Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 1,925:
::::::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)
| |||