User talk:Varoon Arya

Comparative linguistics/History of linguistics > Joseph Scaliger

This is the information I considered incorporating into either Comparative linguistics or History of linguistics.

—

One of the earliest attempts in the field of comparative linguistics was undertaken by Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609). Based on his observation of the words used for 'god' in a number of European languages, he organized them into four rudimentary 'language groups', i.e. (1) a ‘deus’-group (Latin deus; Italian dio; Spanish dio; French dieu), (2) a ‘gott’-group (German Gott; Dutch god; Swedish gud; English god), (3) a ‘bog’-group (Russian bog; Ukranian bog; Polish bog; Czech buh) and (4) a ‘theos’-group (Greek theós). In essence, Scaliger had hit upon what are today referred to as the Romance, Germanic and Slavic language groups, though he did not realize the implications of this discovery.

References:

Robins, R. H. (1997). A Short History of Linguistics. New York: Longman.

Adams, D. Q. and Mallory, J. P. (2006) The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. New York: Oxford University Press.

—

I hesitate to include this, for technically Scaliger never understood how these groups were historically related, and as far as I can tell, never set up any kind of hypothesis to explain what was going on. Thus, I'm not sure if he can be considered an early comparative linguist per se - though I think he deserves be mentioned for this accomplishment somewhere. Perhaps you know of a better article for this information? Also, do you think a table would be a better way to present his correspondences? Varoon Arya 20:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pforzen buckle

This is the image I would like to include in the article Pforzen buckle.

Rendition of the runic instription from the Pforzen buckle.

it looks very nice. Maybe you could add a reference to your souce -- did you draw it after a photograph, or after another drawing? --dab (𒁳) 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Notebook: Agnihotra

Agnihotra (अग्निहोत्र) is a Vedic yajna (ritual or sacrifice) performed by members of orthodox and heterodox Hindu communities. In recent times, agnihotra has also been promoted by various individuals and groups as a non-sectarian ritual for the healing and purification of the atmosphere. It is also a primary source of vibhuti or sacred ash.

The term agnihotra is a karmadharaya compound meaning 'sacrifice (hotra) unto fire (agni)'. It is mentioned in the Atharvaveda (11:7:9) and described in detail in the Shatapatha Brahmana (12:4:1).

For rituals in which agnihotra may play a part, see "Havan" and "Homa".

Purusharthas

Hi Varoon. The inclusion of the word 'sexual' is certainly necessary for describing Kāma. The description given on the Kāma page is: Kāma (Skt., Pali; Devanagari: काम) involves sensual gratification, sexual fulfillment, pleasure of the senses, love, and the aesthetic enjoyments of life. You can see that it is primarily love or sexual enjoyment. Pleasure can be attained through a variety of means other than sex, expecially material prosperity or Artha. Pleasure as such applies to both Kāma and Artha. Now to use the word 'pleasure' alone to denote Kāma would be an extreme generalization and create an ambiguity between Kāma and Artha. I am certain that using the word 'sexual' is correct. Thanks. - Agnistus (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-proto-germanic

Boo! Nordic Bronze Age. Yes they are. They are before Proto-Germanic and they are not known. Look up pre-proto-germanic on the Internet. Look up pre-Germanic on the Internet. Nothing before Proto-Germanic is known and furthermore proto-Germanic is only a reconstruction. Check Lehmann. But you seem to have something else in mind. Let's have it. What have you got? Set the stub up, let's have a look. I suggest for credibility you have some references handy. The only reason I do not revert you right this moment is that I am fascinated by this concept you just presented. In fact while you are doing that I am going to check the Internet. I hope you have something substantial here.Dave 01:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no need to get snippy. I realize the concept of GPL might be new. I'm working on the stub as I write this. The first draft should be up shortly. Also, my comment was directed at the word 'unknown' - not at the fact that they are unattested or reconstructed. A bit of patience, please. =) Varoon Arya 01:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not snippy, I just want you to be be right. Here is what I have so far. Bloomfield page 298 uses Germanic Parent Language but he is not the first. It goes back at least to 1908. But what those people mean by that is Proto-Germanic. Now, "Germanic Parent Language" is used only rarely. It is used however. That does not concern us though. GPL dates to the pre-Roman Iron age. This is the Bronze Age much before it. The language had to evolve from PIE to GPL and while it was doing so it was NOT GPL. I and others cover all that in Proto-Germanic. Furthermore, other than that it was some form of PIE or subsequent we do not know what it was. The previewable books on Google call it pre-proto-Germanic or Pre-Germanic and those are all dated later than 2000. But let's take a look at what you have.Dave 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. Maybe you should stop work on GPL. We HAVE an article on Proto-Germanic. It will just end up getting merged and what have you to say about GPL that is not already in Proto-Germanic?Dave —Preceding comment was added at 01:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If it gets merged, fine. (In fact, I'm fairly certain that someone like DBachmann will insist that it be merged.) But I think it's worth putting up in a separate article anyways. The main reason for this is that - in contradistinction to Proto-Germanic, GPL (particularly as defined by Van Coetsem) includes the incipient non-Germanic stage of PIE, and it covers the entire period from ca. 2000 B.C.E. to ca. 1 C.E. New research shows that the First Sound Shift, for example, didn't happen until ca. 500 B.C.E. But this research also goes on to show that the FSS was not the 'primary marker' of Gmc. development that it has been held to be since the 19th century. Just let me get these notes up and we can talk about it over there. OK? I'm neither a kook nor a fringe-fan. I'm honestly trying to report on what appears to be a new and useful approach to chronology in Gmc. Studies. Varoon Arya 02:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed. It appears that you may be right. And, you got a chance to do it first, as you wished. Here are my observations. First it seems that you are still a little new to Wikipedia. So here are some hints. We seem to be going for in-line notes and page numbers. So, if you could give us a note and a page number on as many ideas as you can that would be more helpful and more in line with what we are doing. Second, you are still relying on weasel words. What we want to know is who says it. If it really is generally said then give us an example and a page number. Those are my main comments. Apart from those things you seem to write like a pro. For myself I am delighted to know so much work has been done, which evidently has escaped the attention of most of the books I checked. That is why you must cite chapter and page, so to speak.

On the notes and biblio items we are using cite web, cite book, etc. I can can get you some help links on that. The idea is, if you have a ref that is repeated, to assign it a name like this: and the next time you cite it you use If you cite a book only once just cite book it in a note but if you are going to refer to different places in it then cite book it in the bibliography and then just note the author's name and page number. All this stuff is tedious but believe me it is worth it. Some writing hints: assume a lower level of knowledge than your own. Don't presume the audience will automatically know what you are talking about. We are not trying to impress the professionals - nothing can impress those buzzards anyway - but make it clear to the general public. Since we have to be concise, keep going over it to make sure that everything it says is exactly true and does not imply an error. And now for the grand finale. As for Bachman, well, I wouldn't hesitate to speak up if he is wrong. The trick is to be right yourself. I don't know what he does in real life and I do not care. He makes mistakes like everyone else. I've been trying to straighten out Proto-Germanic and it was a total mess and Bachmann's signature figured heavily in the history. As for the article, I changed my mind. It is not identical to Proto-Germanic and therefore I would not merge it. Proto-Germanic is long enough. What we need to do I think is use and {{detail}.

And finally you created some work for us. These other articles such as Proto-Germanic now have to be checked to see that they are compatible with your article. One thing I like about Wikipedia is that when it is working right the latest ideas get in there so you do not have buy a thousand books and buy them every year. You get to know what is current. Excuse me but it is late and I am tired. I jump around a lot. I am going to take a break and stop work on the Germanic articles. Then I will start with your article as much to learn from it as anything else. Then the other articles have to be updated, but since most of them were in an absurd mess anyway that can be combined with clean-up. Let me encourage you that if you get attacked by anyone, even Bachman, stick with it.Dave 06:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Dave. Thanks for the constructive criticism. It is appreciated. Yes, I am a relatively new editor here, and I know it shows in my writing and formatting. But I try to make good contributions, and I am willing to learn from more experienced editors.

Regarding the notes and page numbers: I tried to include all the information, but apparently put it in the wrong format. I will try and rearrange the material. The links you mentioned could be helpful here. Also, if there are ideas or phrases that you see as requiring sourcing, please don't hesitate to mention them on the talkpage. I will try and source any such things ASAP, provided I have the literature in front of me (To some degree I'm at the mercy of my local public library, so bear with me.)

Regarding the ‘weasel words’: I wasn’t aware of having used any, as it certainly wasn’t my intent. But I would appreciate it if you could point out individual cases for immediate correction or clarification.

Regarding your comments on style and tone: Duly noted. I will remember these points in future edits here and elsewhere.

Thanks again and I look forward to working with you on future versions of this and related articles. I personally welcome your recent tightening-up of a few Germanic articles. Varoon Arya 13:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Varoon Arya, you are right that I think the article should be merged, but that's because I am a mergist, not because there is anything wrong with it. I really fail to see anything "new" here at all, except for the term. So "GPL" refers to (Pre-Germanic + Proto-Germanic). What is supposed to be controversial about this? It's just a definition of a new term. If people find the term useful, they will use it, and if they prefer to keep talking about Pre-Germanic vs. Proto-Germanic they won't, but there is no disagreement, and no innovation, in substance at all. Your claim that

"this research also goes on to show that the FSS was not the 'primary marker' of Gmc. development that it has been held to be since the 19th century"

is completely mistaken. What research? Saying "hey, let's call Pre-Germanic 'GPL' and include it in 'Germanic' too"? All you have done is re-defining the meaning of "Germanic". That's pure terminology and doesn't affect the central importance of the FSS at all. Every proto-language has a pre-proto-stage. Lehmann likes to talk about pre-proto-stages, since he is into internal reconstruction. But it is perfectly arbitrary to talk about "GPL" in particular. You might just write the same article verbatim, mutatis mutandis for, say, the "Tamil Parent Language", the "French Parent Language" (Vulgar Latin), or any other language to care to mention. I am also afraid this may have some ideological baggage of the "antiquity frenzy" type attached. So we redefine "Germanic" to extend back into the Bronze Age. To me, this is reminiscent of Greek patriots insisting on redefining "Hellenic languages" to include Macedonian by definition. That's "proof by fiddling with terminology", not a very satisfying procedure in my book. dab (𒁳) 08:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The point with the FSS is that, though central in the current defintion of Proto-Germanic (some saying that to even think of a pre-FSS Proto-Germanic constitutes an affront to good sense) and the most readily identifiable marker used to contrast Gmc with non-Gmc IE languages, it is not central to language development in the GPL. Rather, it is seen as a consequence of earlier changes which were partly areal (including Balto-Slavic and Celtic, possibly including some near-east representatives) and partly unique to Gmc. In other words, from the perspective of GPL, FSS is not the ‘benchmark’ it has been portrayed to be (Schutz in 1983, for example, makes FSS out to be the ‘birth certificate of Gmc’, a view which Van Coetsem, Birkhan and others have rightly criticised), but rather one (gradual; see Volyes’ Early Germanic Grammar for a very interesting discussion on the identification of overlapping, partly areal stages in FSS) change among many. As such, GPL helps to put all this in one theoretical framework, and I, for one, find the term and its attendent concepts extremely useful.

Van Coetsem also discusses the possible drawbacks of the term GPL, admitting that it could be interpreted as “not entirely adequate, since it includes the notion of Gmc and at the same time refers to an incipient stage that is PreGmc”. He is quick to note, however, that it fits better with the actual work done on FSS, and thus merely provides a theoretical framework for examining the open issues on the matter as formulated by Birkhan back in the 70’s.

If others want to write articles with titles like the ones you mention, I’m not going to stop them, provided they have respectable literature to document the actual use of the respective terms. I’m not coining the phrase GPL. I’m just reporting on its use in the lierature.

And no one (that I have quoted, at least) is suggesting that we redefine Gmc to extend back to the NBA. To do so would be to contradict the entire notion behind GPL. So, though it may or may not provide fringe-writers with cannon fodder for their publications and web-hatched concoctions, I hardly see any reason to dismiss it offhand as suffering from "antiquity frenzy".

Thanks for the feedback and I hope to see your participation in future edition of the article. Varoon Arya 14:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

only by severely misrepresenting the mainstream view GPL is supposed to be replacing can you claim that the concept holds anything new. GPL isn't a "theoretical framework" at all, it is just a new term for a period that has been assumed all along. dab (𒁳) 16:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

dab, it is not my personal intent to misrepresent anything or anyone. GPL is not meant to ‘replace’ the mainstream view. As far as I can tell from Van Coetsem’s description and use of it, it is meant to complement and confirm the mainstream view. The only possible point of contention with the mainstream view that I have been able to identify thus far is the significance attributed to the FSS and its (mainly ideological) indicatory status of the ‘Germanic-ness’ of the language in question. No, GPL doesn’t throw the importance of FSS into question. But it does work as an Überbegriff which facilitates an understanding of synchronic variations which preceded and possibly led to FSS, and which belong to Pre-Gmc.

Yes, it is a new label for a connection that is implicit in a great deal of modern research. I’m not claiming (and neither is Van Coetsem) that the conceptual content of GPL is revolutionary or even new. It’s just an effort at making explicit what has been assumed on good grounds for decades. However, this is, unless I am missing something, no reason to debunk it and deem an article on it unwarranted. (And BTW, I didn’t claim that GPL is a stand-alone theoretical framework. A careful reading reveals that I said it helps to put the data discussed into one theoretical framework. Sorry for the misunderstanding.)

If I understand you correctly (please correct me if necessary), I think your main concern here is that the term ‘Germanic’, which, in its most narrow and technical sense, has been limited to the dialectical manifestations of the Common Era, is being used to apply to a much greater span of time. But the point you may be overlooking (or perhaps rather: the point you are concerned that the more casual reader will overlook) here is (1) the term ‘Germanic’ is not one cast in stone and notions regarding what it indicates can (and certainly should, given the collective track record of the last century) change with an increase in the differentiation of our understanding, (2) the term GPL itself refers to the Parent Language (which was certainly not identical to PIE, and can safely be termed an IE dialect) and not to ‘Germanic’ as commonly perceived, and (3) if anything, the notion of GPL offers a justifiable and welcome broadening of the linguistic nomenclature while simultaneously diffusing its potential for leading to notions of ‘Germanic Genius’ or ‘Indigenous Innovation’ when discussing (arguably ‘radical’) changes like the FSS. (In fact, it could well be argued that this connection of FSS with said ‘Germanic-ness’ and the apparent unwillingness to see it as a natural change, dictated by reflexes of simple rules inherent in the (P)IE grammar, and even somewhat predictable given the circumstances, was one of the contributing factors in the appearance of theories such as the Germanic Substrate Hypothesis, which has done more to fuel socio-political agenda of the Post-WWII era than to help develop useable linguistic results. Granted, it has done something in the direction of working out theories of language contact, but a number of these have been developed more as a reaction against GSH than as a refinement of the same. I don’t recall who it was at the moment, but one Germanist referred to it as a ‘linguistic deus ex machina’. But, I digress…)

Regarding what I can discern as your comments of a more editorial nature, I will henceforth reply on the appropriate talkpage. Thanks again. Varoon Arya 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Templates n' stuff

Wikipedia:Citation templatesDave 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably going to put a lot of inline templates on there marking places where I think there are weasel words or it gets confusing for the ordinary reader or it is perhaps too concise for comprehension. I started out to do that but you started working on it so I lost them all. To say something concisely yet clearly is not really an easy task. Anyone can summarize what they know but can those summaries be understood? I have a book on the chemical evolution of life which I thought was going to enlighten me on the subject but the author did nothing but make vague reference to inaccessible books and journals throughout the entire work without explanation or summary. I don't know why he bothered. Only those with his knowledge could understand it, but then they wouldn't need to read it. Writing is a different game, the art of making yourself understood. But I'm rambling. As to whether Bachman is right that is not clear yet. Let's see how the article develops. There are two points of view on it now, the one expressed by him and the one expressed by us. Only further development of the article can clarify which will be more appropriate. Meanwhile don't get upset by the templates. Just keep thinking about it. There is plenty of time, it is not as though we are working under a deadline here.Dave 10:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dave, so far your edits haven't bothered me in the least. In fact, you have been quite helpful. Your continued participation on the article is more than welcome. Aryaman (☼) 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Paleolithic Continuity Theory

As expected Rokus has failed to proved the "explicit sources" you asked for, but has tried argue his point that he must be right because it would be a contradiction in terms to "link reputed scholars to a fringe theory". Of course anyone can link reputed scholars to a fringe theory. That's what WP:SYN is about! So I would suggest that you should not be asking Rokus whether he objects or not before going ahead. I'm sure other editors would support you. I don't feel sufficiently confident about this particular topic to intervene boldly myself. Best Wishes, Paul B (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Varoon Arya! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | watch Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | watch

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ring of Pietroassa

The article you asked me to have a look at looks good, but if you intend to have it pas GA or FA, I believe that you need to add inline references of the type <ref name="xxx">reference</ref> when you support the article with references.--Berig (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Adoption?

Hello Varoon! I'd be happy to help you out however you need. I can formally adopt you, or you're more than welcome to drop me a line on my talk page whenever you have a question. Which would you prefer? GlassCobra 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Think you deseve some..

		Cookies!
		Here are some cookies as a way of saying "thank you" for contributing to our project. Keep up the good work! Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Ring of Pietroassa, revisited

Hi Aryaman. I have had a few looks between our correspondences and if you want me to nitpick, there is one thing I'd like you to watch out for and possibly fix in the text. It is convention to have transliterations of runes in bold e.g. gutaniowi hailag, and transcriptions in italics, e.g. gutaneis weih hailag. When I read the article, I am not sure if you are consistent with this, but in case you are you should just ignore this comment. However, I do not think you should have transliterations between brackets [...]. Brackets are only for lost runes that are conjectured.--Berig (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

When I see the parentheses as in hailag (i)owī gutanī, I get confused as to whether it is transliteration or transcription. If it is transcription, then the (i) represents an optional rendering of Gothic, but if it is transliteration, it means that the i rune is difficult to read. Since you have the original sources, you know much better than me what it is. Since I write a lot on runes, tiny details such as a neat separation between transliteration and transcription mean a whole lot to how I understand the text :).--Berig (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Düwel made a mix of transliteration and transcription, mainly marking the difference between the two with brackets.--Berig (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem can appear during a few minutes, but it works for me now. The conventions I talk about may seem like pedantry, but I am still impressed with how cleverly worked out they have become through four centuries of runology in Scandinavia, and they are very useful for conveying information.--Berig (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)--Berig (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a little "guide" on top of the talkpage.--Berig (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

You've done some impressive work on the Ring of Pietroassa, and it's definitely getting ready for a GA review. It's late here though, so I'll have to wait until tomorrow before I give you some deeper feedback on the article.--Berig (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is fine for GA nomination. There are no objections that I would make for GA status.--Berig (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Nine Herbs Charm

Hello Varoon, thanks for the additions on the Nine Herbs Charm article. I should have gotten around to that some time ago! I would like to see this extremely interesting (to me) poem reach GA status. So, of course, if you have anything to add, you are welcome to. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wielbark

Hi, and thanks for the book tip. I've heard of Heather, but so far I haven't got around to buy the book. You are right that the Wielbark culture was an ethnically mixed society, but I think that it's pretty obvious. As far as I know the ethnicities of the migration age consisted of charismatic clans who gathered allied groups around them and the Goths who finally invaded the Roman Empire were probably a very mixed bunch of people. BTW, you might want to read the book "Well-spring of the Goths" by Nordgren[1]. It also stresses the multi-ethnic composition of the Gothic people and it features the Ring of Pietroassa on its cover.--Berig (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, thanks for the link to Google books. I was relieved to see that Heather's maps were in agreement with the sources I have used (at least in the selection of pages Google allows us to read).--Berig (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I only know the author Ingmar Nordgren by way of e-mail, and he has explained his ideas to me. He is a very nice man, so don't hesitate to write him if you wonder about anything.--Berig (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Greece Runestones

I'd be flattered if you would review Greece Runestones for me. Thanks!--Berig (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good feedback that you have given me. I will go through the points you have given me during the next few days, and you are also welcome to improve it according to your suggestions. I doubt you'll make any changes that I wouldn't approve of.--Berig (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll continue tomorrow night. Thanks for the help!--Berig (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll have some time this evening to go through the article. As for the {{fact}} tag I was a bit surprised. As a group these runestones are assumed to be raised in memory of members of the Varangian Guard, although all of them were probably not. By entailment every single runestone are covered by the statement "may have been raised in memory of a member of the Varangian Guard". It is, however, not necessary to add such a statement for every runestone, so I'll just remove the sentence you wanted a ref for.--Berig (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You must have been surprised by the mention of Visäte as the runemaster of U 73. He is not mentioned by any of the two stones that he made at the location. However, scholars have made laser scans of the inscriptions and discovered that every runemaster had his own very special way of working. It's like a fingerprint. They have even discovered that a runemaster may have begun the work and then let his apprentice(s) continue. The results of these identifications have been included in Rundata and so they tell who the runemaster was, whether he is mentioned by the inscription, or identified by modern runologists.--Berig (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your help is most welcome, and I think the article is getting better. I'll get back to the article later this evening.--Berig (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have as much time as I thought I would tonight. Please check if you have any additional points, or if there are points that I have forgotten to fix.--Berig (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon category question

Hello Aryaman, I have a question that you might have an answer to since you seem to know your way around technical matters on Wikipedia pretty well. Right now, we have the category [[Category:Anglo-Saxon mythology]]. I think this would do much better and be much more encompassing as [[Category:Anglo-Saxon paganism]]. Is there any way to just rename this category without having to go through the process of deleting the other first? Do we need to vote on a category name change? :bloodofox: (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration/transcription

Hi Aryaman. Sure, I can write something on this. Luckily, there is an online reference on the site of the Swedish National Heritage Board (similar to the National Trust or English Heritage). They don't call it transcription, but normalization, though.--Berig (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If included into MoS, I think I need to establish consensus first on whether to call it transcription or normalization. What we are talking about is the transcription of runes into normalized spelling, so both terms should be equally possible and I'd prefer not to change the terminology in every single runic article that I have written.--Berig (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started the article Runic transliteration and transcription.--Berig (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. I also avoid editing articles that someone else is busy working on, and that is why I limited my involvment in Ring of Pietroassa quite a lot.--Berig (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Ancient Germanic culture

You invited me to add runic content to the portal. I think that I am too involved in the subject and I would not be very good at adding what the general reader would find interesting. However, if you want some suggestions, you could add the Rök Runestone, the Piraeus Lion or some inscriptions from the Sigurd stones.--Berig (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Barbarians

Any idea where we can vote for the fate of this? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

Thanks Aryaman for telling me you liked my help. I never deline a cookie or any other kind of award though ;).--Berig (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!! I am really flattered to receive that award from you :).--Berig (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

what can I say

Thank you, I had an enjoyable time reviewing the article and to get cookies as well. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 17:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Germanic peoples

I've added my name to the list since the project appears to need at least five signatures to get started, and now it has five signatures. I believe that you, Bloodofox and Skadinaujo have the dedication needed for a working project.--Berig (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Award

File:Odin Vendel helmet.jpg		The Odin Award
		What could be more fitting as an award for your organizational skills and work on Germanic articles than an award referring to the great organizer in Germanic myth and legend, Odin.--Berig (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you like it :). It is well-deserved.--Berig (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Task force

I have started here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies/Runes. I saw that there is a wikiproject which calls "task forces" "work groups" and I think it's a better name which emphasises the collaborative aspect.--Berig (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Manx Runestones

Sure, it's a good subject for an article. I will need to write the article on the Bornholm runestones first, though.--Berig (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Rhetoric

Varoon Arya, hi, I very much appreciate that you are offering some intelligent opinions in the discussion, but can I ask you to tone down your rhetoric a bit, at Talk:European ethnic groups? The level of personal attacks there (from multiple parties) has been steadily increasing, and this comment of yours was a bit excessive.[2] I do realize that you weren't so much attacking him, as discussing the tone of the discussion, but I'd prefer if we could find ways to de-escalate the dispute. To keep the conversation on track, I'm trying to encourage everyone to focus on discussing article content, instead of the contributors. Thanks, Elonka 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Awww, I was hoping you would continue, as the conversation definitely needs more signal and less noise. But up to you!  :) --Elonka 15:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Surrender, Arya

No, please do not! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to give up on the European Ethnic Group article I am not sure the article has much hope. I have written a lot recently trying to make it a more amenable place for you, and I am not alone, hope you will stick around. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, i know what it is like, I have three journal ms.s I have to review and can't be too active myself. But thanks for getting back to me, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

feedback

Am I wrong about this and the paragraph preceeding? Can you make a constructive comment? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal Message

Dear Varoon, this is a personal message. Are you the same Varoon who was involved in many discussions in Arya Samaj forums and communities about an year ago? Waiting for your response.

Amit

Tuisto now a Good Article

Hey Varoon, it seems you're still away, but I thought you might want to know that Tuisto has reached Good Article status. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Bülach Inschrift.jpg

Image:Bülach Inschrift.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Bulach Inschrift.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Bulach Inschrift.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hello Varoon, I noticed your recent edits a couple of days ago, are you returning to edit again? –Skadinaujo T•C 23:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still here, putting around when time permits. I rarely log on, as I haven't had the time to go into heavy edits, and have kept to fixing typos and grammatical errors. But thanks for the note. :) Aryaman (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion on Ethnic groups in Europe

Hi. Dinkyman has recently brought up a complaint on WP:ANI about the section of this article for which you have made a number of helpful suggestions for sources. You might want to comment there. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I hold nothing against you either. In fact, I appreciate your presence as a voice of moderation from a group that I have lost a lot of respect for due to the little bickering of Dinky and Mathsci. However, even the title of the book spells out opinion to me. I could try to work with people on the issue to improve that article, heck, I would probably be doing that, but Slrubenstein and mathsci are rather obnoxious and I'd rather not cooperate with either of them at this point out of sheer dislike. It's not anything they did to me, but seriously, mathsci was so desperate to not get the stuff deleted, he randomly switches the topic to some thing about some picture on Dinkytown's page. Dinkytown was a little bit too assertive, and he's partly at fault, but really, I want nothing to do with the drama on that page now. I might comment on the complaint thing, but then again, I might just be only seeing the bad, obnoxious side of those two (I doubt it, but oh well...).

Perhaps the page isn't necessarily slush, but its still opinion (I too, am familiar with the subject of a European identity). There's nothing wrong with an opinion page, in my mind, it simply that these are not facts that can be proven right or wrong, but rather, personal views. If it was ACTUALLY presented as such, and alternative views presented as well. Subjects like nationality almost always are. A hundred years ago, the Slavs in Macedonia called themselves Bulgarians and emphasized their common heritage with Bulgarians. Now, however, they insist that they have little in common with the Bulgarians. Just a few decades ago, many Croats, Serbs and Bosniaqs viewed themselves as one ethnic group, now that has almost dissapeared. Identification of groups and individuals changed a lot when linguistic study became prominent. Am I wrong to speculate that a similar effect may arise from increasing study of human genetics? Perhaps it already is starting to.

What I am saying is that the page portrays one viewpoint, and that's not the only one. Many scholars back it today, tomorrow they may not. Views on "common European identity" very from country to country as well, as well as what this European identity. I don't think you'll please many people east of the Czech Republic, the Roman Empire (which most constituent peoples didn't consent to in the first place) won't please Scandinavians or anyone else not formerly in the empire, and Indo-European languages as the identity somehow includes Bengalis but not Hungarians. Religious definitions are even more tenuous, and possibly even dangerous.

And lastly, as many sceptics to the concept of Europeanism (I won't say Eurosceptics, as those refer to the EU) have noted, the boundaries of Europe are extremely inapplicable to the people. Even the boundaries sometimes make it look geographically ridiculous. The Bosporus has historically served as anything BUT a cultural boundary, and the Ural mountains don't even extend south to the Caspian sea, rather, of all things, the boundary is continued by... a river? (because that's a real boundary to human settlement, sure)

I'm not saying that either side is necessarily right, but the truth is that there is no FACTS on that section of the page. There is no way to prove them right or wrong aside from, of course, opinionated arguments that can be debated either way, and they are ultimately qualitative as being based on perceptions of culture and history, rather than quantitative. The problem is that the page portrays them as if they are as sure as the sun setting in the west. They aren't. --Yalens (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Race and crime in the United States

Congrats, btw, good work on improving the quality of the citation lines. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

African-American Men in College

Hi! Thanks for talking to me about this issue instead of just engaging in an edit war unlike some editors I've come across in the past. I've seen the figure for black men in college in 2000 but some sources claim that the number of black men in college has changed since then:

http://www.skepticism.net/?p=18

Does this seem like a legitimate source? Please let me know. --Full Shunyata Full Shunyata (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll have to look for better sources. I'm glad you believe in civility. ;) Something that is unfortunately too lacking on Wikipedia. Full Shunyata (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look at this?

I know you’ve got a lot on your plate already, but whenever you have the chance I’d appreciate you taking a look at Race and intelligence and its discussion page. I’ve been involved in this article for quite a while (it’s how I originally found the Race and crime one), and it has a lot of the same issues that Race and crime has had recently, such as a collection of tags that seem to be present only because certain editors want them there.

Although I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about this topic, your research and organizational skills would definitely be useful here. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.

I just wanted to say, thanks for your participation on the Race and intelligence talk page. I really appreciate having someone else there who's devoted to actually improving the article, rather than just to making it conform to their own viewpoint. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

race

I am sorry if i have misjudged you. At the end of your comment you mention "within racial-tehnic groups." Why do you combine race and ethnicity? Also, do the articles you cite say "racial-ethnic?" Or do they say "racial?" Or just "ethnic?" Or something altogether different? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

I know this is kind of a big job, but sometime soon I’d like it if you could take a look at all of the edits that T34CH just made to the race and intelligence article, and revert those of them that are obvious NPOV violations. I’d do this myself, but I’ve already reverted the article either two or three times in the past day, depending on whether following Alun’s suggestion about the lead sentence of the “genetic hypothesis” section is considered a revert. I suspect that at this point I won’t be able to fix the POV problems caused by T34CH without violating 3RR, which I’d rather not do, because the penalty will probably be more severe if I do this again so soon after the last time I was punished for it.

If you like, you can also try working on the other issue I’ve raised on the talk page, which is overall balance. As I said there, almost the entire article is now presented as a criticism of the hereditarian viewpoint, with only a few sentences left to talk about the support for it. Legalleft’s proposed edit here is a fairly good guide to the sort of information the article ought to include, although his explanation of this probably goes into more detail than is necessary. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you haven’t given up on this. I’m about to go to bed (I’m nocturnal at the moment) so I won’t be able to help you with the article for the next few hours, but if T34CH and other editors continue to display this attitude, I’d suggest bringing it at the NPOV noticeboard or somewhere similar. The fact that he’s violating NPOV is obvious enough that even people who aren't familiar with the topic of the article should be able to recognize this problem. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

VA, sometime I'd appreciate having your feedback about my suggestion of incorporating information from the 2006 version of the article, as I've now brought this up on the article talk page. Apart from possibly arguing with Ramdrake's opposition to this idea, I also would like you to let me know whether you think I should incorporate either more or less information from the earlier version than what I've suggested there. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

If you can't explain your problem on the talk page, please explain it here. T34CH (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Encouragement & perspective

Hi Arya,

I'd like to commend you for the work you've done about the place - across many articles. I like your editing style, calmly reporting the science.

Consider that this page does not even have to be perfect for it to lead people to the correct information. Teach the controversy. All that people need to know is that an academic controversy exists.

Curious people will then search off wiki where they can make up their own minds with the latest theories and research - in complete detail. It matters little what the 'social-contructers' state here. Intelligent people already recognise them as lies.

Intelligent people reading this live in the real world - they already recognise that the social-contruct alibis do not add up. In fact, they are so off base from reality as to be insulting. It is so basic that any previously isolated child watching an Olympic games on TV figures this out. (Maybe they'll have to pixelate all the athletes in the future, ha.)

I believe that many of the 'social contruct' rhetoricians also know they are perpetuating a polite fiction. And it is 'polite'. But, equality theory is worth a great deal of public money, shovelled towards what are now increasingly desperate 'cures' that do not exist.

Anyway, whether you do any more work on this topic or not, best wishes and thanks for your work.

Best, Anon 202.6.155.198 (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to self:

Learn from Ed Poor's example.

bouchard paper

i can give you a copy of the paper. send me an email using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Distributivejustice with an email address you'd like to use to receive it. --DJ (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

deletion review

(for Snyderman and Rothman (study) )Very good response of yours' there. People should take it a san example of how to deal with such a situation. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi

Hi VA, I just thought I should let you know that I've finally posted at AN/I about Muntuwandi's continued violation of the terms of his probation. Since this is something that you and I have both been trying to deal with, I thought you might want to participate in the discussion there also.

If you do, it's here. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just out of pure curiosity, I entered "Muntuwandi" in the searchbox on this page and hit enter. I highly suggest you do the same. :) --Aryaman (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like Race and genetics has been one of his targets for this sort of behavior in the past. I'd already known he'd been banned for this before, but I hadn't been aware that it was previously directed at the same article that it currently is. I guess that isn't such a surprise, though.

Would you suggest that I bring up any of his earlier conduct in the AN/I report? Since he's already been banned for it and then allowed back, it seems like his current violations of his probation might be the only aspects of his conduct that are relevant at this point. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You've probably noticed the resolution to my AN/I report by now--One month of 0RR on Race and genetics for both me and Muntuwandi. While I don't consider this an ideal solution, I think it probably will still help to stabilize the article.

The fact of the matter is that as long as Muntuwandi isn't able to push his POV on that article by continuing to revert it, I don't have a problem with keeping my own involvement there to a minimum. I may continue to comment on the discussion page from time to time, but for the most part I'm willing to leave it up to you and David.Kane to revise the article at this point. I trust both you and him to do a balanced job with this. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of wikipedia is that it is an encylopedia that "anyone can edit". It is great for the democratization of knowledge. There are some drawbacks or side effects. An individual can edit articles with material that he or she is clueless about. Some uninformed editors even take it further by creating disputes, edit warring and even getting other editors blocked. Wikipedia has about 3 million articles and about 1000 administrators so we have 1 administrator for every 3000 articles. This basically means that administrators have no idea what is taking place in most content disputes, and their actions are limited to protecting articles and blocking 3RR violations. As a result,uninformed editors can potentially cause quite a bit of damage because in some of these complicated disputes, administrators have an impossible task of separating the wheat from the chaff. Furthermore, with 3 million articles, many articles receive limited attention from the community.

I am very interested in anthropology and human population genetics, as I believe they are fascinating subjects. I am no expert or specialist but one can pick up a lot of information from the internet or a library. I think I have read enough on some of these subjects to be able to recognize when an editor is clueless. The material isn't rocket science, but one needs to have read it to know it. In the past I have gotten entangled in disputes with some of these uninformed types which resulted in my "colorful history" and a block. It was only because of the support of some informed editors that I was allowed to return. In summary, those who know more tend to disagree less. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What’s your point? Is this your roundabout way of saying that you think Varoon Arya and I are a pair of these “clueless” “uninformed types” that you’re talking about, and that if we knew more about the topics in question we would agree with you about them, but you don’t want to say this directly because you were just reported for making personal attacks?

I think you would be surprised how knowledgeable it’s possible to be about a topic, while still disagreeing not only with other people who are equally knowledgeable about it, but in some cases also disagreeing with reality itself. I see this fairly often while debating with creationists, but for a more recent example that we’ve both had the chance to observe, consider Alun’s comments on the Race and genetics discussion page before he stopped participating there. He’s clearly knowledgeable about genetics, and so one would expect that his opinions would be consistent with the research on this area, right? Except that the viewpoint he kept expounding there—that there was no meaningful correlation between social concepts of race and genetic clusters based on biogeographical ancestry—is directly contradicted by studies such as this one, which found a 99.86% correlation between the two. And the reason for this discrepancy is that knowledge about any topic isn’t the same thing as lack of bias.

I find it pretty arrogant of you to think that the only reason anyone would disagree with you is because they know less than you do, and that this is what’s caused you to get in trouble here in the past. Apart from what I mentioned about how knowledgeable people can still disagree, you seem to also think I’m not already familiar with the reason why you were banned last year. Do you expect me to believe that your superior knowledge about genetics is a sufficient explanation for your extensive usage of sockpuppet accounts? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe Varoon added some new material on linguistics from History and Geography of Human Genes. Much of the current controversy in race and genetics centers on an image that Occam created and stated that he had not read the original publication. I think we can all agree that it is more helpful if editors are familiar, or are willing to be familiar, with the material associated with the articles they edit.

I did not say that knowledgeable people don't disagree, but that they disagree less. Even the Vatican now accepts the theory of Evolution but states that it is not inconsistent with creation, whereas 150 years ago the church completely rejected evolution. You say that "if we knew more about the topics in question we would agree with you about them", and this is true but I actually meant, if we all knew more then we would all agree more. I don't believe I have superior knowledge about genetics, as I mentioned, I am no specialist or expert, I am even surprised that I am allowed to edit such articles as race and genetics as I have had no academic exposure on these topics. However it was pretty clear to me early on that some of the editors, with whom I was involved in a dispute, had not read some of the important publications related to the article. IOW editors who hadn't read the relevant publications were disputing someone who had, even accusing him of being a POV pusher. And yes this is not the first time this has happened, I have examples. This incident is a petty dispute, and would I prefer to discuss more recent important scientific findings. If others are really interested in improving the article, rather than advancing some social/political POV, I suggest they do the same. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

R & I

I have not proposed a page or topic ban for anybody. What troubles me significantly, however, about your own "line of reasoning" about content is that it appears to favour disproprtionately the input of individuals associated with American Renaissance (magazine). Donald Templer is an example [3]; Lynn and Rushton are others. The recent writings of Templer have been criticized by Hunt and Sternberg in very much the same way that Lynn has been criticized by McKintosh and others (i.e. that what he writes is misleading, is based on flawed scientific methodology and the misuse of statistics). In giving WP:UNDUE weight to this small coterie, unencyclopedic content will result. As regards IQ in Africa, the most that can be said from available recent sources is that not enough controlled sets of data are available. Perhaps there are South African studies of a possible black-white intelligence gap in that country. Are you aware of any such studies conducted since apartheid ended? Mathsci (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, I haven't made any concrete suggestions other than to either properly source the passage in question or to remove it. Though you have provided a few useable links, we would be much further along in improving this part of the article without your involvement in this discussion.

The fact that a scholar has been criticized is in itself no cause for alarm. It happens to all respectable scholars on a regular basis, as you should know. Yet you take the position that Lynn's critics are necessarily right, and that is troubling. Apparently you have not stopped to consider the possibility that you are parroting a POV. On top of that, you consistently portray anyone who attempts to approach the available literature in a neutral and objective fashion as "disruptive". It is somewhat unfortunate that there isn't more real POV pushing going on in this discussion (i.e. that we don't have anyone there pushing for either the 100% genetic thesis or the "pure" race theory), because then it might become clear to you that you are construing the actions of good faith editors as POV when they are not. --Aryaman (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would remove the passage entirely as there are at present no definitive or reliable sources available dealing with comprehensive measurements of intelligence in Africa.

If I repeat what Emeritus Professor of Experimental Psychology NJ McKintosh has written about Lynn, I would ask you to remain civil and not accuse me of "parroting" a point of view. I don't think McKintosh and other eminent academics were lying when they wrote of distortion of statistics and flawed scientific methodology. I don't even think that what they wrote is a point of view: it was an objective assessment. Perhaps you should do a little more non-controversial mainstream editing before trying to edit controversial articles like this one. I have only added sources to the article, as far as I remember. However, I do not wish the article to become a mouthpiece for shoddy and misleading fringe scholarship, masquerading as science. That is my point of view, if there is one. Thank you, Mathsci (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Reporting on McKintosh and his findings is one thing. Taking McKintosh's position and repeating it as an "objective assessment" is another, as is portraying a contested 2009 literature review as the "definitive" view on IQ scores in Africa. How can you not see that portraying Lynn's work - or the work of any scholar who publishes in peer-reviewed journals and whose findings receive wide circulation - as "shoddy and misleading fringe scholarship" is as non-neutral as it gets? --Aryaman (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you genuinely believed I was POV-pushing by suggesting on a talk page that Lynn's methods have been discredited in various peer-reviewed articles, then of course you should report me immediately on WP:ANI or possibly lodge an ArbCom request. On the other hand it could be that you yourself do not fully understand wikipedia policies on the assessment of sources. Not all sources are of equal relevance, reliability or importance, just as in RL the University of Ulster is not the University of Cambridge or Yale University. In most scientific disciplines it is neither hard nor contentious to name the principal researchers in that field. In fringe topics like Race and intelligence, where few established academics contribute, it is far more difficult. Cold fusion is a good example. In this particular case, it is for example very hard to assess the work of Donald Templer, let alone his home institution in Fresno. My advice to you would be to take a break from editing controversial articles that can never be encyclopedic. Try a non-controversial mainstream article for a change just to gain a little more experience. Mathsci (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, I was editing long before I ever became involved in any race-related topics. My involvement here began only after my attention was drawn to the unfair treatment of another editor and the irrational behavior of several editors in regards to a group of related articles, most notably Race and crime in the United States. In the early stages of my involvement there, it was claimed by a particular group of editors that I displayed an "anti-black bias". Before long, another group claimed I displayed an "anti-white" bias for the very same edits. Apparently, the article pleases neither the afrocentrists nor the white supremacists. Well, that's fine with me, as I'm not here to pander to their POVs. The article is now solidly founded in the most popular and respectable reliable sources, is balanced in its presentation according to the presentations made in those sources, and remains neutral in regards to the issue at hand. Its content is a summary of exactly what a reader will find if they pick up one of the standard works (i.e. the works being used in numerous university courses on race and crime studies) on the issue. The talkpage has returned to normalcy, and the hoard of critics this article used to have (I don't know how many times it was put up for AfD before I got involved) has dwindled down to one particularly stubborn and erratic contributor (who simply cannot be pleased IMO), the others having simply left the discussion, returning to more productive activities. I consider my involvement with that article at an end, and I am happy to move on. Of course, it's only a matter of time until some POV-pusher comes along and stirs up the whole mess again, but I'm satisfied that I was able to bring some balance to the situation, if only temporarily.

I don't think reporting that Lynn's methods have been criticized is POV-pushing. I think that trying to blacklist Lynn's work because of that criticism is POV-pushing. The "big question marks" hanging over the work of Lynn, Jensen and Rushton are in the main a socio-politcal reaction to their findings. If one examines this criticism with objectivity, a great deal of it is simply unconvincing. Granting that the Snyderman & Rothman study has any credibility, misrepresentation of their views and false reports of consensus are common fare in both the media and a minority of researchers' reviews, and the situation has only worsened in the last 20 years. Given the charged atmosphere surrounding this issue, I am naturally skeptical of data on both sides, and rumors of "manipulation" are not enough to convince me manipulation has actually occurred. I want to see and report upon the hard numbers, not assumptions and fallacious arguments driven by bias. Now, if Lynn or anyone else has intentionally manipulated data, then of course he is to be reprimanded for it. But I don't see how anyone involved can be viewed as beyond suspicion, regardless of their academic credentials. At the same time, I am willing to consider a logically sound argument from any quarter, provided it appears in peer-reviewed literature. Though I can accept that the larger media outlets manipulate science to fit their social agenda, I don't want to see Wikipedia follow suit. However, if that is what Wikipedia is designed to do, then I want no part of it. --Aryaman (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is perhaps worth noticing that if you genuinely believe someone is POV-pushing, then the advice you have been given, namely to take it straight to WP:ANI or ArbCom, is less than helpful -- as you probably are well aware, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is the first step. It's also worth pointing out that you need not be unduly cast down by being chided for not being familiar with Wikipedia's policies on the assessment of sources, since the advice on Wikipedia:Reliable sources constitutes guidelines, and the two are by no means the same things. I would suggest that you do not allow yourself to be unduly swayed by the not-always-helpful advice of editors on a campaign to defend what, in their personal opinions, constitutes "good" science" against what they regard as "bad". As far as ranking scientists and their institutions is concerned, it may be noted that there are good scientists at not-so-good universities, and not-so-good scientists at good ones, even Cambridge 213.48.162.12 (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

←The above is probably a posting by a sockpuppet of A.K.Nole/Quotient group/213.48.162.2/213.48.162.4, so can safely be ignored.

Lynn's fringe theories can be reported if the criticisms of his flawed methodology and manipulation of statistics are mentioned. For an example, see Race_Differences_in_Intelligence#Criticism. (BTW Nicholas John Mackintosh has been an FRS since 1987. [4] It's interesting to note that Robert Sternberg, previously at Yale, is now also a distinguished associate of the Psychometrics Centre in Cambridge.) Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Being curious who A.K.Nole is and why Mathsci has a problem with him, I did a bit of searching and found this thread from AN/I. Apparently A.K.Nole is an editor who reported Mathsci for outing personal information about him in July. As can be seen here, when the administrators decided against doing anything about this, A.K.Nole apparently abandoned Wikipedia as a result.

Some of the comments from other editors in the AN/I thread about this were quite telling. I'll quote a couple of them:

Walking away could be a good way for you, A.K.Nole. However, it is understandable that A.K.Nole is very angry with Mathsci's repeated inappropriate attempts to smear A.K.Nole's image. (OUTing is a serious violation that warrants "immediate blocks" if he really did) Since Mathsci has been officially warned several times by admins for his incivility and other inappropriate behaviors (like harassment as Abd pointed out) to not only you but also the other editor, if he continues the same problematic behavior again, then make a new ANI report, and see the consequence. He could not evade from sanctions forever. Or you can seek a justice with RFC/U or RFAR against Mathsci if you must feel obliged to file so, but that takes a lot of time and energy. Currently many editors/admins are watching on Mathsci and WMC's behavior for a while, so let's others handle it. --Caspian blue 18:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I find this entire matter unsettling. User:Mathsci's behavior has been nothing but uncivil, firing off warnings of blocks right off the bat instead of trying to civily work things out. Here, from CoM's talk page[5], and from AKNoles talk page [6], [7],[8], and AKNole attempted a dispute resolution, which was blanked and summaried as "rv edit by disruptive troll." [9]. Being an expert on a very technical subject is not carte blanche to act so uncivily to other editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livewireo (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

VA, you might want to try doing a search for Mathsci at AN/I. It seems rather clear that he's only narrowly been able to avoid an indefinite block for the behavior described in these quotes, and that it won't require much more of this from him for the administrators to place one on him. This is something you might want to keep in mind during your future discussions with him. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than getting personal, please take this discussion to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Race_and_Intelligence, which is a more appropriate location to discuss the question of whether Race and Intelligence is indeed, as asserted above, a fringe topic. 213.48.162.17 (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was quickly reached that the topic is encyclopedic and not fringe. Hope that helps. Thanks to everyone who contributed. 213.48.162.5 (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Group difference table: Belgium

Are you surethat in this picture the role of Flemish and French people in Belgium shouldn't be reversed? I don't know about the test scores, but isn't the "status" of Flemish people above that of the French? 62.47.188.229 (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised as well, but that is how it stands in the original. The authors of the book admit that the table was created to make a point, not to be accurate. Frankly, I'd like to see the whole thing deleted from the article, as it's simply shoddy work. But quite a few people have a vested interested in seeing it remain. If you'd like to participate in the current discussion regarding its removal, see here. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing

It looks like you were probably right about this happening. T34CH had no contributions anywhere at Wikipedia in over a week, but he immediately showed up again in the Race and intelligence discussion as soon as he was needed there in order to influence its outcome. Considering he was no long participating in this or any other article, it seems highly unlikely that he would have immediately noticed what we were discussing there without someone else contacting him.

According to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing, editors aren’t supposed to do this. Do you know what the proper process is for dealing with stealth canvassing when it’s going on? --Captain Occam (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it would be nearly impossible to prove this kind of behavior. It's an open fact that some of the contributing editors contact each other per email. However, that in itself is not against policy. Without some kind of proof of actual canvassing, not much can be done. In the case of a somewhat mysterious and highly convenient reappearance such as that of T34CH ("Speak of the devil..." etc.), either (a) s/he's lurking on the talkpage, (b) s/he is being contacted by a more regular/active editor, or (c) s/he is one of the other editors. WP:AGF begs us to assume (a). In any event, it would be damn near impossible to prove either (b) or (c). :/ --Aryaman (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

irrationally overexuberant antiracialism

You wrote:

If there were such a thing as a "neutral" or "uninvolved arbitrator", I would be willing to submit to a supervised revision process. But given the nature of the issue, I don't see how that's possible.

I think what you're noting is a kind of irrational exuberance for antiracialism. It's reflected both in the comments and practices of some editors and in the writings of some scholars. It appears that they insist that the hereditarians must not simply be mistaken in their interpretation of the facts, but rather they must a priori wrong in the questions they ask and their actions must be identified as morally reprehensible. The result is that the value of an argument is judged on its ability to deny or denounce the hereditarian POV, instead of the normal standards of rational inquiry. If an editor is dedicated to the view that it's morally obligatory to smear and minimize the hereditarian POV, then you can imagine the kind of edits and practices that would ensue. --DJ (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well put. That's the main problem in a nutshell. This is one of those issues which requires a very careful and judicious examination of sources to distinguish between those which are of actual scientific value and those which are commentaries intended to appease people outside the scientific community. Wikipedia's current policy on sources puts us at a disadvantage here, as we are not allowed to deal with sources in the required critical manner. This allows editors to write things such as "Professor X referred to the work of Professor Y as inherently racist" and leave it at that, and they are fully justified in doing so by Wikipedia policy provided they can cite such a statement to a "reliable source" - never mind the question as to whether such a statement has any real informative value in regards to the issue at hand, and never mind the reasons Professor X gave for this judgment and whether they hold up to critical examination. I'd love to see the related policies change so we could prevent this kind of editing, but I'm not holding my breath. --Aryaman (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

VA, I would appreciate it if you could be a little more involved in the debate about whether to re-use some of the material from 2006. I know you agree with me about this, but lately I've been having to debate with Ramdrake and T34CH about this more or less on my own.

I'd appreciate the same thing in DJ and David.Kane's case, but you seem to be more active than either of them. You've also sometimes been able to get Ramdrake to be somewhat reasonable with you; I don't know how you manage it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I've been a bit absent as of late; I'm swamped with real-life work and only have limited time to keep up with developments. Unfortunately, I can't say I see a way forward with Ramdrake/Mathsci/T34CH/Slrubenstein at present. The ideal solution, of course, would be to find neutral secondary/tertiary sources and use them to restructure the article. I don't know if such a work exists, however. As it stands, we have far too many primary sources in the article, and most of the secondary sources are non-reliable in the neutrality department. DJ made a good suggestion in using Flynn as a referee in the interpretation/description of the work of others, particularly Jensen and Lewontin. I don't have access to his newest work yet, though DJ apparently does. I think we (i.e. you, me, DJ, David Kane and whoever else finds the current article mess) need to pool our research resources so we can make a solid case for future changes. Despite Fences & Windows' objection, I really do think it would be a good idea to work on individual sections as a group in a userspace without Ramdrake/Mathsci/T34CH/Slrubenstein interfering. When we have sections we agree on, and which can stand up to extended scrutiny, we can take them to the talk page, give other editors time to comment on the proposal, make adjustments if/where necessary, and then make the change to the mainspace. --Aryaman (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Ramdrake is going to request mediation about this now. Even though I don’t think that’s really necessary, I suppose it still might be productive, since it seems like Ramdrake isn’t going to be willing to compromise about this any other way.

I hope you’ll participate in the mediation thread. Part of the issue here is that there are a lot of editors who agree with the changes I’d like to make, so I’d prefer that this not just be a mediation between Ramdrake and myself. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

I am considering removing all discussion as the case cannot yet open. Very likely all comments will be removed to be replacedby the opening statements of each party Reubzz (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I would place the page on your watchlist so you can see updates. Once the case begins though, I will send a message out indicating requests for opening statements. Reubzz (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Order doesn't matter but I would perfer you sign agreement to groundrules prior to posting. Also, consider writing it in a word document in case two or more statements are being added at the same time, that you can still have it ready. Reubzz (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

VA, if this is all right with you, I'd prefer to wait until after you've posted your opening statement before I post mine. I suspect that you and I will be making many of the same points, and I don't want my statement to duplicate yours too heavily. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I should be done in a few minutes. --Aryaman (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

I only just saw your message. Perhaps I misinterpreted the mediator. I am fine doing what you suggest. I did not mean to hide anything. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

CX

Yes, I have been greatly invovled in policy debate as a 2n/1a. The 1ar always is crazy. Once I had to do one with 6 offcase ALL extended through the block. But we won that round :) Reubzz (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Statements on proportions for R & I

I hope my statement on the mediation talk page was the sort of thing you were looking for. I didn’t read Reubzz’s initial statement as a request for a description of the hereditarian position itself, so much so as a request for an explanation of what degree of description it should get. If you want to explain in your own statement what you consider the evidence for this position to be, though, you’re welcome to do so. You might want to address T34CH’s points while you’re at it.

By the way, is "Intelligence, Race, And Genetics: Conversations With Arthur R. Jensen" what you were referring to when you mentioned earlier that “Jensen 2002” provided a good critique of environmental explanations for the IQ difference? I wasn’t sure what you were referring to when you said that, because the author of this book is listed as Frank Miele. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the book I was referring to. Sorry for the poor notation. :/

While giving some kind of percentage or word-count might be necessary at some point, I think our first concern should be to make sure that the central arguments of the hereditarian position are identified and included in the article. This entails identifying those arguments. I haven't read all of the chapter you linked to yet, but it seems like a good overview of quite a bit of the relevant research. The Miele book (I'm assuming you've read it) also gives a good, short presentation intended for a general audience. I expect that, whatever goes into the article, it needs to be a reasonably condensed summary of the findings as presented in either of these books. I hesitate to mention a particular % of the article, because I see this as being both inherently problematic as well as non-essential to my own concerns. As long as the relevant arguments are covered, I really don't care how much coverage is given to either view. --Aryaman (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually haven’t read Miele’s book yet, although I’ve read summaries/reviews of it. I recently ordered it from Amazon.com, though, so I should have a copy within a few days.

I’m surprised you haven’t read The g Factor yet, since it’s considered by a lot of people (myself included) to be the seminal book about this topic from a hereditarian perspective. It’s definitely a good idea for you to read at least this chapter in it, if not more than that, but there must be a better place to do so than at some miscellaneous website which uploaded the chapter without the its references or diagrams. Have you considered reading it at Questia.com? You’ll probably have to pay a fee to read it there, but I think it’s still considerably cheaper than buying a physical copy of the book, and faster than ordering it at a library and waiting for it to arrive. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Deadline

Your idea on copiling the appropriate literature for the section in question is certainly a good starting point and will certainly be part of the process that I publish. I certainly need a breather from these massive statements in order not to go crazy. If you wish to begin compiling that list and see what agreement already exists, that would be a good way to go into this next phase. Reubzz (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment on your comment ;)

I guess this has to be clarified before anything else is discussed. But, even if we decide to write about the mainstream scientific view on race in general and any connection with any differences intelligence in particular, in my view there will remain a need for an article which deals with the environmental vs. hereditarian debate in some depth, similar to Creation–evolution controversy.

You're probably right on this, and I would agree, just as long as the scope of any specific article on the debate is very clearly stated. Should we at least agree that the "environmental vs hereditarian debate" is not the same as "race and intelligence as a field of study"? If we can agree on at least this much, then I think there is hope for this mediation.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

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) 02:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Social scientists

Thanks for responding, we just disagree then. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

New edits to Race and intelligence

(X-posting this to Varoon Arya, Distributivejustice and David.Kane)

Guys, I think it’s probably getting to be impossible for us to prevent Race and intelligence or its discussion page from being edited while we wait for the mediation to resume. Users uninvolved in the mediation case are apparently going to be editing this article no matter what, so the real question now is whether we should collaborate with them about improving the article, try to prevent them from editing it, or leave them to edit the article on their own without our assistance.

I think the first option makes the most sense. There’s no telling how long it’s going to be before Reubzz reopens the mediation case, and I don’t think it’s reasonable for us to try to prevent this article from being edited indefinitely because of a mediation case that’s no longer in progress. If necessary, we can seek page protection whenever the mediation case is re-opened.

As long as we’re going to be posting on the discussion page again, I’d also like to resume our discussion about DJ’s proposed change to the lead section. Nobody seemed to have a major problem with that edit, and a lot of people (myself included) thought it would be a significant improvement to the article, so it would be a shame if that discussion were pushed back into the archives without a decision ever being made about whether to use this new intro. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

scope and organization

Re: scope -- I think the scope needs to remain relatively narrow else the article would grow to unreadability as the number of facts/views would grow out of control. Re: organization -- each of the three approaches has benefits, but I think only the topic-centric approach has real long-term sustainability in an open editing environment. A related variable is article size. An organization and scope that helps to constrain article size is preferred (for example, by allowing easy splitting of subarticles that are not themselves POV forks). --DJ (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. Particularly, I think widening the scope would create unnecessary overlap with this section of the Race article, which is, as I see it, the proper place to present any relevant information from other sciences as well as to weight the discussion as it occurs between psychometricians. --Aryaman (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wimmer

Hello Aryaman! I wouldn't mind having a look at that Danish Wimmer passage of yours. You can send it over whenever you want. –Holt (T•C) 05:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Awesome. What did you do, and what did I miss? (I was reaching the same Talk:Vedic meter page from the "Talk" tab on both article pages, which is how I noticed the problem. Given that my own move of the Talk page showed up in the Move log, why a "shadow copy" remained behind with the "Sanskrit metre" page had me floored.) Thanks again. rudra (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, nothing like a few hours of sleep to clear the cobwebs. I had to kill the redirect on the talk page too. D'oh! Thanks again.:-) rudra (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust

Varoon Arya, just to let you know there is a discussion ongoing here. Do you care to weigh in with an opinion? Bus stop (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Heritability of IQ

Hi VA, I hope you had an enjoyable holiday season. Now that you’re editing here again, I’d like to ask your opinion about the changes that have been made to the articles that Race and intelligence was split into.

Between-group differences in IQ looks pretty good to me. I approve of the intro, which is similar to the one that DJ suggested for Race and intelligence (which we both approved of), and the article also covers some of the topics that I’d hoped could be restored using content from the 2006 version of Race and intelligence, such as the social and functional significance of between-group differences. However, I think the section of Heritability of IQ that covers this topic still needs some work. If this is the article that’s going to cover the debate over between-group IQ heritability, it ought to explain the arguments that are presented in favor of these differences being heritable, which it currently doesn’t.

The mediation process for Race and intelligence seems to be over now, so I don’t think there’s anything to prevent us editing the Heritability of IQ article to fix some of these issues. If you agree with me that this is worth doing, perhaps DJ and David.Kane would be interested in helping with it also. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ramdrake's two-month revert

I’d appreciate you weighing in with your opinion about this. I suspect you’ll agree with me about it, but having someone else to help explain it there would be helpful. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

with respect t0 this edit: please try to avoid this kind of point-by-point refutation. they come off sounding very aggressive, and are likely to produce hostile responses. I'm not commenting on the content, mind you, just the style. I want to keep tempers in check on the page as much as possible. I'll leave brief note there as well. --Ludwigs2 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

Sometimes I feel we are very clos to a mutually satisfying accommodation. Other times there is real friction, and I regret that, honestly. But you recetly criticized me - it seemed like a criticism - for failing to use Neiser et. al. as a point of reference. Now Mikemikev is fauting for using Neiser et. al as a reference![10] I feel like ther is some double standard when you criticize me for ignoring Neiser, yet have no comment when Mikemikev says we should basically ignore Neiser et. al. - are you going to tll him we have a three month consensus to use this article? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We have agreed to use the Neisser et al. (APA) report as a guideline in representing expert consensus on the knowns and unknowns regarding race and intelligence. That was done at a time prior to Mike's involvement. If Mike is arguing that we should ignore the APA report, then he needs one hell of an argument to support doing so, and I would argue against him in the absence of such an argument. But in the diff you provided, it seems as though he's asking whether you want to take this report as a definitive statement on the use of the term "race". If I understand him correctly, he's asking whether it's justified to reject all research discussing "race" as "fringe" on the grounds that the APA report replaces the word "race" with "ethnicity", as you appear to be advocating we do. And that is an entirely justified question. The argument "The APA statement has consensus, thus anything not in the APA statement is fringe" is, frankly, laughable, and I really do hope that it not the position you're taking on this. --Aryaman (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I obviously do not mean that anything not in the APA is fringe. But in this particular edit, I am simply shwoing shich of my positions concerning what is expert consensus falls in line with the APA statement. I think research since the APA statement provides further support to these particular positions, but all I was doing was responding to your own comment. I read Mike's comment as dismissing the APA statement entirely, which as you might say is laughable. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you hadn't noticed, I recently posted a somewhat long-ish section on the mediation talk page regarding the "fringe" issue, in which the APA report play an important role. It seems this is one of the central rubbing points in our attempt to work together, and I really think it's time we settle it. I've provided a list of the reasons I feel it is justified to view the hereditarian position as a minority view. As you've said many times, you disagree on this point. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to respond to the points I've raised. Please place your responses directly under the point to which you are responding so we can keep things organized by topic. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that the WP:FRINGE issue is resolved, I think the next thing we ought to be focusing on is coming up with a page structure for the revised version of the article. DJ has let us know that he probably won’t be able to write the new version himself, so it looks like doing this is probably going to be your job. I trust you’ll do a good job with it: after what you’ve accomplished with the Race and crime article, I have a lot of faith in your ability to revise Race and intelligence in a way that greatly reduces future conflicts over the article.

Since you’ll most likely be the person who ends up writing the article, I’d like it if you could take charge of editing the article outline and answering other users’ concerns about it. I think everything will probably go more smoothly if as much of this as possible is all done by the same person. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking a quesion?

"Further, I don't see what makes a "hereditarian" who comments on policy issues any different from an "environmentalist" who comments on policy issues. You can't seriously claim that hereditarians are the only ones trying to influence public policy through their research. So, what is your point here?"

No, I have never claimed this. Do you think I have ever claimed this? Why would you think I have claimed this?

Anyone who argues that IQ differences are due to specific environmental causes in the context of a discussion of public policy in my view should b in an article on race and IQ in pblic policy. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You don't really think Wikipedia should have a double standard, do you? That is absurd. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you still around?

I hope you're still around here, VA. We're getting to the point in the mediation process for Race and intelligence where it's going to be difficult for us to progress much further without you. You and DJ were our two choices for who should revise the article, and DJ has already said that he doesn't have time for this himself, so we've been operating under the assumption that you'll be the one revising it. And we're now at the point where it's time to start discussing specific revisions, which is a discussion you ought to be involved in.

The current discussion about this is here. I hope you'll be able to do this; I'm not sure what we'll do if neither you nor DJ is able to. I don't think I trust any other users who are part of the mediation to be able to revise the article in a balanced manner (except possibly David.Kane, who seems to have also abandoned the mediation), and I also don't think a lot of the other users trust me enough for it to be a good idea for me to attempt this myself. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

supporters of the 100% environmental thesis

richard nisbett and stephen ceci come to mind. --DJ (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Firefox

I have used it, but it takes up an awful lot of memory. Any hints on how to use it more eficiently? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

R&I outline

I’m not sure if you noticed this (since you seemed to be offline for a few days at the time when it was posted), but a few more users had suggestions about your outline for Race and intelligence. The main person is Aprock, but Slribenstein had some also. Now that you’re active again here for now, you might want to respond to their suggestions and/or edit your outline to take any of them that you agree with into account. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Weird technical problems...

In case someone is wondering why I'm not around right now: For some reason, I am unable to access Wikipedia without resorting to a proxy server. Everything was fine earlier today, but for the last few hours, I've been getting a Server not found error if I try to access the site as I usually do. Maybe the problem will correct itself, I don't know. If anyone has any tips, they would be appreciated. --Aryaman (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why Ludwig went ballistic

Because he's in a HEAP 'o trouble! Read about that and how Wapondaponda just got the entire mediation on the edge of being canceled HERE

I'll get banned for "telling", but WTF, y'know? All things must pass.

Hey, it was nice talkin' to ya!

love,

-faye

"Bias, bigotry and obviously POV formatting"

OMG, LOL! HHAHHAHAAHAHH!! TechnoFaye Kane 04:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

soliciting comments/changes

draft of new lede section for race and intelligence article

editing open to anyone --DJ (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, if a new draft is comming on 4/1, I think we should wait till that is done before working on a lede. A.Prock (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Outline for the "Significance" section

I know you wanted to find out from Aprock which topics in the “significance” section are and aren’t acceptable to him before writing the outline for this section, but I’m not sure it’s such a bad thing that he’s refusing to discuss this until after he can see the outline. The only substantive objection to the earlier version of this section that he’s raised thus far is that too many of its sources were written by authors who take a pro-hereditarian perspective, which is something that shouldn’t be too difficult to change, since most of this information is acknowledged by people on both sides of the debate about this topic. If you go ahead and write the outline for this section, with everything that you think ought to be included in it, I think it’ll be easier to determine whether Aprock has any other objections to it that are reasonable. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lede of Race and intelligence

As I wrote on the mediation pages, since your lede has been broadly accepted, I transferred it with some minor modifications using WP:BOLD. These now only affect the first sentence. Please feel free to tweak it directly in mainspace. I don't see much point at this juncture in discussing it interminably on the mediation talk page, since I think you've done a good job. Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

VA, I appreciate your work on the lede. What would you think of working on making some of the other improvements to the article that I, Aprock and Dr. Pesta suggested right after David.Kane made his initial revisions to it? As I mentioned here, you’re one of the people who I think would be best for this role.

I’m willing to help you with this about as much as I helped you with the Race and crime article, but I’m kind of reluctant to add large amounts of content to the article myself, because I’ve noticed that people are much more likely to have a problem with contributions to an article if they’re from me than if they’re from you. (And we’ve even seen one example of someone saying that they had a problem with something I’d added to an article specifically because I was the one who’d added it, in the case of my chart of Cavalli-Sforza’s data in the Race and genetics article.) As long as we’re dealing with the same group of users who sometimes take this attitude towards my contributions, in order to avoid conflict I think I’d prefer to keep my contributions outside talk pages as low-key as possible, and rely on other editors for any large changes to articles. I hope you can understand me having this preference, and don’t feel like I’m being lazy.

Do you think you’d be ready to make some of the other changes to the article that Aprock, Dr. Pesta and I have been suggesting? --Captain Occam (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

R&I Intro

I just want to tell you how impressed I am by the colaboration between you and mathSci, and the result - I think it is a very well-writtn, informative, clear introduction. Kudos! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

here's an image from the talk page archive. more abstract, but has the same explanatory effect. --DJ (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We could use some help here.

Now that the mediation case for race and intelligence has been closed, nobody seems to be making much of an effort anymore to follow the code of conduct that we were following during mediation. At this point, it looks like what ends up going in the article may just be determined by who can form the most effective tag team. I hope you’ll have some time soon to try and help do something about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll probably have some time tomorrow, but I'm reluctant to jump back into this right now. A lot has happened to the article(s) in the last few days, and Mathsci is going to run out of steam soon. I'd prefer to let him do so, and I would suggest that everyone who disagrees with him do the same. Getting involved now would only forestall the inevitable. I say give him free reign - and all the rope he can handle. --Aryaman (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I’m not sure it’s reasonable to assume he’ll be running out of steam anytime soon. You didn’t get to see much of this during the mediation case, which he deliberately refused to be part of because he objected to Ludwig as the mediator, but before the article entered mediation he could sometimes keep this up for more than a month at a time.

However, I don’t think that should be a reason for us to not work on improving the article. You, me, and David.Kane appear to all agree that the article has NPOV issues which need to be addressed, and Bryan Pesta and Mikemikev have also raised similar concerns on the race and intelligence talk page. If Mathsci is the only person who disagrees with the five of us about this, I think it’s pretty clear what the consensus is.

If your own time is the limiting factor here, though, I’m all right with waiting until whenever you’re more available. I find dealing with Mathsci to be kind of taxing, so I’d prefer to do it at a time when I’d be able to have some help from you with this. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)