate Mikemikev simply reverted the edit with the explanation "material false". And David.Kane apparently thinks the same. But nobody is interested in their personal views on this material. On wikipedia neither David.Kane, Mikemikev nor Mathsci get to give their summary of or commentary on Jensen's highly controversial 1969 paper: we leave that up to reliable secondary sources. We might agree with what they write or we might disagree: but, if it is attributed and comes from a WP:RS, we cannot suppress it just because we disagree with it. Those who suppress content like that or try to give their own interpretation should not be editing this encyclopedia. And if they continue to do so after being warned, they should not be allowed to edit wikipedia. There is no moratorium on editing the article during the ArbCom case and certainly I have made edits on June 14. I think probably there should be some ban on the disruptive wikilawyering/edit-warring that David.Kane and Mikemikev have just engaged in. It seems to serve almost no purpose. In this case it would appear that the edits of David.Kane and Mikemikev are just a form of bullying. That is how they have both been behaving for some time, with a total disregard for WP:RS ... and predictably Captain Occam has joined there chorus on the Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy. Mathsci (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I did suggest how to reference sources and to construct article narrative to avoid issues where WP article content can be taken to be itself stating a conclusion regarding accusatory content. If you think it is "unhelpful" and/or useless, then propose something else on the good faith assumption the WP:BLP concern is genuine instead of going on interminably about suppression and censorship. I'm not on anyone's content side here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba, you are not making helpful remarks here. You suggested using primary sources for a history of psychology article about a highly controversial paper. We have to rely on WP:RS to write material on contemporary criticisms. Of course a large number of academic databases have already been used for accessing the 100 odd sources. Mathsci (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Quite frankly, I'm starting to think full article protection until things are done here is looking to be more and more attactive since any changes other than typos or syntax are only serving to add more fuel to the fire here.

   I'm sorry, do I need to simply agree with you to be "helpful?" As far as I can tell I'm the only one who has actually suggested something about how to handle content that goes beyond shouting about whether it gets included or not. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Your remarks about content seem unrelated to the sources. I have no idea why are you are making them. Is it just to "stir the pot" a little? Mathsci (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I'm not upset but I don't agree that your suggestions in these sections are very useful because I think they're disconnected from the real disputes operating in the article I worked on. The personal "jibery" is not the least bit helpful, I agree. It makes it harder for editors to respond to issues themselves instead of to the personalities of fellow editors involved. But this we all have to do --we can't let ourselves get sucked in or become biased over personalities. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. My (outside) perspective is that the "real" dispute has become so entrenched as to

• Editor A = position X
• Editor B = position Y
• . . .

that the assumption is that each side is attempting to eliminate the other's content in favor of their own, leading to the utterly polarized presentation at the current article. As long as the modus operandi is that any disagreement over how to put something in the article in attacked as a bad-faithed effort to control (promote and suppress) content, then nothing will improve. I had hoped that I might be able to present some means for bypassing the parry and thrust going on (or, as I propose, take away the fencing implements for 6 months so editors are forced to deal with content issues at the article without resort to other means of content control).
   As for bias and personalities, Mathsci is fully aware of two requests by myself to him to strike inappropriate commentary. I'll leave it to others to decide whether my request to him to strike such commentary is appropriate or merely inflaming the situation, or what, if anything, can be judged by his response or lack thereof. No one put a gun to Mathsci's head to dredge up unrelated conflicts. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You may be right. I became involved just 6 weeks ago, but what it looks like to me is more that the Editor A vs Editor B triggers are a consequence, not the underlying cause, of the long term stalemate. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Mathsci. Of course my comments are unrelated to the sources, they are only on discussing how to include contentious and/or accusatory sources. Why? Because ArbCom does not rule on content. Not here. Not there. Not anywhere. Not ever. Extensive quoting of sources and who thinks who is reputable may well be a cathartic experience for you (this is not a dig, I have enjoyed such catharsis myself in the past when self-congratulating myself on a content point particularly well made), but ArbCom is not going to rule in favor of your, or anyone else's, content. Trust me on this. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Vecumbra, do you agree that, if an editor removes material supported by multiple secondary RS saying that it's "false"[28], then that's a behaviour problem?. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Mathsci first: per Moreschi's about what's not the right process for arbitration, which you endorsed:

1. Everything can be solved by rigid adherence to Wikipedia user conduct policy
2. Violators of user conduct policies must always be automatically sanctioned
3. The content dispute itself is unimportant: what matters is that participants in the dispute adhere to a stringent interpretation of policy.
4. It is almost impossible to objectively tell when someone is violating article policy, and therefore absurd to sanction them for it.

I suggest we accept there is enough wiggle room to believe that editors here all believe they are acting in good faith with regard to their own presentation of content. The nature of the conflict (and confusion of personal tenets regarding morality with content), on the other hand, has caused the universal ascribing of bad faith to one's editorial opponents. To #3, the content dispute is important, but ultimately it cannot be settled here. Any good article, to tell the whole story, must:

1. be inclusive, and
2. be coherent—that is, tell a story, not just present a litany of "he said, she said" in areas of contention.

None of that can or will be settled here, that can only be settled at the R&I and related articles. If, for example, you have no interest in proposals on how to deal with accusatory content which would facilitate its inclusion (that would be my unhelpful comments which don't deal with the sources), then matters at R&I will not improve. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Enric: Hopefully you will appreciate that I give you a structural answer:

1. WP article: "Jensen ... offered recommendations on schooling" (this is stated as a WP article source statement of fact)
2. the subsequent source (Valencia and Solorzano) discussing Jensen's "recommendation", as what is included does not reference Jensen's actual statements, may or may not be correct (that is all "black children..."); note, I am NOT going to start arguing here about who on which end of the diff is "correct," it doesn't matter; what matters is that the "recommendation" is stated as fact in the article text while the representation of the "recommendation" is not intrinsically verifiable
3. per my suggestion for handling such contentious content, this "recommendation" would be handled by using a secondary source which states the conclusion AND which quotes Jensen's study (either quoting or at least original publication page so editors can reference it themselves) in validation of the conclusion—there are plenty of journal articles on Jensen's study which criticize it and quote it voluminously while doing so, such secondary sources are not an issue
4. this way, what the RS states is clearly its interpretation of Jensen; we know what Jensen stated that forms the basis for the interpretation; lastly, the WP article is no longer in the position of stating as fact what is, structurally, an unsourced interpretation of Jensen, RS or no RS

I hope that by not answering your specific diff as to who is right I've better explained my position. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Short version, use secondary sources which quote the primary source. Characterizing something only by what was said it said (secondary) with no verification of what was said in the first place (primary) is not a formula for success here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. There is also a difference between "recommend" (WP article statement of fact) and "suggest" (per RS quoted, independent of its subsequent representation of Jensen's suggestion). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And way back on confusion, if editor David.Kane believes the R&I content dispute is at arbitration, what is at arbitration is the dispute and how editors are handling it, not the article content over which the dispute rages. While no arbitration can be truly content agnostic; nevertheless, it will not rule on whose content prevails. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba: you write so much and none of it is relevant. Your remarks just seem totally clueless. Why are you making them? Mathsci (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, R&I can be an emotionally charged topic, that extends to ostensibly reliable secondary sources. The editorial conflict will only improve if editors agree on how to handle content and references appropriately—agnostic of the specific reference and all the sturm und drang that has been raging over what belongs and doesn't. At this point I would agree with you that one of us is clearly clueless. Perhaps that is me, perhaps not. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Short version, use secondary sources which quote the primary source." Please take a step back and take the broad view here. What is that article about? The history of a controversy. How do we describe the controversy through primary sources? Through requiring any secondary source used directly quote the primary source? Then there would be little of the controversy to describe, wouldn't there? You won't find it in the primary source. We'll just be regurgitating bits of primary sources through a secondary sourced "intermediary" publisher, outside both their context in the original and the social/professional context in which they became controversial. How many secondary sources write this way--by quoting at length from primary source materials before "interpreting" them? (Of which we're to use only if self-nominated editors agree with the interpretation?) Won't this inevitably deteriorate into "quote mine" madness? And how many policies will have to be swept aside to adopt this ad hoc peace plan, WP:NPOV and WP:V chief among them? What is so confusing to me is that - everybody agrees that this paper was a huge controversy, everybody agrees "resistance was overwhelming", in the words of one of Jensen's steadfast supporters--one result was an anti-racist backlash such that it is almost impossible to do this kind of research in the US today. I've worked in quite a few controversial articles and never encountered anyone urging anything this restrictive. Intelligent design would be one big fairy tale if limits like these were imposed. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Vecumbra. Same here, "Short version, use secondary sources which quote the primary source" is in practice forbidding the use of any secondary source whose conclusions aren't explicitly supported by the exact same words from a primary source. There is nothing saying this at either WP:RS or WP:BLP. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but to both) I've read journal articles on Jensen's study. I'm only recommending secondary quoting primary where there are potential WP:BLP issues. If there are no WP:BLP issues, there's no restriction. If you don't want to follow that suggestion, then content certainly needs to be written much more carefully to avoid contention. It would seem mine is the simpler solution; lastly, there's no need to make it mandatory, however, it would certainly cut down on claims of misrepresentation, WP:BLP violations, and all. I'm looking for ways to include sources, not restrict them. Also, to Enric, what the secondary source states DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED VERBATIM in the primary source, you completely misunderstand the intent. The point is to verify what (in the primary source) the secondary source is characterizing and not to verify that the secondary source's interpretation is one we agree is a fair and accurate representation of the primary source. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Request: please try to avoid underlined bold case. It looks as if you're shouting at everybody and does not make your point any more clearly.

You do not seem to have found the extended accounts in books on the history of psychology written somewhat later, once the dust settled, by uninvolved commentators. Some journal articles cover a little of this (Franz Samelson), but usually not in any depth. What particular reason do you have, Vecrumba, for ignoring these books? Isn't history normally recorded in books? Mathsci (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

@Vecumbra. You are still asking that we use only secondary sources that explicitily quote a primary source. Again, there is no such restriction in WP:BLP.

And, you are effectively asking that we use only secondary sources when wikipedia editors have examined the primary sources themselves and have reached the same conclusions as the secondary sources. BLP says instead that the conclusions have to be taken from secondary sources, not from the editor's own opinion of primary sources. you are saying the opposite of what BLP says --Enric Naval (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the fact that the (mis?)understanding of Jensens writings which has him arguing in favour of different educational strategies for blacks and whites is shared (and published) by so many notable scholars in itself makes that interpretation so notable that it must be included in tyhe article - whether it can be supported by direct quotes from Jensen himself or not. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A subtle and interesting point. But, before entering that debate, I would be curious about your take on the simpler question: Do you think that BLP would allow deleting the Campbell quote if Campbell were the only (or, one of the few) sources for the claim? I value your opinion as a generally level-headed editor with a fair amount of experience with these articles. David.Kane (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No I don't. The point of the BLP policy is to keep the wikimedia foundation's back clear from accusations of libel from living persons by having the strict requirement that material that is potentially libellous be explicitly referenced to a reliable source. The requirement for the sources reliability in this case is not to be sure that what the source says is true, but rather to be sure that the source actualy said what it is quoted as saying. This is because if the source said it then the wikimedia foundation is not legally responsible for purporting that statement as long as it is attributed to the original source. E.g. the BLP policy allows us to write "X notable person called Y notable person "a nasty fascist"" - without regards to whether Y is a nasty fascist or not, but only to whether X verifiably said so. In this case it is a completely moot point because the statement has been repeated so many times by so many sources that if Jensen were to take offense he would have to sue half of academia before getting to the wikimedia foundation. NPOV requires that all notable viewpoints be duly adressed- this viewpoint is so notable that Jensen has repeatedly defended himself against it in print. His denial of having that stance is of course also notable, but no purpose is served by trying to remove the viewpoint he is defending against from the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I completely agree that such an interpretation of Jensen should definitely be covered in the article. But the interpretation has developed a life of its own that can't be directly attributed to Jensen, and the difference between what he wrote and what many have read needs to be kept clear. E.g. it's one thing to mention eugenics in an article about evolution, but quite another to attribute support for eugenics to Darwin (even though many secondary sources have). Rvcx (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe attributing the statement like [this? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Still it goes on. Jensen wrote X. We have a secondary source saying Jensen wrote X. Now let's assume everybody else in the world writes "Jensen wrote Y". We can include: "Everyone else in the world thinks Jensen wrote Y", but we need to put Jensen wrote X. I'm truly disturbed that people here are battling to put material they know is false into wikipedia. It's sinister. mikemikev (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that one can easily argue in favour for something without in fact making a direct statement to the effect. Those who intepret Jensen as arguing for segregation are not simply evil persons trying to distort the truth and victimize Jensen. They make this interpretation because of the context in which Jensen writes and the total sum of his statements. The "boost" article was published while the supreme court was discussing whether to end segregation in education and of course the Jensens arguments have to be understood in that context. Alexander Alland Jr. makes a really good summary of this in Race in Mind (which I unfortunately do not have acces to right now)- where he writes that Jensen has been very careful not to make statements that are explicitly in favour of racial segregation in education - but that the contexts in which he makes his arguments makes it difficult not to read him as arguing to that effect.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, his repeated and explicit condemnations of making decisions purely on the basis of race make it even more difficult to argue that he supported such policy. Again: you could make precisely the same argument about Darwin's (nonexistent) support for eugenics or Smith's (nonexistent) condemnation of charity. Rvcx (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

@Rvcx, this looks like your own personal interpretation of primary sources, and articles are supposed to report the interpretation of secondary sources. Find secondary sources that make this argument. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Maunus I have no problem with writing something to that effect in the article. But please do not support misrepresentation of what Jensen wrote. mikemikev (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good addition to the article, provides the explanation of why there was that difference between the primary and the secondary sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This will be my last for the day:

1. And, you are effectively asking that we use only secondary sources when wikipedia editors have examined the primary sources themselves and have reached the same conclusions as the secondary sources. BLP says instead that the conclusions have to be taken from secondary sources, not from the editor's own opinion of primary sources. you are saying the opposite of what BLP says --Enric Naval (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Still it goes on. Jensen wrote X. We have a secondary source saying Jensen wrote X. Now let's assume everybody else in the world writes "Jensen wrote Y". We can include: "Everyone else in the world thinks Jensen wrote Y", but we need to put Jensen wrote X. I'm truly disturbed that people here are battling to put material they know is false into wikipedia. It's sinister. mikemikev (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On #1, no, that is NOT what I am saying. I am saying use the secondary source but know to what in the primary source the secondary source is referring. Jensen says "the sky is dark." Secondary source says "Jensen concludes the sun never shines in Oklahoma," referencing Jensen's original comment. Done. It does not matter, unfortunately, whether the secondary source is accurate or not, but at least we know what is being interpreted and state it as the secondary source's characterization, not as a fact. On #2, that's a bit more problematic as it's (unfortunately again) impossible to prove Jensen never wrote Y somewhere even if we have incontrovertible evidence Jensen wrote X which contradicts Y. If it's the example I use for #1 (except the secondary source doesn't provide the primary), the best we can do is include both in appropriate narrative. Again, this is why it is HELPFUL (not mandatory) to opt for secondary sources which cite Jensen instead of just talking about what he said/wrote. Hope this clarifies. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources that make quotes are helpful, yes. But this doesn't imply that we should remove, or consider of inferior value, those secondary sources that don't provide explicit quotes. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Very few academic book reviews use quotes. The suggestions above would disqualify using most book reviews on wikipedia. I can reveal that I have read portions of the books of Fish, Mackintosh, Flynn and Sternberg, which I possess. I have not read Jensen's 1969 article and I have not read any of the articles or books of Lynn and Rushton. The policy page WP:NPOV does not justify personal interpretations of a primary source like the 1969 paper of Jensen. Of course secondary sources, in particular those by skilled historians of psychology, are able to put this document in the wider historical persepective of what was happening at the time. No wikipedia editor can do that (it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH); so almost all direct comments on Jensen's paper have no relevance here. In particular, as recorded in WP:RS, the paper was reprinted and distributed by Shockley and words in the paper, like "genetic enslavement", a phrase invented by Shockley, echo Shockley's own policies on eugenics. They also record that the paragraph on "eugenic foresight" was repeated in Jensen's 1973 book. How can any wikipedia editor have the slightest clue about the historical significance of this document, related documents or particular phrases in them? That is precisely why we use secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about "the wider historical perspective". It's about representing the content of the paper. mikemikev (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, no? The article is not a summary of Jensen's paper it is called "History of the race and intelligence controversy".·Maunus·ƛ· 12:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In which we find a summary of Jensen's paper. This has never been about the historical context. mikemikev (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

But you always need the historical context in order to understand stuff... --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about the historical context. Nobody is arguing to not include the historical context. We're talking about the representation of the paper. mikemikev (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci, there are piles of academic papers (including by the authors of said books) spanning the spectrum of thoughtful response to outright vitriol which DO quote Jensen. I see no reason we need to write just from books, especially in the case of Jensen. Journal articles paint a vivid and essential picture of the response to Jensen's study. Frankly, that would also be more useful for our readers as they could see exactly what it was that triggered (in many cases) the calumny. The article will continue to be sterile and polarized without this sort of addition. If it's too much, there should be an article dedicated to Jensen's paper with only a summary here. Just some thoughts. At this point this conversation has nothing to do anymore with the arbitration and should be continued at article talk. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Also @Mathsci, regarding "The policy page WP:NPOV does not justify personal interpretations of a primary source like the 1969 paper of Jensen." and that you have not read the paper yourself... in my study of history, many things are denounced (treaties, pacts, etc.) as to what they did or did not do, said or did not say. I have found it essential to always go back to read the original to be well informed. Your seeming enforced ignorance regarding Jensen, if that is what it is, would seem ill-conceived for someone professing deuep interest in the topic. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You might don your "historian's hat" in private, Vecrumba, but if you want to edit wikipedia, it is against the rules. On WP it would be WP:OR, and I'm sure you're well aware of that. Mathsci (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read it. Doing so won't help matters much. Research scientists, policy makers, historians and the rest have read it. It's claimed to be the most widely cited paper in psychology. And if with all that pooled wisdom experts succeeded in arriving at the same interpretation we could pick any single one of them and cite it. But they didn't, and still haven't. Our meager attempts to come to the once-and-for-all truest truth on what the paper really claimed or concluded are a total waste of time. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. As commentators say the paper was written in a circumlocutory style, possibly in a hurry so lacking clarity, and is speculative and suggestive (e.g. the statements about "eugenic foresight" and "genetic enslavement"). The document also cannot be interpreted in a context-free way, since expert commentators can see all sorts of reference to other ideas in the 123 pages. So there can only be an approximate version of the summary (a) to help the reader understand more or less what was in the paper and (b) to give some indication of which bits might have sparked the controversy that led to all the subsequent events. Of course historically, Shockley was widely distributing the paper and giving his own eugenic spin on it to the NAS and to politicians. That is mentioned in the article and is just another layer of the chaotic series of events following the publciation of the paper. Mathsci (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good summary is that on the History article we don't play at being historians, even on discussion pages; and in the Race and intelligence article, or its talk page, we don't play at being scientists. That seems to be the problem that some editors have on both articles and would be solved if the editors just relied on reliable secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I do worry when styles of writing and speculations as to why are merely parroted by individuals who have not read the material in question. IMHO, that is not the intent behind advocating reliance on reputable secondary sources. I think I'll be on wiki-break this weekend. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that in order to write about a controversial article or book, Mein Kampf for example, we have to read and understand it? That if we write an article on a piece of music we have to able to play it or have listened to it? It helps to have some familiarity with the original, but reliable secondary sources are the key. If we write an article on a classic play, we have to use reliable secondary sources to summarise the plots: we can't do that ourselves, e.g. Phèdre. Of course for Phèdre a knowledge of French helps, and for Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht, BWV 105, there might be various things it's useful to know. Even when we write material in our own expertise, we have to use secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would find the best-reviewed (acclaimed if possible) translation and read it so that when I subsequently read reputable sources discussing it, I'd have a frame of reference. You are suggesting one can write a insightful article—as opposed to merely cobbling together a narrative from multiple sources—about a car based only on reviews written about it without actually having sat in it. And if you contributed to Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht, BWV 105 without having listened to it, which according to you is superfluous, I am sorry for your loss. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And the corollary to this is to also read any secondary sources you are using for an article from cover to cover (at least for contentious topic areas) before putting them to said use, same rules (best-reviewed, acclaimed as "seminal works", etc.) apply as to quality. You can't have an informed editorial perspective on what to quote from a secondary source or how to represent it without having read it all. Unless you're only interested in being a cobbler. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Probably best to read between the lines a bit more. I created BWV 105 because it is one of the finest cantatas which had not so far been written about. I have the score and the vocal score, and know it well. When writing Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her", I learnt to play it on the organ. The lilypond files for Schmücke dich o liebe Seele had to be altered make the baroque trills correct in the midi links for Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes. Similarly I've almost finished learning the chorale trio sonata BWV 682 from the Clavier-Übung III: now that's a red link that should go blue some time ... and of course I speak French. Everybody has a different background. It's not really possible to edit specialist articles in science without prior training in that discipline, but even there secondary sources should be used. When that does not happen, then we get Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light. Mathsci (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So what you are confirming is that not having read reading Jensen's study is a conscious choice as you have sufficient time to study Bach at the organ. Also, you're not the only student of classical organ here, so your expounding on trills (and aside on "of course" speaking French) doesn't terribly impress. What would impress is your reading some of the seminal materials forming the basis of scientific and intellectual controversy and debate regarding R&I so other editors could have a higher level of confidence in your editorial opinion being well informed from more than one type of source. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Reminder about the history article

History of the race and intelligence controversy is not an article about Arthur Jenson. He played a role in the history, but so did many other people. Shockley and Herrnstein are other players in the game. And so is Richard Lewontin, etc, etc. I have no idea why a small group of editors is obsessively concentrating on Jensen to this extent and has no interest in any other figures in the history. Take Rushton, Jensen's current coauthor. He is quoted in numerous WP:RS for the statement he made in an interview to Rolling Stone, namely, "Even if you take something like athletic ability or sexuality - not to reinforce stereotypes or some such thing - but, you know, it's a trade-off: more brain or more penis." Should we be including objective scientific statements like that in the article? Mathsci (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You mock us now. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs.

I would ask all participants submitting evidence for consideration that there is a limit of 1000 words for your presentations. This ought to be enough for anyone to make their point. Normally we clerks are fairly lax in enforcing this rule, but there are several evidence sections that are well over the limit, and I'd ask those people to consider trimming down their evidence to a more manageable size. There is already quite a volume for the arbs to read here, please help them by keeping your presentations as concise as possible. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC).

Request to Hipocrit to correct evidence claim

Hipocrit accuses me of "wikistalking" him. Absurd! This is a personal attack that he has no evidence to support because it is untrue. As if I could possibly care about his activities in other parts of Wikipedia. (Although it does give me some thoughts about how he spends his own time . . .) I request that he remove it from the Evidence page. David.Kane (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed's unreliable evidence

Mediation terminated on April 12 while the draft article was edited in namespace, contrary to ImperfectlyInformed's evidence (no diffs). At no stage have I for example discussed any "science" on the talk page or used it as a forum. This user again erroneously recycles the misconception that editors are either anti-hereditarian or hereditarian. Editors who set out to edit WP neutrally exist in abundance and I claim to be one of them. The global editing history of editors like Captain Occam, Mikemikev and David.Kane speaks for itself as does the global editing history of myself and Slrubenstein. This user started editing Race and intelligence on Nov 21 a week into mediation: in their first edit summary they use the word "anti-hereditarian". [29] Apart from making snarky remarks about mediation on the article talk page,[30] they ignored mediation and continued to edit the article occasionally during mediation. On Nov 17 they had made clear their own prejudices in a discussion on WP:FTN, again after mediation had started. [31] [32][33] Mathsci (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following your first sentence. Looking through the talk page, I think I should not have accused you have using the talk page as a forum - however, I think your short temper and tendency to spin off into personal attacks and rants is decently documented elsewhere on the evidence page. My opinion is that the editors of this very polarized page do generally fall into the groups of hereditarian and anti-hereditarian. I also think that prominent researchers who are deeply involved generally fall into these groups, and I think sources could be found to such effect - but obviously the statement needs to be supported by sources and I would support removing the offending section. Obviously there's a substantial portion who are undecided as well. Nisbett, in his book Intelligence and How to Get It (Appendix B online), explicitly puts himself into the anti-hereditarian category. Rushton & Jensen explicitly put themselves into the hereditarian category. I explained that I prefer the anti-hereditarian term over environmentalist, and I used it in the edit summary after discussing the term on the talk page. As far as my comments on FTN, they are entirely consistent with what I've said all along. I do not agree with the way that mediation progressed: it was basically a big long discussion for 5 of the archives pages, and then you let David Kane revise the page in an entirely nontransparent manner, without clear review. So I'm skeptical about view your statement that you defended the page and enforced NPOV. II | (t - c) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your attempts at labeling and characterization here are more than a bit amiss. In actual fact, there are two groups of people in this world, those who think there are two groups of people, and those who don't. aprock (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Past ArbCom case (Captain Occam's evidence)

Re Abd&WMC (cf CO's strange comments recently added to his evidence), I was reminded about not edit-warring on ArbCom pages (this referred to removing my name twice as a party during the RfAr). Personal attacks referred to comments on Wikipedia Review, a site not covered by the civility rules of wikipedia, even for arbitrators. There was no corresponding finding of fact. Mathsci (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

NEW Comment on Captain Occam's recently updated evidence.

Involved editor Captain Occam has kindly linked to a special evidence page in which he provides diffs intended to show that Muntuwandi has been engaged in disruptive editing. He is entitled to his opinion, but in my opinion, as someone deeply familiar with the sources on the subject (which I share citations to on a user subpage I continually update for other Wikipedians), the diffs show that Muntuwandi has been doing a good job of editing an encyclopedia for clarity, neutral point of view, reliance on reliable sources, and smooth readability. I admire Muntuwandi for wading into those walls of text to extract the most important, verifiable information for readers of the article, and for restructuring paragraphs and article sections for clearer organization and more neutral point of view. Muntuwandi improved the article by his edits and brought it much closer to the spirit of the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view. Thanks to Captain Occam for the clear list of diffs. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: mediation

I just want to state, for my own reputation, that under no circumstance did I ever allow or state or in any way suggest that enforced mediation was an option. It has never been an option, and under no circumstance would I have allowed a "rule by fiat" on the part of a mediator. I was not paying attention. ¿Now, does anyone know how to sign with a Spanish keyboard? --Xavexgoem, around 18:11 on on the 16th of August.

please, next time something comes up that involves medcab, can you inform all the mediators who worked on a case, or the coordinators? --Xav, around... I dont know, it was like a half hour later. Still cant find the tildes, except for the one over the n (ñ)