User talk:Miradre/Archive 2

Excellent work correcting the IQ article! Keep up the good effort! A Very Manly Man (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Seconded! Tim bates (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good job fixing the more egregious issues in the Ashkenazi intelligence article. I've tried to structure it a bit, but it still has horrible prose flow overall. Heritability is an article in need of attention, if you're interested, of course; it's subject to regular POV pushing. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Causes and correlates of crime has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:Synth and WP:OR

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Phearson (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good job with the recent edits on this article. Honestly I think renaming the article like that was an attempt to legitimize Scientific Racism as a potentially credible field of study. I chose the word raciology or racial anthropology because I do not feel Scientific Racism should be confused with Anthropology. It is fringe and generally regarded as pseudoscience. Do you know how we can get the Scientific Racism article added to the list of categories for Pseudoscience? I tried to edit the page but could not figure it out. EgalitarianJay (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• The research in The Bell Curve can be appropriately regarded as pseudoscience if they advocate theories with no scientific basis whose fundamental premises have been discredited. The authors of The Bell Curve promote the idea that race is a biological reality and that there is a large body of evidence supporting the hypothesis that there are heritable genetic traits that cause average disparities in intelligence between races. A great deal of the premises for their theory have been disputed such as the claim that race is a concept applicable to human biological variation, that their definition of intelligence is valid and that the behavior-genetic concept of heritability is reliable way to provide evidence for a casual link between race, genes and intelligence. Alot of their references have been called pseudoscientific by authorities in fields related to the research they cite. They may deny that they are racist however the idea of ranking races in hierarchical fashion based on mental traits is a racist concept. The Scientific Racism article already has pseudoscience as a tag so I suppose that is good enough. EgalitarianJay (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help. I hope that you can pace yourself, not burn out, and help improve the page over the long run. Your criticism of others' use of "consensus" is spot on. Leadwind (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Miradre The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think user:Jagiello might be a sock or meatpuppet account, although I can't guess who's the sockpuppeteer. Look at their contributions. They had only nine edits since they joined Wikipedia in 2008, and then suddenly became active yesterday just to oppose you. If you have any ideas about the identity of the puppeteer, you might want to start an SPI.Boothello (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Miadre's own tactics forced me into endless discussions, and I certainly am not the only one in that case. Any page where miadre is there to protect her/his eugenist & white supremacist POV explodes with endless discussions designed to deter any non-racist editing until it cannot be avoided. I certainly wish I could have stopped with my first point (the whole process has NOT been pleasant), but miadre's outrageous tactics ironically backfire by forcing usual lurkers like myself to get involved. So that you don't waste your time in further speculation, I'll tell you I come from the French wiki where my username is Jagiellon. Jagiello (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

A clarification request related to you has been made. Please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Race_and_Intelligence aprock (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think you just barely avoided a topic ban from race topics at AE. I haven't been following closely enough to tell if you're really POV-pushing, but my impression overall has been that your contributions are valuable to the articles, and it would be unfortunate if you get a topic ban. However, on several of these articles you've made sequences of large changes in rapid succession faster than people could discuss them. This is bound to annoy people because it circumvents the normal process of consensus-building. My advice to you is to slow down a little, discuss your changes, and try and be willing to compromise when possible. You also might want to try editing outside of the race topic area for a while, to give people some time to cool down and also since people tend to be suspicious of single purpose accounts (I know, pot calling the kettle black here).Boothello (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice.Miradre (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is to notify you that a request to clarify the terms of Remedy 5.1 of the Race and Intelligence arbitration case has been made and a motion which may affect you has been filed here. For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would appreciate input from other editors about the issues I raised with Volunteer Marek's editing here.Boothello (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

By vote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to amend the above case:

That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:

Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

5.2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.

To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia.

Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given and should be logged appropriately.

All sanctions imposed under the original remedy shall continue in full force.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Discuss this