Jump to content

Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Futurebird

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Filed On: 06:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

(Though, this issue is more general than just one user.)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Questions:

[edit]

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

  • Answer:Yes.

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

  • Answer: It is a content dispute.

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

  • Answer:
  • I have talked to the other parties involved, by posting to the talk page.
  • Disengage for a while, I have let this rest for a few days, though honestly I don't know what else to do at this point.
  • I have discussed the issue with third parties to get a better sense of the issue and what to do.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer:

I'd just like some advice on what I can do next.

Summary:

[edit]

I'm troubled by the nature of the content of this article. The researchers who are used as a source "Snyderman and Rothman (1988)" have ties to people who believe in eugenics. (I've added sourced information about this to the article, and edited the nav-box for the series to refeclt this) I've tried to balance the article by adding a section on criticism, but I wonder if the content is even appropriate with the criticism. The article is a part of a "series" that also has similar undertones. The articles show a lack of sensitivity to the subject matter and a profound lack of historical context. A few other users have asked for this article to be deleted twice in the past (before I joined wikipedia) so I do not feel it'd be such a good idea to ask again. Also, I'm personally not very big on trying to censor other people, even when their ideas are wrong and potentially hurtful. Seeing that the article was not deleted makes me think that I must be in the minority in holding that there is something wrong with this presentation of the idea of race. That is intimidating. I start to wonder "Is wikipedia a place for white supremacists?" Probably not. Well, I hope not. But, there do not seem to be enough other motivated editors to help balance the material. I tried to find a project for people interested in anti-racism, but there seems to be none. I feel very alone in all of this and I am growing frustrated with the process.

The username, W. D. Hamilton is the name of the "father of eugenics" so clearly this individual has respect for these kinds of ideas. Recently another user asked for this article to be nominated for deletion again on the talk page. I said I would support that but what I really want to do is revise the article so it is neutral. This will take some time. It bothers me that the article will remain there, in its present condition until I have the many hours it will require to fix it.

Another thing that troubled me about this article is the way that the quotes of some of the scientists who do not support the idea of a genetic difference in the intelligence of people of different races were cropped. When I traced the sources and expanded the quotes it changed the tone of the article greatly.[1] This seems to be a case of selective omission of important information. I was able to catch this instance, but it makes me think there may be more. The article links to a long page a citations that I feel is there mostly to intimidate people out of questioning the information and the information has, so far, proven to be highly questionable.

The ideas in this article, and in some of the others in the series are extremely hurtful to me and to many other people, what can be done? I don't want you to contact the other user. He scares me. Or if you do, please don't bring my name in to it. I just want to know how to proceed and where I can look for help since I don't think I'll be able to do all of this on my own.

Thank you in advance for whatever advice you can give.

Please note: I didn't put all of those banners on the article, that was another user. I added the POV banner. I'm trying hard to stay rational about this, even though it is very upsetting. Also, the main article in the series, Race and intelligence, is tolerably good. It seems it is getting the kind of attention it needs to become balanced. futurebird 06:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

[edit]

Followup:

[edit]

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

  • Answer: Yes

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

  • Answer: Yes

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

  • Answer: 5

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

  • Answer: 4

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

  • Answer: 4

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

  • Answer: It seems to work quite well.

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?


AMA Information

[edit]

Case Status: closed


Advocate Status:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/January_2007/Futurebird&oldid=1137459611"