User talk:Futurebird/Archive 3

Hellos and thanks

Thanks to you too.

I am looking forward to contribute here, I've been watching Race and Intelligence for so long now that I feel obligated to read more about it and help out with the entry.. Thanks x2. --Apathy 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

ThanksMuntuwandi 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Nice to make your acquaintance. You're a very talented artist. I love the pictures of the city. I lived in Manhattan from 1994-2001 and worked on Wall St. for JP Morgan. It was a great job, and hence my interest in the 1929 Crash article. I'm still a market analyst but living in the Atlanta area now. Take care Robertknyc 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project gender studies barnstar

Hi Futurebird I proposed the barnstar at WP:Branstar last week. I'm not sure how long it takes to be approved.--Cailil 21:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the support. I think I'm going to have a break from editing. I think I was under more pressure from wikipedia than I realised. The stress builds up gradually when one is in constant conflict, and I didn't realise I was ready to blow. I really appreciate your note, and if I come back I'll drop you a note. Cheers. Alun 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my page

Hi Futurebird, thank for your very kind message on my page. Sorry for taking so long to reply. I'm a little wary of entering the debate on R&I - I think your proposal is good and well thought out. I would say if there is a standard format for Category:Race and intelligence controversy or one that closely alligns to the majority of teh other articles you should think about moving towards that - if there's not you should propose that such a model is created.
BTW I just added Sex and Intelligence as the WP:GS collaboration for February (only the 2 of us voted - so I seconded your choice). I hope I can be of some us to that article over the next few weeks. Below is the template to show the monthly collab

The current Project Gender Studies Collaboration is to be decided.
Please help improve the article any way you can.

Good luck with your proposals for R&I : ) --Cailil 21:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out WP:AFRO

I will join, though I don't know if my contributions will be valuable. At any rate, I'll see you around Wiki. Also, we should hook up! I am from Ohio and live in NYC, too. Theangryblackwoman 01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outline

I saw your proposed outline on DC's talk page, and it looks good aside from one part:

1.3 Origin of the idea of intelligence as a function of race

Race and intelligence research doesn't view intelligence as a function of race, and even hereditarians admit this. It was mainly the racism of previous centuries that held this view. Race and intelligence research looks at statistcal patterns within race groups. I don't support the hereditarians at all, but I think you should modify this part of your outline, so as not to misconstrue the current hereditarian view.--Urthogie 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that intelligence was viewed as a function of race in the historical contex-- I'll strike out the modern one. and ask for better wording. Thanks for the feedback!--futurebird 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and Intelligence: Help?

I recruited my daughter to comment on the article for a fresh perspective from a high schooler (she was reluctant). I have noted lots of discussion of issues in the Talk but then an impasse. The graphic did need a better caption to explain so a first time reader will have a better feel for the article. I commend your efforts to neutralize the article and try to form some consensus. I think your idea to work out a new format is an excellent idea. I would recommend trying to recruit novices and non-experts after all the editors have their say and see what a general audience thinks. It might help with contentious issues as it is not about an expertise and being correct but writing a useful encyclopedia article. I often struggle with being concise and precise when it comes to editing Wikipedia. Experts are needed to really produce accurate precise articles, but novices also help creating accessible and concise articles. Slrubenstein is an excellent editor and it is my experience he is fair and follows NPOV so I believe he can really help. Good luck!GetAgrippa 03:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and Intelligence: Schwael

Thanx for explaining OR. I had a *duh* moment there. ;) Also, i left you a comment on the Livejournal Debunkingwhite entry. Schwael 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race & Intelligence: Hexagon1

While I am strongly opposed to the blatantly racist and outrageous scientific claims in that article, I currently don't have enough time to argue over something as large as this. Feel free to call on me if there's a vote, but I unfortunately cannot participate in the discussion. :( +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race & Intelligence: JereKrischel

I sent you an email for the study, and unfortunately I'm sailing this weekend...but I'm willing to help get started on anything you want to try when I get back. Thanks again for your help! --JereKrischel 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working together

FB, I had hoped that among all of the editors at R&I, I could recruit you to my project. But you will have to trust me. Why don't you give me chance?

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can't work without a broad participation of various ideas. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 23:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)

Ha! You've done a great job fixing this up. JJJamal 02:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFRO

Fantastic works

Thanks you for your work at WP:AFRO. I just wanted to say that i also like your external works. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afro Diaspora Template

Actually, the map looks better in there than the UNIA flag. Thanks. --Toussaint 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racial segregation in the United States

Thank you for your kind comments. They mean a lot, and thanks for your work as a teacher! Bob in vegas - uriel8 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afro Diaspora

at indigenous australians. If it applies to these people, would it not apply to, well, everyone? It is entirely possible I have missed the reason for the relevancy, would you mind pointing it out? Thanks, Fred 09:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the comment and revert advice to project as you suggested, but I am curious as to the reason for the inclusion. regards – Fred 11:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

African-American template

Hey. What can you tell me about the change in the template for articles related to African-American history, life & culture? The red, black and green map of the U.S. has been switched out to a photo of DuBois. I liked the old one and object to a single man being, in effect, the "face" of African- Americans. Do you know who changed it, if there was any discussion of the change whatsoever -- and, more importantly, how to change it back? deeceevoice 14:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I saw the note (above) about the African Diaspora template and followed a similar link to the one for A-A -- and switched it back. :) deeceevoice 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFRO: JJJamal

I'll take a look and see if I can help. Thanks for showing me this place-- it's blowing my mind! JJJamal 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banjo

Greetings. There's an editor who continually removes the African-American template from the above article -- despite the fact that I and others repeatedly have restored it. I'd appreciate it if you'd check the article talk page[1], weigh in on the subject and editorially do what you are moved to do should this guy revert my edit again. (This last time, I not only restored the AA template, I also included a link to the African American portal -- for good measure :) [2] -- something I only just now discovered. I didn't know it was there!). deeceevoice 06:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sis. :) deeceevoice 08:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and Genetics

Hey, could you help me write a section for Race and Genetics titled 1.3 "===Race as a Social Construct==="? Thanks! Keep up the awesome hard work! Schwael 16:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I started merging things. ;) Schwael 22:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article tagging

Would please consider using edit summaries when tagging articles? It saves other people a lot of time. Thanks. Guettarda 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No? Guettarda 03:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't always look at who the editor was when I see someone edit one of the talk pages I pay attention to. Edit summaries jump out at you, editor names do not. I've clicked through on three of those talk pages for nothing today. Guettarda 03:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

feedback

i'll look when i find time. --W.R.N. 00:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 04:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frustration

If you look at my recent edits to the talk page on race and intelligence, you will see that very recently - two or three edits ago? - I addressed a comment specifically to RIK asking that he be more constructive and compromising. A you know, I do not always agree with your suggestions and sometimes worry that your suggestions are not ultimately constructive, but I think everyone would agree that you have tried very hard to accommodate others. The thing is, other have to be willing to try as hard as you. IF you feel one person in particular is an obstacle to progress, I suggest you address that person directly and try to get that peron wot work with you. Unfortunately, Wikipedia - owing to its quasi-anarchic nature - has practically no mechanisms to compell anyone to do or not do anything short of outright vandalism. The only real enforcement instrument is the Arbitration Committee. My advice to you is thi: take a day (there are lots oflinks, including to open and past, resolved cases, that you need to examine carefully) to learn all about it, start here: WP:AC. You need to become very very clear about what kinds of cases ArbCom agrees to consider, and what their guiding principles are. IF a fellow editor ever behaves towards you in one of the specific ways that violates the specific norms ArbCom enforces, or enters into the specific kind of conflict ArbCom arbitrates, then you can take the case to the ArbCom ... that is really the only recourse you have to any authority. My sense is that right now you have no grounds to take anyone to ArbCom. But you should learn what ArbCom does and what guides it, jut in case sometime in the future you do have legitimate grounds to go to ArbCom.

In the meantime I cannot offer any advice but, try to engageothers notjust by compromising but by asking others to compromise, asking others to provide alternatives, asking others to respond directly to your concerns ... i.e. persist in asking them to respond to youand not just the other way around. Just be sure that when you do this, you consistently WP:Assume good faithand are civil - so far, I believe you have always been so, but since I am advising you to be more assertive in insisting that others respond to you, it is especially important that when you do so you be very careful to comply scrupulously with these two guidelines, because if you don't - someone else will have grounds to take you before the ArbCom (and we don't want that). Study the pages I have provided links to until you are confident you really understand how things work here, and then you can be more persistent and be confident that you are not crossing some line - and you can also recognize with confidence when someone else has crossed a line. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is happening, sort of. But I urge you to set aside what I think is n unfair bias against ArbCom. ArbCom has its limitations but those limitations hav everything to do with the very narrow brief they assume and their strict standards for evidence- NOT, I swear to you, a bias against any specific point of view nor a bias against new users. What is important is not how long you have been here or how many edits you have made but simply how fully you understand the policies on civility and good faith (to protect yourself) and your understanding of how ArbCom works so you can know when (if) you can ever use it to your advantage. Stop taking things personally and stop assuming the whole system is against you. It is a system, it has parts. Learn how the parts work, and then you can know how to make them work for you. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and I am glad it is helpful. It doesn't matter whether you trust ArbCom or not, only that you understandit. And anyway, I assure you arbitration is premature and there is no basis for you to go to ArbCom now. And there may NEVER be grounds for you to go to ArbCom. I just want you to study that page, their guidelines, look at past cases, so that IF you ever do have grounds to go to ArbCom, you will (1) KNOW it and (2) know how to present your case effectively. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steele

Out of respectability. In fact, someone like Steele (who’s a social psychologist), he did wonderful experiments at Stanford because he asked himself, “Why did these middle-class, upper middle-class Black students begin to do so badly at Stanford?” He set up some tests for them. He found that whenever the tests had to do with their “intelligence,” they would do very badly. But whenever it was just a plain test or something quite abstract, you know what I mean, that didn’t reflect on their “intelligence,” then things were roughly equal. He found the same would happen between European students doing math and Asians, because Asians are “supposed” be very good at math; and between men and women in some aspects. The same thing could be set up. So Steele isn’t really seeing what Woodson talked about--degrees of motivation and de-motivation. How is he going to make that leap? Woodson is ruled out, even before he has started.

Do you know the study by Steele referred to here? I do not trust my source here, but if the characterization of Steele's (I assumeit is Shelby Steele) experiments is accurate, well, you see the value. I do not know his work well and know nothing concerning these experiments but maybe you do, or can find out. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3]

Here ya go!

futurebird 03:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I assume you are mentioning it in the discussion on race and intelligence? Sooner or later that article will be unprotected and this see4ms like just the sort of work that needs to be mentioned in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the environmental explanations section, the main article says "Similarly, it is suggested that reduced performance from "stereotype threat" could be a contributing factor." --W.R.N. 20:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Have a look at this, you may find something interesting to use cite somewhere, not necessarily in race and intelligence articles: Joel Wiesen, "An Annotated List of Many Possible Reasons for the Black-White Mean Score Differences Seen With Many Cognitive Ability Tests: Notes to File," Applied Personnel Research, March 18, 2005.Ultramarine 17:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

black people

I'm glad you liked my additions. I added it more and I hope you'll like that too. I find it fascinating that the standard for who is black has varied so much through time and place and I'd like to document as much of this as possible, and also explore the reasons for the different standards. Thanks for your friendly comments :-) Iseebias

John Brown

You are welcome. You have to understand I sit there refreshing the Recent Pages page looking for suspicious activity. I will keep an eye on it for future reference, if I notice continued to vandalism I will ask for an admin to semiprotect the page to weed out the unregistered vandalizers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ozgod (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

don't burn yourself out

take time and don't try to do everything at once. the locked article isn't going anywhere. --W.R.N. 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Muhammad

Futurebird, I would like to invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, where constructive and civil editors such as yourself are attempting to reach a conclusion. This page generally doesn't include the... incivility of some editors on the Talk:Muhammad page. --Hojimachong^talk _con 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am on wikibreak but came just to say thanks to your inspiring comments at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. God bless you my sister. Regards, --- ALM 22:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Sorry to always say "we need better sources" but months and years about arguing over sources on controversial topics has taught me that things are much less subject to be questioned if you can prove they are the most important works in the field. What you've posted has been a great help in leading me towards books I hadn't known about, keep it up :) --gren グレン 03:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and my hunches

Hi.

Genetics and intelligence measures are both outside the center of my own research interests, but as someone with some background and experience I've developed some hunches. I'm guessing that you may someday find evidence to back some of them up. I suppose most people think that things like the decision to go to college occur well into a person's teens. But my grandmother was programming me to go to college when I was in primary school -- simply by asking questions about future activities that presupposed that I woulod one day be in college. A child who gets the opposite kind of message about early adult life, job futures, etc., may even take a resentful attitude toward school and create not only a catch-up situation but also a situation in which the student perceives an almost impossible debt of lost opportunities if not a situation of learned helplessness. I once had a student in disciplinary school who was quite intelligent but his math looked helpless because at 15 he didn't even know his multiplication tables and he read at about fourth grade level. It's a long story, but I ended up tutoring him in reading over summer vacation and his reading level went up four years in that short time. So it doesn't have to take a student from the age of fifteen to the age of nineteen or twenty to get his/her reading level up to what it ought to have been at fifteen, but it must seem that way to most people. It wouldn't have helped his situation if his environment was telling him that his original reading level was about all he could expect.

But beyond the impact of a racist society on a child who may be born into an environment of limited expectations for his/her future and who will move through the years to an adulthood wherein there seems to be a purposive attempt to limit expectations as well, I wonder what happens to a child who is carried nine months in the womb of a woman who is under stress due to a threatening environment, an environment that works on her psychologically in many subtle ways. In traditional China there was a theory (called prenatal teaching, or maybe prenatal nutrition would have been better) that the pregnant woman should be protected from all negative psychological impacts. Since around the 1950s we have known that major hormonal abnormalities in the mothers body can affect the development of the infant during gestation. What is only now coming under investigation are epigenetic changes, changes that determine for the long term how genes are expressed (or turned off), and some of those changes might occur before the infant is born and in response to high stress, fear, etc. in the mother. Similarly, the infant living in a negative psychological environment due to endemic racism may be changed on the epigenetic level in ways that perhaps provide better chances of survival in a dangerous environment but have negative effects on things that will later be important in the IQ levels measured for that individual.

This stuff is all sketchy in my own mind, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that people who have the training and research opportunities to do so have already produced research results. Right now I'm too sleepy to go on. P0M 08:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R&I

Editing controversial articles on Wikipedia is like writing something in the sand at the beach; it's not going to last. You might want to look into the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. For some mysterious reason it's no longer addressed in the article. --Scandum 22:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi futurebird, R&I has been on my watchlist. It looks pretty busy. Going subtextual on this page I'm thinking R&I is probably "interesting". As in the "May you live in interesting times" kind of interesting. The other obstacle is being faced with ? 2.5 hours of reading the discusion pages to get a sense of whats going on and what has been decided. But maybe these discusions will be fun to read. (And who said I'm not an optimist?) I'm beginning to think that many scientists find the history and social context of their science disturbing or, preferably, forgetable. SmithBlue 02:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I looked at the "idealised bell curves" at the start of this article, which for any reader who hasnt had specific education on race and IQ, "proves" that Whites are smarter than Blacks, and don't like the use to which Wikipedia is being put (by accident or design I don't care). That diagram is literally POV. Would like to be able to post diagrams showing other such curves with different races, cultures - the UK studies read as interesting. Do you have access to online research databases? I'll start looking around. SmithBlue 02:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a medium term view on this - months - am not interested in edit wars, I prefer sleeping soundly. The present bell-curve diagram "proves" the huge difference. Adding the context changes very little. I have read Siulberman? on your talk page and am taking theirs and yours advice to "add amterial" (and record response.) I'll need time to get material. Its been a while since IQ and race research figured in my head. Thanks for the Google scholar link. SmithBlue 03:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi futurebird, my post to R&I:discusion (included below) hopefully shows why I dont think Godfredson(sp?) is any better than the red and yellow bell curves. Better no graph than this misleading data.

This article title includes "race". The APA article W.R.N. cited to me[[4]] includes the following: (the) "correlation between "socio-economic status" (SES) and scores on intelligence tests is well known (White, 1982)." Which means that, by presenting the raw data without adjusting for SES, this graph presents data comparing USA Blacks and Whites IQ scores - not, as would be appropriate, data showing differences between races. (Cause if it was differences between races we want to show we would remove other factors from the data. To take W.R.N. average height example - if we want to write about height and race we would not look at raw data comparing half starved Eritreans with fully nourished Dutch people. Instead we might compare fully nourished Eritreans and fully nourished Dutch and half starve Eritreans with half-starved Dutch. This might remove the nutrition factor from the data leaving us with a view of height and race.) The present graphic is irrelevant to this article and its inclusion here is highly misleading. Substituting Godfredson(Sp?) graph does not improve this in way. SmithBlue 10:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

race and intelligence advice

I have semi-protected the Race and intelligence article so you can now edit it. If you do not mind, I would like to give you some advice that I believe is important if you want your improvements to the article to last, and that will protect you from unfair conflicts.

Accept RIK's tremendous, if partial, knowledge. He is almost always rigorously careful about adhering to WP:V. I ask you to keep in the front of your mind the Wikipedia dictum that we are about "verifiability, not truth." It does not matter whether whether an edit by RIK is true or not. What matters is that it be verifiable and in my experience RIK's edits always are.
RIK like all editors (including you) must comply with WP:NPOV. ALL "facts," no matter how verifiable, no matter how many sources can be used to support them, reflect some point of view. The safest way to protect your own additions is to be clear about the POV (from a scholar? What field? Natural science? Social science? Humanities? Or a journalist? What credentials? Or a politician? Or a civil-rights leader? What organization do they represent). If you ever feel RIK is unclear about the POV of his edits, politely insist that he make the POV explicit.
Beyond the above two points, here is my really BIG piece of advice: as long as RIK provides his sources do not delete or even bother to edit what he writes. I do not mean forever. i just mean for now. My advice is strategic, i want to suggest to you what would be a more constructive path at least for the time being, which is:
my other really BIG piece of advice which is to instead focus on adding what you think the article lacks. Let RIK add his stuff. Of course it is biased. All facts are biased. And his bias will always be a part of the article. WP:NPOV however demands, that other POVs be included too. My advice is, for NOW, focus on making sure those other POVs get in.
You MUST be rigorous in complying with NPOV (see above)
You MUST be rigorous in complying with WP:Verifiability - always provide a credible source. Credible does not mean correct, truthful or articulate or eloquent. It means someone that even your oponents must accept as an authority on the topic - some part of the topic, and in some way. A professor of journalism or political science writing in a book published by University of Chicago Press is a good example. A stanford University psychologist publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is another.
I URGE you to restrict the sources you rely on to those that explicitly address the relationship between race and intelligence. I realize you believe you have a reasonable argument for including material from sources specifically on "race" that do not explicitly address race&intelligence, and maybe your case really is reasonable. But I am trying to be practical. If you use a source that is not clearly about race and intelligence, some others can accuse you of violating WP:NOR which prohibits us from making our own generalizations or synthetic claims. So if you use such a source you are inviting a conflict. No, it does not matter who is at fault or who is right. What matters is making edits that are unassailable and will not be deleted or, if someone deletes them, you can with confidence revert the deletion. This will ensure your edits stick. I am advising that this - making edits that stick - be your priority.
My final and really really really important BIG piece of advice: If you add content that is accurate and relevant, from a verifiable source, that in no way comes close to even kinda sorta violating NOR (because you are not making ANY synthetic or general claims, only citing a verifiable source that does and that is directly about race and intelligence), and you are painstakingly careful to comply with NPOV, and if another editor deletes what you added, then make a record of that editor's deletion immediately. Also, document any violation of the three-revert rule (and be sure you never violate it ever ever). And document any personal attacks. Just keep a careful record and keep your cool and keep it to yourself.
If after two weeks you can document a pattern in which your fully NPOV/NOR/V compliant edits are consistently deleted (whereas you have not been deleting that person's stuff), and someone else has violated 3RR (and you have not), and someone else is guilty of personal attacks (and you are not) ... you then would have a very strong case to take to ArbCom. Very strong. Present the record you have been keeping at that time.

I apologize if any of this sounds patronizing. And if you question my motives all I can say is I really am trying to be practical and strategic. I think if you do not follow this advice no sustainable progress will be made in the article. If you do follow this advice, I think the article really will get better, even if at a slower rate than you'd like. I am sharing this with JK; please share this advice with anyone else you closely collaborate with. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping a bit of an eye as well, but...well, if I could possibly provide you any better advice then Slrubenstein did, I sure don't know what it'd be! All I can add is that if you need any help having someone evaluate a source, look over an action someone's taken and evaluate it, or help in crafting an edit, I'll certainly be around, and good luck! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar

You may want to check out Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/ It is invaluable for finding articles of interest. If using the the Advanced version, then one can restrict to only see the newer articles. Usually it is possible to see the abstract. If there is a link to a "View as HTML", sometimes found by clicking on "group of", then the article can be read. If really interested, try searching using the full title name in ordinary Google (not the "Web Search" function), sometimes the whole artice can be found for free on the homepage of the author.Ultramarine 15:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalo!

Thanks for all your help on the R&I series - you've brought a lot of energy, enthusiasm, and positive attitude to the whole process. I've gone ahead and sketched out an outline for Race and intelligence (test data), and I'll try to fill it out as I can. Thanks again! --JereKrischel 06:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apologies

i'll try to remember next time --W.R.N. 03:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:John Ogbu.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:John Ogbu.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

R&I Frustrations

FB I said something in frustration which I quickly reverted as I thought it was an overstatement and not pertinent to you alone. However, I feel that this whole process has devolved away from order and the article is now a bloated debate. I don't think that any consensus is being reached before major changes are being made. I think that this page should be protected again and edits made by a neutral editor based on recognized consensus. --Kevin Murray 21:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FB. I'm the one who has been suggesting that we remove the bell curves. Kevin. --Kevin Murray 02:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the additional information makes the graph more palatable. I think that it is a bad lead-in, which over simplifies and makes it a black/white thing. There is no pleasant way to deal with this issue. --Kevin Murray 02:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just for you

Black people look at the photos at the bottom. JJJamal 02:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT barnstar

Hi there. You recently commented on the removal of the LGBT barnstar. There's a bit of confusion whether you supported the removal or the permanence of the barnstar (the proposal was for its removal). :-) Would you mind terribly checking it out again and confirming your vote? Thanks! Raystorm 12:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/Proposed_removals#The_LGBT_Barnstar[reply]

Thanks for checking it out! :-) Raystorm 16:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

race and intelligence (explanations)

My goof. You should be edited now. As to your conflicts with WRN, I am not going to get involved. I urge you to follow my 9 pieces of advice (above). Be sure to comply with all policies and rules yourself, to protect yourself. And you keep your own careful record of anything WRN does that you think reflects bad faith, or ownership of the article, or violates 3RR, or violates any of our core policies, or is uncivil to you ... and when you feel too frustrated to go on insist on formal mediation following the appropriate links to the proper page to make such a request, or file an ArbCom case if you feel it is justified. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - important

Concerning one of your conflicts with WRN, it is important that you understand the following, taken from our WP:NPOV policy (which is sacrosanct):

==== POV forks ====

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

I urge you to review the NPOV policy, and read the policy on content forking, and take every measure to ensure you comply with these. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin

Is giving me a hard time. JJJamal 02:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R&I

At this point, I'd prefer that issues regarding R&I be handled in the context of the page. If you don't want to say it to the crowd, please don't say it to me. I have developed respect for you in many ways and am trying to see things through your eyes. Please feel free to contact me on other issues, but at this point please please respect my wishes. Sincerely. Kevin --Kevin Murray 03:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rfm

according to the rfm rules, you're not supposed to change the "Issues to be mediated" that I wrote. if you want to add you own issues, they're supposed to be listed under "Additional issues to be mediated". see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a Request for Mediation: Do not, under any circumstances, edit the "Issues to mediate" section unless you are the party who filed the request. --W.R.N. 04:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, just didn't want anyone to get in trouble for editing in the wrong place. --W.R.N. 04:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here's what you should do - If you feel that an issue has been incorrectly stated, restate it in your section with a simple note at the end of the line such as "(Restatement of second issue by User:Example)." --W.R.N. 04:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i can't edit in that section, but per above If you feel that an issue has been incorrectly stated, restate it in your section with a simple note at the end of the line such as "(Restatement of second issue by User:Example)." in this case, add your version and note who wrote the other version you disagree with. --W.R.N. 05:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my turn to ask for help

can you chime in here? --W.R.N. 05:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R&I

They didn't protect the article any further, they just reverted and made a sub-page...I've simply switched the order to put the most recent stuff up, and the older version in the sub-page for further editing if desired. Hopefully they'll accept that for the time being. --JereKrischel 05:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 06:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Futurebird, please save the details - you will (really) have ample opportunity to explain your side to the official mediator. At some point if the mediators ask for comments from outsiders, let me know and I will comment. In the meantime, go over the guidelines for mediation carefully and figure out how to present your case as clearly and as briefly as possible. As in all things, people here prefer to read something short and straightforward rather than long and complicated. Explain the anture of the conflict as straightforwardly as possible, and if relevant appeal to the appropriate wikipedia policies. Also, even if mediation is ocurring, be careful to keep a record of any behavior by another party that you think violates WP policies, in case you end up going to ArbCom. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you need to watchlist this page. There is no guarantee someone will actuall step up and mediate, so you need to watch that page to see if someone does. For more information, read this. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29

You voiced your opinion in the original straw poll which has caused some confusion. Please do the same in a new version, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion_.28untainted.29, which should be clear and allow us to better assess consensus. gren グレン 22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool (aesthetic)

Bird, there's a troll at Cool (aesthetic). This topic has a history of conflict -- young white folks w/no sense of history. Check out the revert of my sourced contribution labeled "POV pushing."[5] The earlier information was highly selective. Yes, Thompson draws similarities between African cool and French/European sang-froid -- but he makes some very clear distinctions. He clearly delineates between the two, calling the African concept highly complex, with applications in situations where the notion/term does not apply/is not used in the West. IMO, it's clearly just another attempt blatant at whites trying to appropriate what they cannot rightly claim. And when someone introduces information which upsets their (here, severely age-limited notions of the world; they think they were always "cool" -- they still ain't. lol :p), they become hostile/obstructionist.

I've reverted the information -- and added more. You attention/vigilance is requested there.

The main article, African aesthetic, needs major work. There was a huge battle over the subject of "cool" and over this article, as well. Right now, the piece simply consists of material salvaged from the original article. (I like the definition of "cool" at Cool (aesthetic) -- I wrote it. I'm going to use an earlier version of it at African aesthetic when the subject of "cool" is addressed there.)

People wanted to merge a discussion of African cool into the pop culture article, something which I fought -- and won. (Echoes of what happened with Get down -- they tried to kill the article before it was even developed.) Because of the climate, because of the inteference from trolls and stalkers, I simply decided not to write the article at the time and leave it be. I'll probably take it on again sometime in the future, but not right now. I'm working on Sudan divestment and don't have much time (and still not much patience) for this place. Peace. deeceevoice 09:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) deeceevoice 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race & IQ

Hi Futurebird. I'm afraid that my serious Wikipedia editing days are over. It would be a fun thing to do, but I am completely snowed under with other projects at present, with no let-up in sight. What fool invented the day and only put 24 hours in the thing? Tannin 14:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about to archive

Hey, Future, before I archive it, will you make sure there is nothing here or in the following section - chock full of citations - that you want to put in one of the pages you are working on, but have not yet? best, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]