Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:48, 26 July 2010

Revision as of 13:38, 26 July 2010

Line 1,881:

:'''Comment by parties:'''

::Splitting the article based on POV doesn't seem to make much sense. In particular, how should those pages be named? "R/I (true POV)" and "R/I (correct POV)". Or maybe "R/I (more fingey)" and "R/I (less fringy)". Or maybe "R/I (pro-Rushton)" and "R/I (not so much really into Rushton because he's been marginalized academically)". [[User:Aprock|aprock]] ([[User talk:Aprock|talk]]) 23:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

::without commenting on the merits of this proposal (which I want to consider for a bit), I will say that this parent/child relationship issue gets to the heart of the problem in an interesting way. The question is which literature is really the parent topic. people on the genetics side of this debate tend to assume that the R&I research is a subset of intelligence research, which those on the environmentalist side tend to take it as a subset of race research, but the literature on intelligence comes from a ''very'' different conceptual standpoint than the literature on race. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Line 1,914 ⟶ 1,912:

::::And who would that one editor be? I suspect that I know the answer, but I’m still curious to see whether your opinion about this lines up with the opinions of people who have been involved in the article for a lot longer than you. More than half of the people who’ve been involved in the article for the past several months seem to agree about who the most disruptive editor there is, including both people who favor the hereditarian hypothesis and those who favor the environmental hypothesis. I’m interested to know whether a relative newcomer to the article like you ends up reaching the same conclusion about this that all of us have. --[[User:Captain Occam|Captain Occam]] ([[User talk:Captain Occam|talk]]) 09:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

::::: That would be Mathsci. One can even disagree strenuously and engage in pointed dialog and still show respect for editors of a different viewpoint. (Not to mention his treatment of someone who editorially generally agrees with him seems not much better should they attempt dialog with said editors.) In fact, Mathsci does not even know if I agree with him editorially{{mdash}}after all, our only disagreement so far has been over the value of a particular source, which he regards as not particularly useful but I found quite valuable. Nevertheless, he has dredged up EEML and filed innuendo at evidence that I (''his'' use of quotes) have quote-unquote "stated" R&I has been a life-long interest. Not to mention other disparaging remarks along the way against myself and against editors from his past conflicts who are not even involved at R&I, all the while repeatedly self-congratulating himself on his masterful Clavier-Übung III. (He's not the only one here who plays classical organ or who has a brain larger than a pea. However, I don't feel a need to engage in{{mdash}}this could be my perception only{{mdash}}offensively supercilious and irrelevant self-promotion.) <small>I attribute the prior parenthetical remark to insufficient morning coffee (I prefer a mild roast for more caffeine) but do not retract the observation. </small> [[User:Vecrumba|P<small>ЄTЄRS</small> <s>J</s> V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]]<small> ►[[User_talk:Vecrumba|TALK]]</small> 13:38, 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)