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

Revision as of 15:38, 26 July 2010

Revision as of 15:42, 26 July 2010

Line 871:

:::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 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.[[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)