User talk:Andrewa/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Controversial Issue and Consensus

Hello Andrewa,

I'm a relatively new editor and would like your advice. I felt you might be a good fit to help given the inclusion of the picture on the top of your page.

I am trying to edit a page that has very controversial connotations, and have felt I've been met with the "contradiction" response, refutation with little/no evidence provided. I'm well read on the subject, but may be making community mistakes as per the rules (at least so I keep being told). I understand the conclusion is not tolerated in society, especially politically, but it is documented in many sources; thus, there is a discrepancy between the laypeople and experts in the field. It is instinctively rejected without analysis of the literature, which caused problems when the discussion went to fringe theories. I want to make sure I follow the correct plan of action, but am continuously having my edits reverted without any response in the talk page. Even my edit that simply reverts the changes by a user who was banned a day after their comments keeps getting reverted. These reverts are primarily by one user, but also by other random users who have never edited the page before, which I find odd. Would you please help me find the right path forward, or at least how to navigate what is acceptable and unacceptable?

More background if interested:

The topic is sex differences in intelligence. The conclusion under question is the developmental theory or mean difference in IQ, and the controversial tangent is the male variability hypothesis. I have a good amount of citations and sources supporting the claim but am met with non-engagement, and no counter citations. I am not saying that the developmental theory/male mean advantage in iq is true, but it is well documented/sourced, appears in many encyclopedias/texts on the subject, and never has been proven false, so should be included, but, however, it is being cast as fringe by contributors here. Additionally, the variability hypothesis has been generally held as the scientific consensus by experts, but the article is incorrectly positioning it as only a possible option and painting the evidence as equally strong on both sides. The page further has statements that are almost entirely unsupported by the citations provided, but my edits addressing this have been reverted and no direct quotes have been given to contend with my claim. My lack of understanding of the rules makes me unable to determine what the correct steps are for addressing the constant reverts and non-engagement in the talk page. I have pulled the following quotes from the 2020 cambridge handbook of the international psychology of women, written by Diane Halpern, a very prominent psychologist in the field and former APA president, to illustrate the validity of my claims. On Mean difference: (each block is a distinct quote pulled from the text) However, a recent review study of Richard Lynn (2017) came to an opposite conclusion: Taking meta-analytic results from the Raven Matrices (a common measure of fluid intelligence; Lynn & Irwing, 2004) and results from the Wechsler tests, the German IST, and others in many different countries from the United States and Britain to China, Libya, and Sudan, he came to the conclusion that there is on average an IQ difference of “approximately 4 IQ points in adulthood” favoring males (Lynn, 2017, p. 9). The pattern is backed by average differences in brain size (males have somewhat larger brains) being equivalent of approximately 4 IQ points (Lynn, 2017, pp. 12f.). "Even some critics of Lynn’s (and Irwing’s) studies concede that there are differences in IQ favoring men (d = 0.15, about 2.25 IQ; Blinkhorn, 2005). But other measures of intelligence provide a different conclusion. There are no differences in childhood; on the contrary, girls are usually more advanced. Regarding student achievement in school as measured by grades given by teachers or student assessment tests, girls outperform boys (see Chapter 24 on education in this volume; Stoet & Geary, 2015; Voyer & Voyer, 2014)." Lynn (2017) summarizes the findings that sometimes favor girls and sometimes favor boys with a developmental theory: Up to the age of 15 years girls are ahead or similar to boys in development; from age 15 years on boys develop further. Even if we were to conclude that sex and gender differences in general (or specific) intelligence exist, it is Figure 10.1 Percentage of females and males according to IQ based on (a, left) g extracted from a battery of six reasoning tests, and (b, right) g extracted from the same battery without Mechanical Reasoning (based on the study conducted by Flores-Mendoza et al., 2013). important to keep in mind the overlap between distributions of scores for both sexes. The concept of overlap is depicted in Figure 10.2. As shown, the two groups presented differ in mean (average) intelligence, with Group 2 having a higher mean (average score) than Group 1, but the average difference in this figure is small, and, depending on domain and task complexity, the difference may be too small to be practically significant. On variance: "There is a “consensus of more than 50 years, that the only sex difference in IQ is a slightly greater variance among males” (Blinkhorn, 2005, p. 31)." Such a pattern also contributes to the large frequency differences found among top intellectual accomplishment historically and at the present time, for instance in the sciences, and in literature, arts and music (e.g., Murray, 2003). However, showing the impact of one factor (here variance in cognitive ability, possible mean differences or not) does not negate the impact of further factors, e.g., of role models, orientations, society, and culture. I am aware this is controversial, but the sources clearly include these points in the discourse. However, it seems the rules are to align with the beliefs of contributors rather than the experts, but they won't seem to engage adequately. How should I proceed? Thank you for your consideration.

AndRueM (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Dessert pizza for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dessert pizza is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dessert pizza until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

"Johnny be good" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Johnny be good has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 2 § Johnny be good until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Banner in the Sky

On 15 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Banner in the Sky, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Banner in the Sky inspired a Canadian dentist to climb the Matterhorn? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Banner in the Sky. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Banner in the Sky), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! It is encouraging to know how well the team has worked. Andrewa (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Greek sockpuppet

@Andrewa Good evening administrator, I noticed that the profile "D.S. Lioness" is identical to the profile "ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη" as the interests are similar, as are the initials of the name, the (first) name and also the ideology (Marxist) are identical between the two profiles. It should be noted that the "ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη" profile on the Greek Wikipedia has already been blocked indefinitely.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.S. Lioness/Archive · BILL1 (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Bharat Small Reactor

Hi Andrewa, I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to inform you that I have recreated the article on Bharat Small Reactor on Wikipedia. In doing so, I also removed the redirection that was previously in place. If you think the page isn't ready for Wikipedia yet, you can put the redirection back. Charlie (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks good to me.

But I am confused as to exactly the relationship between the BSR, the BSMR, and the existing Indian CANDUs. Is this accurate? Which of these are BSRs and BSMRs if so? Andrewa (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrewa I am also confused about the classification. I tried to develop the article based on the information available from reliable sources. From the media coverage, it seems that the BSR is proposed as a miniaturized derivative of the IPHWR-220, and the BSMR is a proposed modular reactor based Light Water Reactorn design that will replace the current CANDU derivatives, which happens to be PHWRs, by simply replacing the pressure vessel. That seems audacious. The problem with my understanding is that one cannot easily convert an existing PHWR to an LWR due to the involvement of heavy water. In short, it's not feasible. So, why issue such a confusing statement in the press? Secondly, why didn’t a reliable source like The Hindu fact-check the statement? Charlie (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Reusing this previously empty entry; I found your page through the philosophy project. Can you check out my merge request at Modal fallacy? --Mannana308 (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"The five sauces" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The five sauces has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 16 § The five sauces until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Six-star rank

See zh:Template:美國特級上將. --2402:7500:4EA:3496:A98:5ED1:D368:C6E6 (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Akka Mahadevi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lalita.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Good catch, investigating. Andrewa (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at the tectonic plate lowercasing RM, now relisted

Thanks, and the RM at the talk page of Eurasian Plate was relisted on the 15th, so not much time left. Logic and commonsense would keep the uppercasing on the 90+ plates under discussion, but lowercasers are using the casing guideline, which some of us have countered with WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE which is under fairly intense discussion. If you agree with this approach, or even have more comments, your additional participation may be useful. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)