Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Ludwigs2 banned from mediating: fix so it points to the right page |
|||
| (30 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 430:
:::I'm often blown away by NYB's encyclopedic memory of past principles. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 02:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
::::You could also use the search engine... :-) [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 07:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Well, I tend to remember the ones I wrote myself. Especially when I wrote them on the workshop before I was an arb, and Fred or Kirill <s>stole</s> found value in them. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 04:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
Line 524 ⟶ 525:
:::'''Supplementary comment''' If Xxanthippe continues to suggest that I have been trolling, cherry-picking sources, POV-pushing a Marxist/New Left viewpoint or otherwise, she should provide diffs in her evidence to support those claims or withdraw them. Her comments, so far unsupported by diffs, verge on a sustained [[WP:NPA|personal attack]], possibly due to a grudge that she is harbouring. At the moment her statements read like empty rhetoric. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 08:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::Editor [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] does not note my objection to his accusing a Jewish editor of being a [[holocaust denier]] nor my objection to [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] associating me with racist views. I don't know what grudge I am suspected of harbouring. There are plenty of diffs here.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Evidence&oldid=369070541#Evidence_presented_by_Xxanthippe] [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC).
::::'''Comment on Mathsci's digression:''' this is all patent nonsense. If Mathsci wants to expand this discussion into my interactions with [[User:
::'''Comment on Proposal - Nope:''' I did nothing wrong in this mediation, and ther has been no evidence presented to the effect that I did. As I said before, if you want to open a detailed discussion of my actions, I'm willing; if not, where is the evidentiary grounding for this? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 19:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Line 556 ⟶ 557:
==Proposals by David.Kane==
===
=== Proposed findings of fact ===
====Focus of the dispute====
The focus of the dispute at [[Race and intelligence]] and related articles centers around the hereditarian hypothesis: approximately 50% of the difference in average IQ among racial groups is caused by genetic factors. One group of editors believes that, '''regardless of whether or not the hereditarian hypothesis is true,''' it is certainly notable and merits extensive discussion --- in proportion to its presence in the peer-reviewed academic literature --- in relevant Wikipedia articles, with most of that discussion occurring in [[Race and intelligence]]. The other main group of editors believes that the hereditarian hypothesis is either [[WP:FRINGE]] or not [[WP:N|notable]] enough to merit significant coverage in Wikipedia. This disagreement manifests itself in debates over [[WP:FRINGE]], [[WP:UNDUE]], [[WP:SPA]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:OR]], [[WP:TAGTEAM]] and other Wikipedia policies. Yet even if the two groups of editors were in complete agreement about these policies, the underlying dispute over the appropriate placement, if any, of material related to the hereditarian hypothesis in Wikipedia would remain.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
=== Proposed remedies ===
====Require multi-day section editting====
1) A significant change in Wikipedia '''editting procedures''' is required for [[Race and Intelligence]]. Consider three concrete examples of good editing outcomes: the History section ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence#The_history_section here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_76#History_section_as_proposed_by_Mathsci here]), the Debate assumptions section ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David.Kane/Archive_1#New_Assumptions_section here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_78#New_version_of_assumptions_and_methodology_section:_Comments_welcome.21 here]) and the Lead [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_76#comparison_of_ledes here]. All these cases resulted in significant improvements to the article and featured widespread consensus among editors of very different viewpoints. Common factors: 1) Drafting was done on the Talk page, not in the article itself. Only after the section was complete was it moved into article space. 2) Drafting occurred over many days, allowing all editors time to register their opinions. 3) Comments from all were repeatedly solicited and incorporated. 4) The entire section was edited at once, thus allowing compromise over what to include, what to exclude and the relative proportions devoted to different material. Standard editing procedures have produced seemingly endless conflict and edit wars at this article for years. I think that this new procedure --- which I [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_78#Suggestion:_Multi-day_section-editing_only call] '''multi-day section-editing''' --- should be required going forward. Place the following guideline at the top of the article talk page. "Do not make meaningful edits in this article directly. (Such changes will be reverted if they are at all contentious.) Instead, take the entire section which includes the portion you want to change, create a new version of it on the Talk page, seek comments from other editors over a period of at least 4 days, incorporate those comments, and then paste the entire new section into the article in a single edit once consensus has been reached."
Line 674 ⟶ 690:
::'''Comment:''' Sticking purely to the ''critical question, obviously, is just what "poorly sourced" means in this context. If a reliable source reports that person X says that Arthur Jensen wrote Extreme Claim A, do we just report that fact? '', the answer should be yes, it is completely appropriate to present material that is reliably sourced regardless of whether the material is critical or not, provided, of course, the material makes sense in the context of the article. --[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|talk]]) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
====Reorganize the material in [[Race and intelligence]] and related articles ====
The material under dispute in [[Race and intelligence]] and related articles should be re-organized in the following way. First, there should be a main article entitled [[Group differences and intelligence]] (credit to [[User:EdChem|EdChem]]). Let me quote MathSci: "Careful authors use terms that do not beg various questions, e.g. [[Nicholas Mackintosh]] has a section in ''IQ and Human Intelligence'' on "ethnic groups" and [[John C. Loehlin]] has an article on "Group Differences in Intelligence" in the 2004 ''Handbook of Intelligence''." Correct. These and other quality sources make it clear that such an article is notable enough and well-sourced enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Such an article would follow Loehlin and Mackintosh by noting all the obvious caveats: intelligence is not a well-defined term; IQ test results are not the same thing as intelligence; human groups are generally socially constructed (but also not always independently of biology); group definitions vary by country/culture and change over time; some scientists challenge the ethics of this sort of research and so on.
Second, this main article (which only discusses human groups and intelligence in general) would have a collection of daughter articles, ideally with titles like [[Sex and IQ]], [[Race and IQ]], [[Religion and IQ]] and whatever. I am flexible about the exact number of articles and the titles used. I recommend using "IQ" instead of "intelligence" because virtually all work in this area uses some form of IQ test to measure intelligence. The main benefit of this plan is that it allows for more productive editing because the disputes, for example, over what "intelligence" and "race" mean exactly are placed in specific locations. An article like [[Sex and IQ]] would be much easier to handle in this structure because the main article on [[Group differences and intelligence]] would have already handled all the preliminaries.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::This seems like a proposal for Mediation, not ArbCom. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 16:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::
:'''Comment by others:'''
::I appreciate the gesture of credit, but I was really more following a suggestion implicit in Mathsci's comments that an article like [[Group differences and intelligence]] might be a good way to go. Having said that, I can see a few dangers in the details being proposed here. My thought was a single article of which racial topics is only a small part rather than a parent article to group together the current bunch of stand-alone articles. Just off the top of my head, some potential problems that occur to me include:
::* the race / IQ article would have the same battles as the current article
::* if issues of problems with IQ testing (for example) are all covered by the parent article and thus excluded from the child articles, the child articles if read in isolation could present a misleading impression
::* warring on the parent article could easily occur without other editors of the article recognising the reasons behind the disputes
::* having an article that must be read as a precursor for another article to be comprehensible seems a poor precedent to set. Does WP even have navigation templates to inform readers that article X is necessary background reading for article Y? Wikilinks for when a reader seeks additional information are fine, but necessary background seems to me to be an implicit part of an article, not something to restrict to a parent article
::Unless there is way too much material for a sensibly sized but still thorough article on [[Group differences and intelligence]] then my gut instinct is that keeping material together in a single article with the race issues kept as a small part is a preferable way forward. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 13:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Thanks for these comments. All the above points are reasonable. If any arbitrator expressed an interest in this idea, I would be happy to provide a point-by-point commentary, but my sense is that none are. The key point is that "there is way too much material for a sensibly sized but still thorough article." Just as we had to (and it was a good thing that we did) make [[History of the race and intelligence controversy]] a daughter article, we will need to do that for other material as well. The only question is if this process will occur under Arb Com's supervision. I think it should. [[User:David.Kane|David.Kane]] ([[User talk:David.Kane|talk]]) 23:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
:::: [[Group differences and intelligence]] would provide for more room to discuss statistics and heritability (within group versus between group and implications definitely needs better WP coverage) without being overshadowed by "race." [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 00:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
::: EdChem, you wrote, "My thought was a single article of which racial topics is only a small part rather than a parent article to group together the current bunch of stand-alone articles." This would be my thought too. I think it would help the article now under ArbCom review to make its title [[Group differences in IQ]] ''without'' hiving off a lot of daughter articles, for the reasons you have mentioned. Just like the example Mathsci mentioned about European ethnic groups, sometimes a simple change in article title does a lot to make an article less of a POV-pushing magnet. Thanks to you for focusing on this suggestion and to David for posting it as a new thread here. I agree with the idea of '''one''' one-stop-shopping article, without numerous daughter articles, kept at a summary level of presentation with full reliance on [[WP:MEDRS | secondary sources of greatest reliability]]. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]]) 15:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
::::The title you’re suggesting sounds extremely similar to [[Between-group differences in IQ]], which was the name of our failed attempt to move the race and intelligence article around eight months ago. As you can see, that article has now been deleted. I think it’s probably not a good idea to start a new article with a name that’s nearly identical to an already-deleted article, without a justification for creating it that’s any different from the justification that was given for this last time. --[[User:Captain Occam|Captain Occam]] ([[User talk:Captain Occam|talk]]) 17:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
==Proposals by User:Rvcx==
Line 774 ⟶ 815:
:'''Comment by others:'''
::It was my understanding that ArbCom doesn't rule on content issues, so if I am correct in that understanding, there should be no finding of fact on this issue one way or the other. P.S. It is factually correct that Flynn has praised Jensen for raising questions that have prompted important research. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]]) 23:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
::Agreed with WeijiBaikeBianji including the P.S. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 00:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
===Proposed remedies (Rcvx)===
Line 833 ⟶ 875:
:'''Comment by others:'''
::'''Defer to the ArbCom''' The comment threads in this section speak for themselves about the appropriateness of the proposed enforcement. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]]) 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' I'd just note that Jensen and Marxism are, in fact, quite intertwined, as in discussions of Jensen and racism it has been postulated that (as Roland Puccetti summarizes Marvin Glass) "Marxism provides a superior moral stance, compared to liberalism, for justifying suppression of free speech by some individuals, e.g. racists", and there has been considerable discussion around radical Marxist critics denouncing Jensen's work as promoting a racist belief system under the covers. "Marxist" is not a slur in this context. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 15:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
===Proposed enforcement===
Line 864 ⟶ 907:
::::What Ludwigs2 writes about me does not seem to be accurate. I have no history of editing articles in fringe science or otherwise. My editing of [[Race and intelligence]], which has been on my watchlist for 3 1/2 years prior to mediation, constituted 31 edits, mainly adding sources. Apart from writing a neutral lede in the first week of April, my contributions to [[Race and intelligence]] have been on its long well-documented [[History of the race and intelligence controversy|history]], part of the [[history of psychology]], from the mid-19th century up until the present time. I would not touch the "science" involved with a barge pole. Ludwigs2 has incorrectly suggested that I have an agenda, but that is not borne out by my content editing history. My policy is to paraphrase the best reliable secondary sources, having located and identified them, not to synthesize content myself and to maintain a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. I would never feel at ease adding extended content which was not encyclopedic (that applies even to the stub [[ECE theory]] on a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific topic]]). In the case of race and intelligence, the subject is discussed by impartial world experts in psychometrics in university level textbooks or encyclopedias. These are the natural sources to use for wikipedia. Very recent speculative research, that has not been probably evaluated by the scientific community, might not be suitable for inclusion on wikipedia. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 09:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::'''Support:''' While single purpose accounts are not problematic by definition, they do come with the possibility of being agenda accounts because their ''rasion d'etre'' <s>is their area of interest rather than the encyclopedia</s> is more likely to be their area of interest rather than the encyclopedia. In controversial areas, this <s>manifests</s> may manifest itself in the form of attempting to ensure that their views and beliefs are well represented in the encyclopedia, especially when that POV happens to be a minority view in the academic community. --[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|talk]]) 02:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:::@Vecrumba. I believe that the focus of this arbitration exercise is the role of SPAs. What we have here are three sets of editors. One set, a few long term editors with eclectic editing patterns who are concerned that SPAs are skewing neutrality in articles on race. A second set, a few editors (with varying length of editing histories) who are SPAs primarily interested in articles on race and who believe, either sincerely or disingenuously, that they are being unfairly maligned by the first set. Then there is the third set which appears to have got involved for well-meaning reasons (I'd, for example, place
:::: (ec) I think we're in agreement. My only concern is insuring that the discussion of whether or not a ''particular'' editor is (A) disruptive and (B) an "SPA" be separate from a generic discussion of the potential evils of SPAs and (thus) opening the door for denouncing editors as disruptive SPAs based on article involvement (or not) elsewhere without dealing with specific content edits. So, in terms of these proceedings, one can certainly discuss (A)+(B) with regard to a ''specific editor'' and present evidence in support, but evidence focusing on (B)=SPA implying or supporting the contention (A)=disruptive is inappropriate, and generic findings regarding alleged SPAs should be discouraged except for statements of principle. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 15:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
::::: Thanks (again) for that last change. I can agree with your statement. As I have run into (verified as) paid propaganda pushers elsewhere on WP, I am well aware of the dark side of SPAs. (Ironically, as they were fronts for "objectivity" and "legitimacy," one could actually debate them on interpretations of sources once you could track down a source itself and see it was, in fact, being misrepresented). [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 20:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:: '''Comment''' @RegentsPark: I disagree with the meme that editors with narrow topical interests do not have the interest of the encyclopedia first. The only concern is whether reliable sources on a topic are fairly and accurately represented, and that, in the case of R&I, which has been an area of evolving scholarship, that the article ultimately represent current scholarship and how we got to where we are. IMHO the shouting over SPAs and agendas at R&I has drowned out--and is not a substitute for--meaningful discourse among editors. Focusing on SPAs--rather than on polarized content--as an issue will only facilitate denouncing editors with the SPA label and not improve content.
::* @RegentsPark, thank you for that change. "Likelihood" should be judged only on whether reputable sources are represented fairly and accurately, including a source as a whole, not just word bites. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 13:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:: @Mathsci:I also disagree with the implication that relating the subject of R&I is best served by <font color=red>only <small><- missing word added</small></font> "impartial world experts in psychometrics in university level textbooks or encyclopedias." My survey of archives such as JSTOR paints a far richer picture of both reputable scholarship as well as representation of key (notable) voices from affected communities, all which are part of the mosaic which the R&I article should convey. The R&I article is not a thesis, let's not write it that way. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 03:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:::By this stage a large number of survey articles or books, all [[WP:RS]], have been discussed (Jencks, Fish, Mackintosh, Sternberg-Loehlin, Flynn, Anderson, etc). Vecrumba has several times made the unsupported claim to have at his disposal a whole new series of [[WP:RS]]. So far Vecrumba has not mentioned any specific articles or books. He should give a list of the ten most significant [[WP:RS]] instead of making empty statements. Without a specific list, telling ArbCom that "JSTOR paints a far richer picture of both reputable scholarship as well as representation of key (notable) voices from affected communities, all which are part of the mosaic which the R&I article should convey" is not particularly helpful. Having scanned the shelves of C.U.P., one of the major publishers of books on intelligence and educational psychology, it's hard to take very seriously Vecrumba's claim that this is an area of "evolving scholarship". That seems to be an inaccurate assessment of the academic world and for example contradicts the recent statement by Gray and Thompson in the neuroscience part of ''Nature'' that there is very little research in this area. It could be that Vecrumba is just confused about primary and secondary sources and the core editing policies for writing wikipedia articles. Until he provides a list of new sources, here or on the article talk page, Vecrumba's statements are not particularly helpful. So far he's said on the talk page of HR&IC that he's not happy with material on [[Henry H. Goddard]], paraphrased from ''IQ and Human Intelligence'' by [[Nicholas Mackintosh]]. If he's upset by material from an undisputed [[WP:RS]], not a lot can be done about that. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 04:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:::: R&I has evolved over time{{mdash}}I am talking of the long view. The article needs more of a chronological view so that we are not butting sources against each other that are a decade or more removed from each other so that evolution can be properly described. Certainly there are those who will contend that R&I ''de''volved with regard to Jensen's study. I regret I'm not here to respond to your inquisition. I find your disparaging of Hunt and Carlson's "''Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence''", a recent (2007){{mdash}}and I think quite valuable for its perspective{{mdash}}source, questionable enough. And regarding Goddard, I stated that the WP article omits Goddard's later retraction of his earlier positions. I've been too busy to attend to fixing that, but thank you for the reminder, it had slipped my mind. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 14:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
::::P.S. Your characterization that I disagree with or am somehow upset over what a <u>reliable source</u> states regarding Goddard is a gross and patently offensive{{mdash}}and I am beginning to think deliberate{{mdash}}misrepresentation, given your innuendo elsewhere that I am lying regarding my interests here. I have no clue (and it might be enlightening to find out) what I have done to earn your derision and wrath{{mdash}}and as I have offered elsewhere we chalk this up to initial perceptions gone wrong, I can only take this to be your preferred method of editorial interaction. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 14:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
::: Peters, you write, "The R&I article is not a thesis," but of course by Wikipedia policy it must be an encyclopedia article. I have read multiple encyclopedia articles about the subject of human intelligence (or of "race") over the years, and thus far [[Race and intelligence]] has a long way to go to become a well edited encyclopedia article on its claimed subject. You mention sources you have seen--please kindly submit those to the [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/IntelligenceCitations/SuggestionsPage]] I keep in userspace so that we can all be aware of the best reliable sources. The only thing that slows my development of that source list is my own slow typing; your typing (or copying-and-pasting with computer-aided tools) can help the source list grow faster. Please show us what you are finding. P.S. Just remember that it will still also be Wikipedia policy to prefer secondary sources (only some of which show up on JSTOR, to which I also have access) over primary sources (which is what most of the sources on JSTOR are) for editing articles. Let's follow Wikipedia policy to edit carefully and thoughtfully a well sourced English-language encyclopedia with neutral point of view. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]]) 04:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:::: Thank you for your non-inquisitor request. I'll tend to that as I have a chance, that is, looking to add some sources which can enhance telling the story of R&I. My only point is encyclopedic and telling a story are not mutually exclusive, and eyes will glaze over if the article reads as a thesis. (For the sake of clarity, I completely agree that the "world expert" sources Mathsci mentions are essential to the article, I merely suggest there is a wider net encompassing applicable reliable sources to superior reader-involving narrative.) [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 14:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
::::: I made mention of some articles I have found useful at R&I talk mainly as relates to Jensen. Perhaps more appropriate to history of R&I as observed, but one cannot write of R&I without a proper perspective on the history of the issue. Hopefully things will wrap up here fairly soon as the level of accusations and recriminations appears to be rising, and nothing good ever comes of that. My commendation on your composure and feedback on the state of the article, I look forward to your contributions. (And I say that regardless of editorial viewpoints; this is an observation only on being the kind of collegial influence the article needs.)
::::: The sense I get is that there could be a lot more progress at the article if editors would cease and desist making this about "personal" agendas. I am willing to accept that editors are largely stating their positions in good faith. That seemingly every editor is currently seen by at least one other editor as acting in bad faith is what has led us here. (I'm regretfully using "led us" instead of "led to these proceedings" as I must include myself among those perceiving, and perceived in, bad faith.) Perhaps if people read sources for what they say and less for what they are looking for and took editorial feedback at face value rather than for imputed hidden agendas, things might go a bit more smoothly. You don't pick sources according to what you believe. You pick highly regarded sources, read them, and see what they say ''about'' what you believe. [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 21:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
::::: P.S. Sincerest apologies to all for the missing "only" (marked in red). [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
====Template====
Line 1,318 ⟶ 1,365:
Although I may change my mind about this, at the moment my attitude is that I’m willing to leave it up to the arbitrators to decide what specific remedies are appropriate here. (Although I think [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Workshop#Mathsci|my comment here]] regarding Mathsci should at least be considered.) The one specific request I have is that the outcome of this case also address the uncivil behavior that’s been discussed from Hipocrite, Muntuwandi and Slrubenstein. I don’t have a specific remedy in mind in their case either—some sort of civility restriction might be worthwhile if arbitrators think they’ve been uncivil enough to warrant that; otherwise a warning/admonishment to avoid making disparaging comments about other editors might be enough.
Now that the proposed decision has been posted, I've decided there is one proposed remedy I'd like to include here.
====Discretionary sanctions====
;1) Editors engaged in long-term tendentious editing or severe incivility on race-related articles may be topic-banned from articles and talk pages related to race, broadly interpreted, by a group of administrators who are to be appointed by ArbCom. The administrators in this group are to be chosen carefully based on responsibility, neutrality, and sufficient familiarity with the subject matter to accurately judge what is and is not consistent with NPOV.: As pointed out in the discussion [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Proposed_decision#Topic_bans_on_race-related_articles|here]] (and also [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Proposed_decision#What_sort_of_editing_behavior_do_Arb_Com_members_want_to_encourage.3F|here]]), several editors involved in these articles are concerned that if the authority to implement discretionary sanctions is given to any uninvolved administrator, this may result in an escalation of the dispute as administrators who are uninvolved but have strong content opinions allow these opinions to influence their decisions; or as uninvolved administrators who are well-meaning but uninformed about this topic implement sanctions based on an inaccurate understanding of what is and isn’t consistent with NPOV in articles about it. A way around this problem is for ArbCom to appoint a special group of administrators to handle these sanctions, whom they know to be responsible, knowledgeable and neutral in this dispute. I also think it’s important that this remedy address the issue of incivility, which is at least as much of a problem on these article as anything else, and was the reason why Rvcx originally requested this arbitration case.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
Line 1,376 ⟶ 1,428:
::Copied from the scientology ArbCom case.[[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 08:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' The trouble with this principle is that it has already been used by Mathsci and others to dismiss wide opposition (or even consensus) as the actions of an "alliance". The fact that a number of editors agree on certain editorial decisions cannot be taken as evidence of a conspiracy. (Best example: I weighed in at BLPN on the "wrong" side of a dispute, and was quickly labelled a meatpuppet of a group of editors I knew nothing about.) [[User:Rvcx|Rvcx]] ([[User talk:Rvcx|talk]]) 10:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::'''Comment:''' The other issue with this is that it would impact on Enric Navel, {{
:::'''Comment on Rcvx's edits''' Rvcx, a quite inexperienced content editor beyond the articles [[Larry Sanger]], [[Carly Fiorina]] and [[Microsoft Kin]], seems to have adopted a questionable point of view on an extremely complex topic with no prior familiarity with the extensive literature on [[psychometrics]] and the [[history of psychology]]. Nevertheless he imitated the edits of a tag team and then the image blanking of an IP editor, eventually blocked for calling me a "lying scumbag Troll". During the first of three or four reports by David.Kane on [[WP:BLPN]],[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive86#Arthur_Jensen:_Do_serious_accusations_from_potentially_biases_sources_require_a_higher_standard_of_proof.3F] Rvcx even took it upon himself as a wikipedia editor to read and interpret Jensen's 1969 HER paper directly: but of course wikipedians can't interpret that kind of notoriously controversial article directly. It's a '''primary source''' and that's why we use reliable secondary sources. Here is one the things he wrote: "Digging into this more, I'm having a very hard time verifying the text ... I haven't yet read all of Jensen's 80-page piece that is used as a source, but I haven't yet seen anything suggestion that eugenic intervention is "needed"; only his hypothesis that such intervention would have a greater effect on IQ than remedial education (which is a very different contention)." On reading the paper of [[Donald T. Campbell]], former president of the [[American Psychological Association]], he wrote, "I admit that wading through the academic language is tough, but it's crazy to suggest that Jensen's biases are a major component of this critique." There he completely missed the point: Campbell analysed almost all of the 25 points in the WSJ article and David.Kane had objected solely to the lnking of the word "blacks" and "Jensen" in the discussion of point 25, which he claimed was a BLP violation: for example he later approved this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence&action=historysubmit&diff=367676940&oldid=365376350]. I have no idea at all why David.Kane disrupts wikipedia so much whenever he sees a statement connecting Jensen and blacks. Jensen published many statements about "Negroes" and "American Negroes" in the 1960s and 1970s, as reported in multiple secondary sources and his own series of books, which expanded on his 1969 paper.
Line 1,577 ⟶ 1,629:
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::I think this was indeed a BLP problem, but this is far, far afield from the focus of this dispute. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 18:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
▲::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Proposed. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 17:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:::'''Reply to CHL''' Although not directly related to this case, it puts David.Kane's supposed sensitivity to BLP issues in race-related articles in its proper perspective. His multiple postings on [[WP:BLPN]] seem to have been "stunts". [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::
Line 1,925 ⟶ 1,978:
::::::What I think is especially noteworthy about this is that the problems resulting from Mathsci’s incivility are something agreed upon by people involved in this article regardless of which hypothesis they favor about the cause of the IQ gap. David.Kane, Mikemikev and I are generally thought of as “pro-hereditarian” editors (although I’m not sure if that’s really accurate in my and David’s case), while ImperfectlyInformed and Ludwigs2 are both clearly pro-environmental. As for you, Rvcx, and Xxianthippe, if you have opinions about which hypothesis is more likely to be true, you haven’t expressed them strongly enough for me to know what they are. All of us don’t agree on very much, but we agree about Mathsci.
::::::By contrast, the group of editors who regard the main problem with these articles as being the presence of “SPAs” is limited entirely to a group of editors who strongly oppose the hereditarian hypothesis, and not even all of the editors who oppose the hereditarian hypothesis agree with them about this. As I pointed out on the talk page for the proposed decision, the editors who do feel this way seem to have something of an us vs. them mentality, going so far to apply the "pro-hereditarian SPA" label to anyone who disagrees with them even when it’s not consistent with contributions of the people it’s being applied to. It says a lot more when a group of editors with several different viewpoints are all able to agree about which editor is being disruptive, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with that person about content, than it does for a group of editors who have strong and similar opinions about content to make this claim about everyone who disagrees with them about it. I hope arbitrators pay attention to this distinction. --[[User:Captain Occam|Captain Occam]] ([[User talk:Captain Occam|talk]]) 16:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:: '''Oppose Topic Split''' I agree that there has been editor conduct warranting a broadly construed, lengthy topic ban sweeping in many (but not all) of the named parties. But the proposed topic split would not reduce the future occurrence of such conduct, and is squarely contrary to the Wikipedia NPOV policy. I happened to surf by the article [[Muhammad]] yesterday, and I notice it wasn't a set of articles such as "Muhammad (Muslim view)," "Muhammad (Christian view)," etc. or any such silly thing as that. If a topic that actually results in people killing one another in the real world can be treated with neutral viewpoint and encyclopedic sourcing on Wikipedia, we ought to be able to do a lot better with the article [[Race and intelligence]] and with the several dozen existing closely related articles. Discussion on the proposed decision talk page in the last two days brought up the issue of how the article has changed over the last year. It has become worse. Reliable secondary sources have been chopped out of the article, the lede has become much more POV-pushing, and the scope of scientific disciplines drawn on to edit the article has steadily narrowed. Much of the content of the article as it is today under full protection is fudged and far below encyclopedic standards. What is necessary to improve the article is a group of editors who are focused like a laser beam on Wikipedia policies, especially V and NPOV, and who commit themselves to reading and checking one another's references so that the fudge gets thrown out. Wikipedia already has procedures for dealing with editors who persistently disregard policy by their overt editing behavior, and those are the procedures that will improve the article and articles on related topics. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]]) 05:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
| |||