User talk:Deleet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disclaimer[edit]

If you are a religiously or politically motivated to push this or that issue, please refrain from talking on my page. I am not interested. Otherwise, feel free to talk about relevant edits here or science. --Deleet (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer if the following users never post here:
Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw
WeijiBaikeBianji

Any luck on Helmuth Nyborg's research?[edit]

last November, [1] you mentioned that you'd try to find a source for the Helmuth Nyborg article at [2]. Did you have any luck? the newsvine article notes that the professor has been sacked, so might not be available. My problem is that the news article is one of the few sources that use IQ as a measure, and it's lack of source makes the Religiosity and intelligence page a bit weak, especially if educational correlates are removed as per recent discussions. I haven't been able to find anything new via google or google scholar, and wondered if you had any luck in DanishWotherspoonSmith (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be a bother but, no i can't read Danish. I'm now quite curious though- what was the outcome?WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. This does leave me wondering if the quote should remain in the Religiosity and intelligence article, but I will leave it for a while to see if anything else shows up in the meantime. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon[edit]

Hello, you made an edit to The Dark Side of the Moon to change the number of consecutive weeks that the album was on the Billboard charts, but you did not change the reference to where this information comes from (apparently a blog site called rockandrollreport dot com), which suggests you got this information from the same source as the original edit, but interpreted it differently. I tried to go to the link to see what it says, but could not get through, so this may be a dead link. I'm unsure where to go from here, so I reverted your change for now. If you got your information from a different source, please make the change again, and replace the reference with the source you are using.

Also, I recommend keeping the wording currently used in the article, and just changing the numbers. I found your wording to be a little awkward compared to the original. No offence intended; your rewording uses "Billboard" twice, uses the word "historical" ungramatically, and removes the information that Billboard is a USA chart – which isn't essential, but the result is a longer sentence giving less information. But if you think the sentence does need rewording, and want to try a different way of wording it, go ahead. Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversion[edit]

I've reverted your recent edit relating to Denmark in the Christianity by country article. See discussion at Denmark -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meritocracy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and The Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cognitive epidemiology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fitness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Nice idea, starting the article Liberator (gun). Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. — Cirt (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Genetic sexual attraction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big five (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Pro-forma notice[edit]

Hi, Deleet, you should be aware of this already, but I thought it would be a good idea to be sure.

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

I'm still expanding my bibliography of reliable, secondary sources on the topics we both edit about, and I'll be adding more as I read more. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 11:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Emil[edit]

Hey Emil, I am trying to get the well-sourced point that U.S. & U.K. and other countries are IQ meritocracies as per sources like Plomin, Deary, Murray, Jensen etc. in the Heritability and IQ article. Could you assist there? Especially since few editors try to claim that Turkheimer's highly flawed 2003 study is something to draw conclusions from. I would also like the inclusion of Gregory Clark's works in there. I would appreciate if you took a look at the talk page and helped in any way. Thank you.76.66.130.161 (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Deleet (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot.76.66.130.161 (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on biographical statements about living persons is very strict.[edit]

Hi, Deleet, you really need to develop a habit of providing a reliable source for all of your edits on topics that might prove to be controversial on Wikipedia. You know very well from your off-wiki writing activities that some topics are more controversial than others. Moreover, Wikipedia, which is no longer the "encyclopedia where anyone can make something up", has been badly burned by editors who insert statements about living persons into articles without reliable sources, so now Wikipedia has a very strict policy about biographies of living persons. In general, you and I and anybody are allowed to make a reliably sourced statement about a living person even if that statement is controversial. But even the most innocuous statements about a living person are suspect if unsourced, and the Wikipedia policy requires that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." I'm just following the spirit and the letter of the policy here. Your edits on Hereditarianism have yet to cite a source, even though I have pointed on the article talk page to a source list on human genetics that includes helpful, reliable, secondary sources on the topic of that article. Your reply on the article talk page fails to note that the persons currently linked in that article section are dead and thus not subject to the WP:BLP policy in quite the same way (although it would still be a good idea better to source statements about the point of view of those late writers). On my part, I've seen some edits to that page that look plausible at first glance, but I've learned since the 2010 ArbCom case, for which discretionary sanctions are still in place, that edits that look plausible on that controversial broad topic may still be contrary to Wikipedia policy, unless all of us check sources carefully in the manner advised by the ArbCom decision. If you found reliable, secondary sources that said Santa Claus or Elmer Fudd are hereditarians, I would not object to statements to that effect in the article. If someone inserts in an article within the scope of these related topics the statement that Barak Obama is the President of the United States, I would ask for a source, because I've learned that strict application of the WP:BLP policy is the path forward here to improving article quality and making sure that the editing environment is more in accord with Wikipedia policies. It's not personal, so you don't have to assume bad faith as you have in your recent edit summaries. Simply find a reliable, secondary source--which is not too much to ask of someone editing an encyclopedia, which is what we are here to build--and there shouldn't be any problem with any edit to that article. Remember, the WP:BLP policy has its own notice board, and fixing BLP statements in articles per BLP policy is a recognized exception to the general policy against edit-warring. Oh, yeah, and the ArbCom case decision reminds all of us that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources." That's all I'm looking for here. If you are engaged in research, it shouldn't be hard to find a source. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I will reply to you only once. Please never write anything on my talk page again. Thank you. Deleet (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I will only put required notices here (perhaps none will ever be necessary, as is my desire) and otherwise discuss edits with you on article talk pages as needed. Thanks for letting me know your preference about communication. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A troublesome inheritance[edit]

hi, i noticed your participation in a few related articles, please review this one if/when you have time. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to participate on Wikipedia before they deal with the disruptive editing by WeijiBaikeBianji. If you know of his misdeeds, please support here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#WeijiBaikeBianji --Deleet (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a source list[edit]

Emil, I was recently considering putting together a NPOV wikispace source list on the topics of psychometrics, IQ, and so on. Since you are one of the wiki users without a history of POV pushing in the topic areas, as well as an extensive knowledge of the relevant literature, I believe that you can help with such a project. So, would you recommend any prurient sources for such a list? If they are accessible on the internet in full, then even better. Wajajad (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What kind of sources are you looking for? WeijiBaikeBianji always tries only to rely on secondary literature in mainstream journals, which biases his selection. I have institutional access so I can just upload whichever file it is that is needed. Some time ago, I put together introductory material for differential psychology here. The Deary book is pretty decent. Gottfredson's 1997 (Why g Matters) is a classic. Jensen's book is of course the most comprehensive although somewhat dated by now.
Generally, the areas where people get emotional is more when it comes to group differences, racial or SES-based. WeijiBaikeBianji of course has a very long history of pushing his ideology on these topics. Since he's so active, it takes multiple other people just to keep him in check. I don't want to spend time arguing with bureaucrats or ideologues. I rather do research. As for books on the race differences, Jensen's 1998 is the best. Lynn's books are less technically sophisticated and contains lots of errors with the numbers. The most recent reviews concerning racial gaps are Rushton and Jensen's 2005 and 2010 review papers. These are secondary literature published in mainstream journals, so they are perfect for Wikipedia as WeijiBaikeBianji views it. Since it has been 4 years since the last review on the issue, I was thinking about perhaps writing a new one, perhaps along with John Fuerst who's also an expert on that topic. In any case, let me know if there is something more specific you need. --Deleet (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You get the gist of it right,I was thinking of putting together excellent secondary sources without any POV. WBB does have a good source list, but it's way too POV. If you have in mind anything comprehensive related to the fields of SES, Race and their correlations with intelligence, then please recommend. These views are more accepted in the field than a few environmentalist editors here on wiki would like to portray. In that vein, we should demonstrate that the hereditarian view is not at all fringe or anything as such. Wajajad (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are two surveys of researchers which both found that hereditarianism is the mainstream view. I posted them on Wikipedia before. 2013 Rindermann survey. Note that this includes the data from older Snydermann 1987 survey. The results are pretty much the same. The mean estimate of the heritability of group differences is ~50% among experts in the new survey. These surveys rely on asking authors anonymously. Another way one could approach it is by doing a survey of published papers instead. This would reveal something else, namely what most papers indicate. It could be that one side of the discussion does not do much research but just has opinions while the other does research. I'm not familiar with such a study. Deleet (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
First of all what is or isnt mainstream in a field is not decided by votes or surveys, but by what is and isnt published. Secondly the Snyderman and Rothman study is ancient and can in no way be assumed to reflect current opinions - and even in ts day it was flawed and biased and has been criticized as such. The Rinderman study which has not been published is also inherently biased by surveying only psychometricians and not any of the other professional fields that have expertise in the field such as annthropology, cognitive psychology, sociology etc. Noone should be surprised that psychometricians believe in the hereditarian hypothesis, since the field of psychometry exactly has a hstory of that particular political bias. A consensus for a hereditarian explanation of IQ n pyschometry is therfor of little relevance since most psychologists outside of that little field, and most social scientists working with education, social policy or race (both biologicaly and socially construed) agree that psuchometricians are barking up the wrong tree when they bet on the hereditarian horse if you will pardon my mixed metaphor. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Those people are not the relevant experts. Experts are differential psychologists (psychologists who study human differences, including group differences in cognitive abilities), and the main journal for that field is Intelligence. The survey is a survey of authors in that field, specially those who published in the main journal in the field (e.g. me). Both author surveys and publication surveys are appropriate methods for studying the views of a field. Both have been used in studying expert opinion on climate change and evolution. Comparisons to these fields are important since both of them are under attack by ideologically or religiously motivated groups (creationists for evolution, libertarians+conservatives for climate change). Differential psychology is under attack by socialists/communists. The reason the situation appears different here is that the prevailing political opinion in newspapers and among social scientists is leftist (e.g. here and here). Deleet (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I am sorry to butt in, but I have to point out that the notion that Weiji's wish to rely on secondary literature in mainstream sources is a source of problematic bias betrays a failure on your part to comprehend some of wikipedia's most fundamental policies. As far as wikipedia is concerned what is and isn't biased is determined by what secondary mainstream sources say. Bias is any representation of viewpoints that departs from the representation and relative weighting of views that appears in mainstream secondary sources. Unless you understand and abide by this fundamental rule, your editing here will short and embroiled by controversy, as it has by so many other hereditarian POV pushers before you. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Please never post on my page again. Thank you. I'm not interested in talking with ideologues or bureaucrats, conservative or leftist. Deleet (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
LOL.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that Maunus had to show her more ideological side in this discussion when the fact of the matter is that our articles on relevant topic areas have, for a while now, overrepresented a POV that is not by any means the only mainstream one. But to be sure,this bias runs beyond Wikipedia and enters politics, as Emil expressed above. For this reason, it is not reasonable for editors like WBB to frame discussion on the editing of articles in mostly environmentalist terms, and as such, it is necessary to produce a NPOV source list for editors to consult for their edits. Much new and relevant research has been ignored or misinterpreted in our articles due to latent biases in particular editors, who disregard the sources that doesn't fit their POV.Wajajad (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Victorian IQ drop paper uncited[edit]

Hey Emil,

so I've noticed that our dysgenics article has an important paper by M.A. Woodley, published in Intelligence, uncited. The same paper that reported an IQ drop from Victorian era to present day contra the Flynn effect. Would you help adding it in? It's definitely from a notable mainstream journal, so there aren't any problems there.Wajajad (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There are various papers on the issue of the reaction slow slowing. It's not settled science, but may be worth covering since it has received significant media coverage (Forbes, HuffingtonPost). If you look up the paper on Google Scholar, you can find all the paper citing the original paper. Arguing for a decrease in g is of course somewhat hard because of the FLynn effect, although it appears to have stopped in some Western countries. But that could also be due to low g immigration. There is no simple story to tell from the studies available as of now.
The best source on dysgenics is Richard Lynn's book on the topic. There is a second edition from 2011 and it is secondary literature summarizing a wide variety of other studies. --Deleet (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For extreme diligence and assistance, and especially for stalwartly furthering the cause of rational, non-ideological science, even on contentious issues. Wajajad (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

New Sourcelist[edit]

Hello Emil, about the new sourcelist we will put together, I think we should put it in your user space, perhaps making a copy off-site as well. I have many recommendations for sources related to intelligence and behavior genetics that we can list. Perhaps other users can recommend additions as well.Wajajad (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)