User talk:T34CH

Hi, I'm Juliancolton (talk · contribs). I'd like to personally welcome you and thank you for your contributions thus far. As you probably know, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia collaboratively written entirely by volunteers. If you ever see anything that can be improved—be it correcting a typo or writing a new article—feel free to fix it yourself! Don't worry about making mistakes; one of the many editors will probably notice and quickly correct it. If you have any questions, just place the text {{helpme}} on your talk page, and an administrator will help you shortly. Alternatively, you could join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel, where dozens of friendly helpers await. You can find out more about the project here, but I won't bore you with statistics and rules. Just remember to be civil to other editors, to always cite your sources, and to write articles from a neutral point of view, and you should be good to go.

Wikipedia is a huge website; with nearly 3 million articles, it is the single biggest encyclopedia in the world. Additionally, there are thousands of policy and process pages, so it can be a bit overwhelming, even to experienced users. When I was new, I found the Tutorial particularly helpful. You might also want to check out the glossary. The Reference Desk serves as our library reference desk, where you can ask nearly any question imaginable.

The Featured Articles and Good Article pages are good places to look for some of our most well-written and comprehensive articles. On the other end of the spectrum, we have thousands of articles that require cleanup of some sort, so feel free to help out.

I hope you've found this advice helpful. Feel free to contact me for more information. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ...

[1] Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure is starting to sound more and more like it. And hello BTW, T34CH. Not sure we've been introduced. :)

trolls at R&I

perhaps the rout to go is checkuser, I suspect at least on is a sockpuppet ... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've avoided that simply because I'm unfamiliar with the behavior patterns in question. If you tell me what to look for specifically I can get some difs together. Otherwise a CU admin who was closely involved before would be needed to speed up the process. Feel free to email me. T34CH (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to point out a similar pattern of editing articles of managing discussions (i.e. here the edit difs needed are ones that show some similarity), and it helps but is not necessary if one account is active when the other account is not. My e-mail settings are off, but if you really want to e-mail me I'll give you my address. The fact is (1) I take these issues very seriously but (2) this is the worst time in my life, I am swamped at work and expect to be taking a brief break, I don't have much time except to make sure that s few key articles have not be vandalized in a major way, other than that I can't realy edit now. I really wish you luck. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence

The fact of the matter is, your edits violate NPOV policy.

A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

Describing a position as "fundamentally flawed" is, any way you cut it, unacceptable. And that's just the tip of the iceberg as far as this article is concerned. It's not anyone else's fault that you can't distinguish between editors who are attempting to improve articles in accordance with policy and "vandals", "trolls" and "sockpuppets". But good luck in your witchhunt. ;) --Aryaman (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel this way about the way your preferred interpretation of IQ scores are presented by the literature reviews. Would you like a cookie? T34CH (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like cookies, actually. But what I'd like in regards to this article is for views to be presented as views. It's really rather simple. Some reviewers describe the hereditarian position as "fundamentally flawed". This does not make the hereditarian position fundamentally flawed, and we can't report it as being such. You're confusing a partisan review with "undisputed consensus", which it most certainly is not. You're also assuming I'm in favor of the hereditarian view. This has nothing to do with my preferred view. It has to do with the fact that you're proposing we slant this article unfairly to favor one particular bias. Your edits are a textbook example of the "partisan commentary" NPOV requires we avoid. Besides that, your total disregard for anything resembling acumen should be alarming to anybody approaching this article in a neutral fashion. --Aryaman (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were a little too quick to jump to ANI with this, but that's fine. In the meantime I edited the first paragraph to give you an example of what I mean. --Aryaman (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

getting their arugments clear

I suppose our current misunderstanding is what I mean by saying that we would have accomplished something great if we could simply get a clear explanation of the arguments made by Jensen, Lewontin and Flynn. :) --Distributivejustice (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be helpful those explanations in a sandbox we can refer to easily. It may make sense to put these in the article at some point (at the very least in the history section, or something like opposing viewpoints), but in an overview I think they would need to be mentioned only very briefly so as not to derail the section into a competition between editors who like a given view. T34CH (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be a concern. Take a look at the overview section outline I created, taking the APA report as the reference point for nature/nurture. I think that might be a tenable model for that nature/nurture debate. --Distributivejustice (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snyderman and Rothman

T34CH, are you trying to provoke a hostile response? I said I found "slightly more coverage than the 12 stories reported by the nominator, but agree that, while quite a few works quote or reference this work, nothing has been written solely on this report". I don't enjoy interacting with you, as I find your manner coarse and your editing style disruptive. Leave well enough alone, please. --Aryaman (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used the language from wp:N. ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.") This is the criteria under which I made the nomination to delete. If you are arguing against my rational, you will need to provide "significant coverage" specifically about the topic. You need to take a step back and reevaluate what you have perceived as my motivation in the past. You are now and have been mistaken, and it has clouded your judgment. You seem to be very rational otherwise. T34CH (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snyderman & Rothman

T34CH, Eysenck discusses this study over more than 2 pages in the article I listed in the references section. Jensen refers to both the original study and the book several times, and in more depth than a simple line citation. Eysenck and Jensen - possibly others, too; I don't know yet - felt a degree of vindication in the results of the Snyderman & Rothman study, and they saw it as confirming their own suspicions. Whether or not this is "discussing a thing at length" is perhaps debatable, but their discussion of the report really is more than a "a little mention". Can you agree on that? --Aryaman (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not over two pages as I read it, and about a page of those two pages are direct quote, so that's not discussion. It's not a significant focus of his essay; he feels over-looked by the media, so this is just a data point to suggest why that might be. T34CH (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're pulling my leg. Eysenck discusses this study specifically, 2 pages of a 9 page article, even quotes from it, using it as an example to illustrate the very subject of his paper ("Media vs. Reality"), and you want to say that it is unjustified to mention this fact in the lead? You know, I try damned hard to assume good faith here, but this kind of hair-brained logic has me totally baffled. --Aryaman (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a summary of the rest of the article. I think you've overlooked that in the grand scheme of the topic of this study, that mention in that book isn't really that important. In fact, neither is Jensen's discussion of it, but it's about the only evidence of notability you've provided. T34CH (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you'd quit dicking around with this article and let someone try and fix the problems (and anyway, since you are the one who put it up for AfD, why do you even care?) then maybe it would improve. --Aryaman (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MedCabal Case

Hello! My name is Reubzz and I have opened up this mediation cabal case that lists you as a party. Please indicate your acceptance of the mediation process on my talk page and on the case page so we can move quickly towards discussion and resolution of the dispute. The proceedings cannot start unless ALL parties agree to accept the mediation process.

Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

The mediation case has now opened. Please post your Opening Statement here: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence.

Cheers! Reubzz (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case

That is understandable. My only goal is to resolve the issue. I have no doubt the other mediators assisting me will make this process smoother. I of course welcome their aid. Reubzz (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

You said you had problems with his statement? What specifically do you disagree with? You are free to offer a responce (but please keep it brief for my sake of reading these super-long speeches). Reubzz (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Miele

I'm bringing this up here because I don't think it's necessary to discuss it in the mediation case (besides, that discussion is complex enough without extraneous material which borders on a personal attack).

Frank Miele worked as a research assistant for Richard Lynn. The fact that Lynn paid Miele with money supposedly acquired from a Pioneer Fund grant is entirely irrelevant to Miele's biography, and the claim that Lynn "acquired funds for Miele" is simply wrong. If you disagree, I kindly suggest you bring it up with WP:BLP with the following in mind:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

I suggest you read the Miele book for yourself (it's short and easily accessible). That's the only way you'll understand why I suggest this book. The relevant points have absolutely nothing to do with Miele's supposedly "controversial" figure. If you want a very good yet succinct first-hand presentation of Jensen's views and the research used to back up his claims, I don't think there's a better book available. --Aryaman (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that this is precisely what you say: "a first-hand presentation of Jensen's views". We should be discussing impartial secondary/tertiary sources which examine the evidence presented by all "sides". Jensen-on-Jensen (with Miele) cannot be considered a critical enough source to be called unbiased. T34CH (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No single source is going to present all the information we need to cover in this article. If we want an accurate presentation of Jensen's views, it's best to get it from Jensen himself, particularly when Jensen complains that his opponents characterize his own position incorrectly (take Steven Jay Gould's book, The Mismeasure of Man, for example, which was not only criticized by Jensen for gross misrepresentation, but also by scholars such as Hans Eysenck, Bernard Davis, David Bartholomew, Steve Blinkhorn and Franz Samelson). If we want an accurate presentation of the reception of his views, of course we have to look elsewhere. I'm not suggesting anything else. --Aryaman (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we want an accurate representation of the acceptance of his research methods, we have to look elsewhere. The fact that Jensen thinks he has proved himself is not controversial. T34CH (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we agree? --Aryaman (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me someone who thinks Jensen doesn't think he's proved himself, and I'll show you someone on drugs. As for the sources we use in the article, they should be either peer reviewed, extremely well vetted by the academic community, or very carefully hedged by sources which are peer reviewed/well vetted. Simply using Jensen-on-Jensen with no RS analysis of his claims is not acceptable. T34CH (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Where have I suggested not using reliable sources to criticize Jensen? My point was that, if we're going to make claims such as "According to Jensen...", we are better off quoting Jensen himself, and not someone else. That's it. I don't know where you're getting the rest of this. The Miele book is simply a condensed presentation of Jensen's views, and should only be used as a reference for those views, not for their acceptance level in general academe. --Aryaman (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the confusion came in when you assumed I knew exactly what you were referring to in asking "Then we agree?" I'm not sure we need to say "Jensen claims he is right because..." in the article. It seems that discussing his views, then discussing the analysis of his views is over-kill. Just the analysis of his views should be enough in most cases. T34CH (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I compared my statement:

"If we want an accurate presentation of the reception of his views, of course we have to look elsewhere."

with yours, which appeared immediately afterward:

"If we want an accurate representation of the acceptance of his research methods, we have to look elsewhere."

I assumed that indicated that we had reached an agreement on this point, seeing as the two are virtually identical. --Aryaman (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that was such an obvious point that I assumed you were asking about something else. I figured you were trying to make a more important point than that by discussing this here. A more interesting question IMO is if we agree that Jensen is controversial in his field. T34CH (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, I invite you look up the distinction between vada, jalpa and vitanda. They're concepts from the Nyāya school of philosophy which are rather difficult to translate correctly, but I trust you would find the distinction interesting. So you know, while I truly do enjoy the first, I find the other two rather tedious and boring. --Aryaman (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Notice

This is a notice to inform all parties in the MedCabal case involving the article Race and Intelligence, that the deadline for any final comments in this introductory stage of mediation is due within the next 24 hours. At the end of this timeframe, the Mediators will seek page protection for 48 hours to review the entire case and prepare a schedule of issues to discuss to proceed forward. Thank You for your cooperation and acting in good faith to pursue a conclusion to this dispute. Cheers! --Reubzz (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ramdrake has been very sick lately and I fear may not be in good shape"

How did you guess? In any case, I'm back at home recovering, but it was a close call.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R&I mediation

there 's a draft of an outline at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence#Proposed_outline. You have not yet commented on it, and I am preparing to give the outline to David.Kane (per current agreement in mediation) to enter a draft of the article in mainspace. There will be a review/revision period after the draft is entered in which any issues can be addressed, so if you have no immediate comment, or can't get to the mediation page to make a comment, you can participate in the review and we can address any concerns you still have there.

sorry for the bulk message. --Ludwigs2 11:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence, new draft

A new draft of the race and intelligence article is being edited into mainspace, based on discussion in mediation. It should be completed sometime on 4/1/2010. I am posting this notice to mediation participants in the hopes that those who have not contributed recently to the mediation will come back to review and comment on the draft, and help discuss any revisions that need to be made. You may make any reviews or comments at the mediation page, and we will discuss any revisions that need to be made.

I'd also ask you to leave a note for David.Kane (talk · contribs) on his talk page. Whatever your opinion of the draft itself, I think he deserves thanks for putting a lot of time and effort into making the revisions. --Ludwigs2 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snyderman and Rothman (study) has been nominated for deletion again.

Hi, I see you are the editor who previously nominated Snyderman and Rothman (study) for deletion, to an inconclusive result. I have just nominated it again, and of course current watchers of the article will become aware of that, and the original editor who posted the article at first has been notified. I thought you might like to be aware of this. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]