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

Revision as of 20:44, 26 July 2010

Revision as of 20:45, 26 July 2010

Line 869:

:: '''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)