User talk:W.M. O'Quinlan

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

[citation needed]

Severe lack of neutral presentation on "race and intelligence"[edit]

I was only mentioning wealth and nutrition on the race and intelligence discussion page to indicate that that is a valid alternative way to frame what could be the exact same issue but I was not actually proposing to frame it that way, rather, my position is the issue and wikipedia article should not be framed/titled as "race and intelligence". My position is also: given multiple and/or disputed ways of framing an issue Wikipedia articles should strive for a more generic and/or higher level view so it's clear to readers what the disputed points and disputed ways of framing the issue are. "Race and intelligence" is a very poor and presumption inducing and non-neutral way of framing the issue. IQ controversy is a much better title because it's more generic and does not potentially confuse description with cause by misframing the issue entirely around "race". Matthew L Foster 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I fully understand your objections to the current formulation, so I'm not sure exactly how much I disagree with you. With that said though, it should be pointed out that one can make claims of basically any title being non-neutral if one wishes, so we need to be careful that we don't whitewash every single topic just because a small minority disagrees with the conclusions they seem to suggest (however subtly). In this case, I think it would be perfectly suitable to make mention of how there is dispute over the most accurate way to approach the relevant data (as to whether they are best understood as descriptors of races, locations, nutritional variables, wealth, etc.), but when you say that the whole article needs to be rewritten (presumably to reposition the discussion away from race and away from intelligence), you also are guilty of predetermining the conclusions of the topic's discussion (namely, by refusing to acknowledge the merits of those variables which are best and most commmonly used and understood). W.M. O'Quinlan 23:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta![edit]

Wikimania 2008 at Tech.jpg

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry Waxman fact tag[edit]

Hi, I removed the fact tag you just added. The source is now added on that line as well, please check here. It's actually the same source, from the Daily Trojan, and directly taken from Waxman's speech. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

R&I – a new approach[edit]

R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Race (classification of human beings)[edit]

Why is this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_%28classification_of_human_beings%29&diff=149994642&oldid=149994569 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tos123 (talkcontribs) 01:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the source that supposedly provided those figures; it actually only gave the numbers for physical and cultural anthropologists and doesn't mention developmental psychologists or biologists, so those numbers don't belong with the others. W.M. O'Quinlan 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Are you User:WD RIK NEW?[edit]

Just asking because you seem to have a similar name and similar interests. This isn't an accusation or an attack, I'm just curious. futurebird (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not; I'm not really sure how the names are similar either, but anyway.. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay. My bad. futurebird (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your editing experience[edit]

I am making this comment here because it seems more appropriate. You seem to have little or no experience at creating wikipedia articles. You just snip at articles. So please don't wikilawyer other people on how wikipedia articles are created. Apart from a few amateur musical contributions (which made be smile - your attempt to classify the Hammerklavier, for example, or to make a template for Wagner with no mention of opera), you do indeed seem to have a common theme of racial purity running through almost all your edits; your discussions on talk pages have a superficial veneer of academic respectability, but your arguments rarely have scholarly support. Rather than lurking on the Race and intelligence talk page as if it were an undergraduate debating society, why not try your hand at creating mainspace articles on what you know about? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] (crass stupidity) [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Mathsci (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to start or why you've apparently made me some special project, but I guess I'll just go point for point:
1) You're saying that because I haven't created any WP articles I therefore must be wrong about how the policy is being applied in R&I? With all due respect, you have to see why this argument is absurd. I won't stop "wikilawyering" others just because you ask me to on account of my lack of experience in creating articles; try showing me where I went wrong in applying WP policies for article subjects and then I'll back off. Surely you know that by trying to smear me personally, you don't actually rebut the points I made.
2) The amateur musical edits: I have no idea what you're talking about with the Hammerklavier classification (maybe you think I'm "Marcus", in which case, I would be using multiple users, in which case you wouldn't know if I had any experience in creating articles); and I'm not sure how it's significant or laughable that I tried to add a composer template to Wagner, or why it is important that I forgot to mention opera? It's true that I added the template (how treacherous of me, I know) and when someone told me that templates were discouraged for classical music composers, I gladly let it go without a fuss.
3) Theme of "racial purity": I make no apologies for my interest in the issue of race, specifically my interest in the way it is represented in so many WP articles. But to characterize it as "racial purity" is out of court for someone who has actually read my edits in their context. If by "racial purity" you mean that I consistently call for sources on statements which blatantly malign white people, then yes, I suppose I am guilty of interest in "racial purity". I'll point out though that I am under no obligation to edit according to some principle of equal attention to different topics—in other words, I can and will edit where I see fit, and until you want to dispute the merits of specific edits, then I see no reason to change.
This "superficial veneer of academic respectability" and "arguments rarely have scholarly support" business is again, nothing but ad hominem bluster; my arguments are almost always simply methodological and deal with how WP policies are being applied. Please give me an example of an argument I have made which does not have scholarly support but ought to, then maybe we can have a real discussion.
I have no idea who you are that you think you can tell me not to "lurk on the Race and intelligence talk page as if it were an undergraduate debating society" or why I should find that statement at all compelling. You obviously don't like my ideas, so why don't you deal with the substance instead of making a personal case out of it?
4) Creating new articles: a fine suggestion; tell me what you think I ought to create an article about.
5) I have to take issue with your mention of the edit on the Oxford talk page: how in the world is this an example of racial purity or crass stupidity? I'm sorry if I'm a stupid American and I don't know how schools in England are organized; maybe you should congratulate me on trying to find out instead? W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You commented on the Hammerklavier on the talk page of Beethoven where you mused openly about how it should be classified [33] (yawn). I think your use of the term "stupid American" is very odd. I haven't categorized you according to nationality, so please stop putting words into my mouth. I am extremely familiar with the U.S. university system. I have a Ph.D. from an Ivy League University and am a frequent visitor to US universities, particularly three of the campuses of the University of California. I got my first tenured university job in the UK 25 years ago in the government New Blood Scheme to halt the brain drain. You claim now to be unfamiliar with the European university system, yet you have already involved yourself in the article on the brain drain. Given your claimed ignorance now, were those edits based on pure guesswork? Your question about Oxford University showed a complete lack of initiative in investigating the web page of Oxford University. I just hope you can learn to do elementary research like that on your own in the future - you are after all in the research triangle.
The majority of your edits to WP seem to be based on race issues. I find that worrying and would far rather you made positive, creative contributions to the project. It is disingenuous of you to misrepresent yourself on the talk page of Race and intelligence, in view of your editing record. Indeed in your persistent comments there about the "popular debate", you may for all I know be referring to old deep south prejudices held by people living outside the triangle.
One last point, Sigmund Freud appeared on one of the old Austrian schilling notes (the 50 schilling note), so the Austrians must have regarded him as Austrian. To end on a lighter note which you probably will quite like considering your musical interests, the Austrian one euro coins now carry the portrait of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, just in case you didn't know. "If you've got it, flaunt it."
Regarding articles that could be improved, there are plenty of foreign language plays (I intend to work on Andromaque myself); and there are plenty of operas, e.g. Handel's Orlando for example. Giulio Cesare, Rodelinda and Tamerlano seem fine, but could be improved by having something more than just a plot analysis (cf Winton Dean's writings). Happy editing, Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you provided a link to the Hammerklavier sonata, not the Beethoven article—but I'm glad that you find my question funny—maybe I'll try to smarten up before I plunge right into an article next time (oh wait, that's what I was trying to do...the problem is, it's not easy reading through books looking for one point about how scholars classify the Hammerklavier, that's why it was easier for me to ask an editor if s/he had the answer on hand).
I really didn't need to know your personal history, but thank you for boasting all about it on my talk page. I never questioned your competency on the issue of "brain drain", but why don't you just look at what my one edit consisted of in that article: all I did was call for a citation on a very significant statement attributing a cause to the "brain drain" in Europe. I don't need to know anything about the European school system to see that that statement needed a citation, so there wasn't a whiff of guesswork about it. Maybe you're in the habit of adding very direct, succinct explanations for important phenomena without providing any reference for them, but I generally like to see those statements sourced. I have never called myself an expert on brain drain, and I wouldn't attempt to edit that article beyond my competency on the topic (a call for a citation has nothing to do with the topic itself, its a methodological issue). Furthermore, I did take the initiative by looking at the Oxford web page, which I found offered me no clear answer about how the degrees in question were awarded, and that's why I asked. And based on your experience in the US, what about the country makes you think that most people (apart from professors) know anything about foreign university systems (even undergrad students like myself)?
Freud: I never doubted that Freud was an Austrian national, but that is not the same thing as ethnicity. Last time I checked, being depicted on a coin wasn't one of the criteria for ethnic identity, so using that as Freud's ticket into the Austrian ethnic club is not very reasonable.
I'm sorry that you don't like what I edit on WP, but I don't think it's too much of me to ask that you read what I have written on the R&I talk page before you say I need to make creative contributions. I had already proposed more than one model for improving that article, but for one reason or another, they never came to be. Furthermore, I'm not sure how I've misrepresented myself on that talk page, even in light of my editing history. All I said was that we should treat that topic the same as any other, and my editing history only show that I have an interest in racial issues and I'm concerned that the issues not be whitewashed or overtly POV (in either racist or antiracist ways). Whatever your interpretation or suspicion of my motive, you're not actually disagreeing with much of anything I've written.
I'd like to help more on articles about certain plays and music, but I only have so much time to waste on WP that it usually ends up going towards things like motions to disband or reformulate politically sensitive articles on race and the like. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. An article or an improvement to an article on a play by Seneca or Aristophanes would be a useful exercise for you and could be a valuable addition to WP. I made my personal statements just so that you might become aware that the editorship of WP covers a broad spectrum (e.g. university professors) and to explain why some of your edits come across as a bit odd. Your use of the words "time to waste" speaks volumes. Lurking on a talk page is not really creative. I hope you turn out to be more creative than that in your undergraduate career. Mathsci (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not obligated to be creative on WP, but I do understand it would be much more appreciated than is the way I tend to contribute. My "time to waste" comment was meant to be a joke, because I always end up (futilily) spending way too much time belaboring simple points that ought not to be controversial but which I always somehow fail to make clear the first time around (the Race and Intelligence article is a prime example). At any rate, for my part I'm sick of arguing over that blasted article when it only falls on deaf ears, and I would welcome the chance to move on to other topics. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm just an anonymous Wiki reader, watching in frustration as people who seem to always have "socialist" or "marxist" references in their profiles quite deliberately obfuscate what is, as you know, a very clear and distinct area of inquiry in the field of intelligence. I have found your comments in R&I immensely cathartic to read, and your deft handling of ideologues by refusing to become upset or stray off-topic is worthy of praise. I am not attempting to ascribe a motive to your participation, as I don't know your mind, but for my part, I am sick of people who cynically cloak themselves in the language of racial tolerance defacing inarguably mainstream science and engaging in despicable ad hominem attacks in the service of their Marx-derived ideologies, which they apparently at least unconsciously realize are utterly undone by the fact of intractable differences in life outcome that cannot be fixed by the state. What you're doing is important. Thanks. 72.220.172.147 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)