This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The article Neuroscience and race, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.
Do you really think that it is a good idea to take a highly controversial subject like this as a class assignment??? Note that this topic is subject to arbcom restrictions. In addition, there is of course not much solid science on this subject, even though the article as it currently stands (more an essay than an encyclopedic article) presents a lot of stuff as fact. Of I were you, I'd blank this page and put a "db-G7" tag on it, and start working on something more worth your efforts. --Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you're talking to. Biosthmors (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
There are only two editors here, your student, Mtillman6, and yourself. So the above is directed to both of you. --Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Well Wikipedia is the place anyone can edit, so alternate language seems more appropriate. For example, "I'm not sure if this article is something that belongs in Wikipedia." Free free to tag it as essay like. Biosthmors (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say the topic doesn't belong here. But I don't think it's a good idea to throw a newbie student into a contentious and controversial thing like this. And the article at this moment presents as plain fact lots of stuff that is based on primary sources. I'm sorry, but this looks like another one of those classroom disasters that we have to deal with from time to time. --Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, it was their idea to work on the topic, and their grade for the class was dependent upon what this article looked like about 12 and a half hours ago, so they might not make another edit to Wikipedia. But of course, I hope they do (and even take this article up to good status or something). I didn't know about the extra arb warnings on the topic, and I'm sure they didn't either. It very well could be in need of rewriting. WP:SCIRS does allow for some primary source use. WP:MEDREV is more strict. I got involved with the class to mitigate such issues, but I didn't get to communicate with this class/professor until after the semester started. So here's to a better Fall 2013! =) Biosthmors (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)