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 |
|||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 10 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 558 ⟶ 559:
===Overview===
Three of the ideas below ('''multi-day section editting''', '''single, limitted set of consensus sources''', a new article organization) are presented as serious, perhaps extreme, attempts to "[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration |break the back]]" of this dispute by significantly changing the way [[Race and Intelligence]] is edited and sourced. All are worth trying and, together, they would lead, I think, to much better article quality, perhaps providing a guideline for how to handle similarly controversial topics in other parts of Wikipedia. These changes do not favor one "side" of the debate over any other. Why not try them for 6 months? The editing surrounding the article could hardly become worse . . .
=== 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====
Line 682 ⟶ 697:
:'''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:'''
Line 689 ⟶ 704:
:'''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:
::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 794 ⟶ 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 1,343 ⟶ 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 1,401 ⟶ 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.
| |||