Jump to content

User talk:Generalrelative: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎ANI Notice: Frivolous
Tag: Reverted
Line 865: Line 865:
|} --[[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] ([[User talk:Innisfree987|talk]]) 21:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
|} --[[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] ([[User talk:Innisfree987|talk]]) 21:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
<!-- Message sent by User:Innisfree987@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/G-N&oldid=1049701764 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Innisfree987@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/G-N&oldid=1049701764 -->

== Please review my talk content relative to the article on the Italo-Ethiopian War ==

Hello, please review my talk content relative to the article on the Second Italo-Ethiopian War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Ethiopian_War) concerning your reversion of my edits. I notice that there are previous complaints in your user talk page about non-NPOV content in that article.

Revision as of 16:19, 31 October 2021

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Italo-Ethiopian War

Hi. In my opinion, in the lead section of Second Italo-Ethiopian War, the Ethiopian crimes should be mentioned first since they started in the first weeks of war (1935) and before the Italian ones and the killing of civilians (1937). Written in this way the page does not seem neutral. In any case, I am willing to discuss it, I don't want to start any edit war. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I very much welcome the opening to dialogue, and only suggest that we take our discussion to the article's Talk page so that it is visible to –– and invites comment from –– the community. See my recently added section Question of emphasis regarding war crimes. Generalrelative (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

Hi. The section about Italian atrocities in Libya is about 1923-1932 events. The page Italian Libya is about the 1934-43 period, so I moved the section in the pages Italian Cyrenaica and Italian colonization of Libya, as they are the correct pages of that period.

Also, why did you revert my old edits in the page Italian colonization of Libya? You seem to have removed many images of the Italian colonization to make room for those of wars, Italian atrocities and pacification campaigns. That page is about the history of the colony, not only war crimes. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on the relevant Talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jennifer Szalai (June 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
MurielMary (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Generalrelative! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MurielMary (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits to R&I!

Your recent edits to Race and intelligence are good, solid improvements to an article that was once a disgrace to Wikipedia. Thanks! NightHeron (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your excellent edits to Intelligence quotient, Genetic Literacy Project, Scientific racism, Race and intelligence, and several other related pages! NightHeron (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @NightHeron: That means a lot coming from you! Generalrelative (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Negroid

I have read your recent additions on the article Negroid. While well-sourced, should not they be included on the section "Criticism based on modern genetics"? The material there already refutes the existance of human races. Dimadick (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question, Dimadick. The issue, though, is that the physical anthropology stuff takes into account more than just genetics, i.e. the spectrum of human anatomy and physiology. I'd be fully in favor of an expanded "modern genetics" subsection too by the way. There's certainly plenty more material that could be covered there. But consider also how this article might be improved by integrating all the current content of the "Criticism" section into the rest of the article, as is suggested in the essay WP:CRITICISM. In my view the most informative version of this article would contrast the outdated views with current scientific consensus on a point-by-point basis. But the bottom line is that this article on a historical (and still politically fraught) classification of human beings needs plenty of work, and I don't claim to have a fully developed plan in mind for how to bring it where it needs to be, so any further improvements you'd care to make would be most appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HR&IC

There were no problems with these edits; I just forgot where the wl was added for "scientific racism."

Originally I created this article in April 2010 in one giant edit.[1] In that first edit the term scientific racism appeared with a wl, which I had forgotten. The extra paragraphs you have added very recently in the early history section confused me. I hope that explains what happened with the first sentence.

I have located a new edition of Benjamin's book on google. The page numbers do not match up but at least the book exists. I do not intend adding much content to the article. I cannot make any comment on the R&I article, except that it will probably always be an unmitigated mess. The HR&IC, however, has been fairly stable. Perhaps that's not true not the section for the segment 2000-recent. Originally I did not wrote very much about that then, just a sentence or so. Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Racialism

Such editors need warnings immediately. I've given them a 3RR warning. Having said that, I'm not sure what the problem is with their sources - or is it the interpretation? I haven't delved deep. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doug Weller. The issue is with presenting a false balance in the lead. A robust discussion of the variation in views among scientists from different countries might belong in the main body of the article (indeed it might be an interesting discussion), so long as it is placed in the context of true scientific consensus. But reducing a robustly cited statement on scientific consensus to a "Western" opinion, and then placing it on equal footing with a supposed Eastern European and Chinese consensus favoring race realism, each cited by a single survey, smacks of tendentious editing to me. Generalrelative (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

September Women in Red edithons

Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

October editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Italo-Senussi War

See [2]; it says that the Italian war crimes are "suggested", not specific, and "as with all atrocity tales, there is probably an element of exaggeration". And why you removed the Senussi war crimes in Italian colonization of Libya? At least three sources mention them; they should be included like the Italian ones, and not removed for your with anti-Italian agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.169.102.14 (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) If you have a content issue to discuss, take it to the article's talk page so that others can weigh in.
2) There is quite a plague of pro-fascist apologia from Italian IPs here on Wikipedia. Working to keep articles clear of that is in no way anti-Italian.
Generalrelative (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPI archives

Hi. I've reverted your change here. Please don't edit the SPI archives. Feel free to open a new case, but the archives themselves are a historical record and shouldn't be edited directly. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks! Apologies for the process error. Generalrelative (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generalrelative, Not a big deal. It happens. Life goes on. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December with Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

SPLC

I wanted to discuss my edit of the SPLC page, as the citation about the FBI categorization of the proud Boys is called into question, if not rebutted two paragraphs down in the article cited stating that the FBI does not categorize groups as extremists. Harryjamespotter1980 (talk)

I would be happy to have this conversation with you on the article's talk page. That's the place to discuss content. Generalrelative (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lynn

Hi. I noticed that you deleted part of the segment on HR&IC concerning Richard Lynn and the Pioneer Trust, removing some references related to William Tucker. The period 2000-present has always been unstable, but for the part of HR&IC covering the 20th century it has been fairly stable. This edit seems a bit radical. I wonder if you would consider reverting it or modifying the content appropriately? The images of Flynn and Lynn balance each other. Mathsci (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: I would be happy to have this conversation with you on the article's talk page so that others can weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 19:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting involved in the argument, but obviously everyone in the argument should receive one of these - anyone can give them. A good thing to do if you are going to edit in an area covered by ArbCom is to add {{Ds/aware}} for the areas. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Thanks but there really is no argument here. Just some unfortunate, increasingly unhinged behavior: [3] Generalrelative (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Jennifer Szalai

Hello, Generalrelative. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jennifer Szalai".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Eternal Shadow Talk 19:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Pov Pushing edits by BlauGraf (material on both sides that has been "published") but the other side is Neo-Nazis/apologists?

It looks like they are trying to downplay the crimes of the Nazis examples.

The War crimes of the Wehrmacht page before they edited the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht&diff=994167459&oldid=994162428 According to a study by Alex J. Kay and David Stahel, the majority of the Wehrmacht soldiers deployed to the Soviet Union participated in war crimes.[3]


After they edited the page War crimes of the Wehrmacht

According to a study by Alex J. Kay and David Stahel, it is alleged that some of the Wehrmacht soldiers deployed to the Soviet Union participated in war crimes.

102.142.23.241 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. I've engaged on this user's talk page. And indeed you are correct: there is broad consensus among historians (and among editors here on Wikipedia) that the myth of a "clean Wehrmacht" is in fact a myth. Generalrelative (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No prob just trying to help!102.142.23.241 (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will thank you not to refer to me as a neo nazi - I am not. In point of fact, however, I am the descendant of a Panzergrenadier Leutnant, and the "consensus" does not equate with the memories of those who were there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlauGraf (talk • contribs) 16:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one cares from whom you are descended, nor does your WP:OR have a place on Wikipedia. Note too that signing comments is a thing we do here, and that the person who posts first under a heading is typically the person who created that heading. So you might go back and check who has explicitly called you a neo-Nazi. Generalrelative (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Franks

Hello! Why do you think that Coon's conclusions about the Franks misleading to the reader? In my opinion, this is quite interesting information. How would you formalize this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeiprivet (talk • contribs) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Coon's ideas about race are broadly rejected by modern science. Presenting them as anything other than a historical artifact would be WP:PROFRINGE. Generalrelative (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give me a link to the research on the ancient Franks, which would refute Coon's conclusions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeiprivet (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is with the premise, not its specific application to the Franks. For background on why the idea of essential racial types is rejected by scientists, see e.g. Race (human categorization), as well as the many discussions of this topic on that article's talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The School discipline article

Hi! I'm glad you did some light but significant editing on the material recently added concerning racial disparities. I don't know the literature on this subject, but I emailed a friend asking for suggestions. I'm sure most people working in the area disagree strongly with the claim that there's no discrimination against Black students, but we need a source that directly criticizes that study. In it there's at least one obvious methodological fallacy, in my judgment, namely the failure to take into account the stage when teachers or staff interpret and categorize behavior. The likely racial bias at that stage makes data about prior behavior unreliable. There are probably other problems with the study as well. It's basically a single primary source that challenges what probably is a consensus. It might be that we can't find a source because people in the field regard it as tantamount to a paper saying that Bigfoot exists, to use your analogy. (A similar issue arose in the case of Race and capital punishment in the United States, but in that case we could argue that the source was in a low-quality journal.) I think it's worth the effort to try to fix this, since the article does get a fair number of pageviews (averaging over 250/day), probably many of whom are American teachers and staff, who shouldn't be getting the message that they don't have to watch out for racial bias in their school's disciplining. Anyway, if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: I commend you for your diligence and for your willingness to do the hard work of critically examining the sources. I wouldn't be the first to observe how frustrating it can be when seemingly every week a new civil (or not so civil) POV-pusher appears on the scene, all fired up to correct what they see as liberal bias across a variety of pages. In this case I was also skeptical of the sources but didn't have the time to invest in demonstrating that they're fringe. So instead I settled for toning down this user's ostentatious presentation of the studies, at least as a stopgap measure for the moment. I would of course support removal if we can show that they're fringe, but at present I don't have any leads (this is well outside of my field too). You're certainly right that the article in question does get a significant number of views, and that there are real consequences to perpetuating false beliefs about the extent and the effects of bias in schools. I'll be happy to keep an eye out for relevant material, and an eye on the page in case further or more blatant POV-pushing occurs there. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NightHeron: I looked into this topic a bit and found a large number of studies confirming the existence of racial disparities in school discipline, some of them quite robust (e.g. [4] and [5]). Other high quality studies take the existence of such disparities as axiomatic (e.g. [6] and [7]). Finally, this article from the Brookings Institution gives an illuminating overview of the topic which supports the conclusion that discrimination is a major driver of racial disparities in school discipline: [8] I think that these and similar refs may be enough for a revamp of the paragraph in question, and perhaps to show that the recently added sources constitute fringe –– though I'd like a second opinion before proceeding with that argument. Generalrelative (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! Just looking at the first study you link to, I see how helpful it is. It explicitly says: Results were largely consistent with our theoretical model, indicating increased racial and gender disproportionality for subjectively defined behaviors, in classrooms, and for incidents classified as more severe. This pinpoints the methodological difference between a sensible study and a study with a clear RR bias. I haven't read the whole paper in the Journal of Criminal Justice, but I'm pretty sure that they accept as an axiom that teacher/staff categorization of behavior is accurate and unbiased, and they're just interested in the correlation between crime charged and punishment, not between actual behavior and crime charged. I'm now motivated to read both the J Criminal Justice study and the ones you've found. Rather than arguing for removal of the former, we could describe enough of its methodology to make it clear that it's scientifically inferior to the studies it purports to refute. NightHeron (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a summary of what I've learned so far about the JCJ source, and put in on my user talk-page [9]. I didn't think I should clutter up your talk-page with the wall-of-text. NightHeron (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: Awesome, that summary looks great. In the future you should feel free to clutter away! With regard to the paragraph in question, I'm thinking now that it's really only DUE to cover the most mainstream viewpoints (i.e. not the recently added sources). If there were a full article on racial disparities in school discipline, these sources could certainly be discussed as counterpoint there. But when we're focusing on only one paragraph/subsection within a rather brief article, I would question whether deconstructing methodologies makes sense. Instead I'd suggest that we import much of what you and I have written to the article talk page so that others can be aware of the work already done if/when this issue arises again. Generalrelative (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree. We could delete the part about the JCJ study, and also (I think) make the paragraph into its own subsection, since it does not belong under the topic "importance of discipline". If you transport discussions from your talk-page to the article talk-page, I'll do likewise from mine. NightHeron (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NightHeron: Great idea. I'll get started with that. Generalrelative (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! There seems to be an interesting history to the 2014 outlier article from J. Criminal Justice that we agreed to remove from School discipline as undue/fringe. I came across a 2020 article[1] that directly criticizes the 2014 article for faulty methodology. Here is the abstract: At the end of 2018, Obama-era disciplinary guidance aimed at reducing the use of suspensions in schools (especially for minorities and students with disabilities) was revoked by the U.S. Department of Education. A key piece of research supporting the decision was based on the analyses of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–1999 (ECLS-K), which showed that the racial suspension gap was not really about race but resulted from the differential behavior exhibited by Black and White students. We reanalyzed the public-use ECLS-K and provide syntax for our analyses to show that the findings were primarily due to sample selection bias. Several alternative model specifications were tested and continued to show the persistence of the race-based suspension gaps regardless of model or measure used. So perhaps the 2014 article was notable after all, as the main justification used by the Trump administration to support continuation of extreme racial disparities in school discipline -- almost a case study of the real-world impact that scientific racism has today. Do you think this should be included in the school discipline article (or should we let sleeping dogs lie)? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, NightHeron! It's interesting to see the way this study fit into the Trump/DeVos agenda in practice. I'd say I'm still of the opinion that this would be an appropriate thing to explore in an article on racial disparities in school discipline (which seems like an article we should have TBH), but that the general article on school discipline should stick to presenting just the existing mainstream understanding of the topic. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. BTW there's a related article School-to-prison pipeline, which shows the larger picture that this is part of. NightHeron (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NightHeron: Yeah School-to-prison pipeline is an important article. Thanks for reminding me because it can use some updating. On second thought too, might be a place there to discuss the points you've raised about the real-world impact of scientific racism today? Generalrelative (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're planning to do some updating of School-to-prison pipeline, I won't add anything directly to the article until you do. I'll prepare a draft of a paragraph using the Wright et al (2014) article, the Huang (2020) article, and probably some of the articles in Huang's bibliography (which seems to be pretty extensive and up-to-date). The theme of the paragraph would be how a badly flawed fringe paper can influence policy in this area. I probably can't use the terms "scientific racism" or "racist pseudoscience" about it, since Huang doesn't use those terms, and I don't think they're used about criminal justice studies papers, although perhaps they should be. NightHeron (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NightHeron: That would be awesome. Generalrelative (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a chance, take a look at the BLP for lead author John Paul Wright, which features a long quote from his article titled "Inconvenient Truths: Science, Race, and Crime" and leaves no doubt that he's squarely in the tradition of scientific racism. NightHeron (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol "Biosocial criminology". There's an article in serious need of a weedwacker. But seriously, another good catch. That US News & World Report piece quoted in the Wright article [10] might be useful too. Generalrelative (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll use two US News & World Report sources by Lauren Camera, but I was dismayed that she said about Wright: Wright's research is considered legitimate in academic circles. He uses popular, robust federal datasets for much of his work and has been published more than 200 times. I would have hoped that a serious journalist would know better than to legitimize such garbage. NightHeron (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put a draft in [11], and of course I'd welcome your comments. NightHeron (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: Excellent work! Now I'm wondering if we should just go ahead and create a new article on "disparities in school discipline in the United States". All of that information seems encyclopedic to me, but probably too much detail for School-to-prison pipeline. Another possibility is that all of this really does belong in the school discipline article, and that my initial hot take was not necessarily the best. I'm open to all of these possibilities, and any others that you might suggest as well. Generalrelative (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If we put this in the School discipline article, we'll have to make some changes in that article, since right now racial disparities aren't even mentioned in the lead, and most of the article is concerned with other things. Also, the entire proposed section relates just to the US. The School-to-prison pipeline article is much more centered around racial disparities, and also it's clear from the lead that that topic relates just to the US. At some point it might be appropriate to create a separate article on racial disparities that pulls in content from both of those more general articles. But my impression is that for now the easiest thing to do would be simply to add a section to School-to-prison pipeline. NightHeron (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, let's go with that (i.e. adding what you've written to School-to-prison pipeline). Also, you should feel free to add it without waiting on me. I may not have the bandwidth to contribute much for the next few days. Generalrelative (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Huang, Francis L. (2020). "Prior problem behaviors do not account for the racial suspension gaps". Educational Researcher. 49 (7). doi:10.3102/0013189X20932474.

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for opening the ANI on the BLM IP. I missed the last talk page post or I would have done it myself. Meters (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: You're welcome! Thanks for your input and for your vigilance. Generalrelative (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Disruptive Editing

@Generalrelative: Your concise reason (e.g. you continue to ignore basic English construction. Adjectives are not capitalized, unless they are a proper noun (ie English, Italian, French toast, etc.). Non-proper nouns are not capitalized: (red car, black man, white man, tall building). Stop attempting to incite an edit war through improper terminology.) BlauGraf (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop literally edit warring and there will be no problem. As you can see, I am not the only one who has reverted your changes here. As a matter of fact there is disagreement as to whether "Black" is the proper name of an ethnic group or rather a simple description when used in reference to people of African heritage. I for one find the argument that it is a description absurd, since few Black people have skin that could be literally described as black, and many have lighter skin than some White people –– whose skin is actually pink to brown in any case. But my opinion on the matter is not what's important here, because this issue has been discussed at length for years and no clear consensus has emerged (see [12]). When there are two equally valid stylistic choices, we go for consistency within the article, as I have already explained in my edit summary. And it is considered disruptive to unilaterally change the established style used in an article based on personal preference. I accept these things and therefore do not go around changing "black" to "Black" where "black" is the established style. You will need to accept the way things work here as well. So yes, let's see an end to the disruptive editing. I hope that it is now clear to you who has been the culprit. Generalrelative (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree. The Rules of English construction are quite clear. A proper noun is capitalized, and an improper noun is not. It is not a matter of stylism, it is the correct usage. Black is a color, not a race. The same goes for white. It should not be capitalized. Nor should red or yellow - whether used perjoratively or not. Consistency is demanded, I agree - but the reality is that not capitalizing it is proper. Are you going to advocate that white be capitalized? Of course not, because to do so is wrong. Now, I am not debating whether black or white are the proper terms to describe ethnic groups, only in the usage of capitalization. Black is not a proper noun. Now, conversely, if someone is described as African, then that should be capitalized, because Africa is a proper noun. -Blaugraf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3003:105:C00:E891:E03B:23E3:9957 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: this issue has been discussed at length for years and no clear consensus has emerged. Take it to WT:MOSCAPS if you want to debate this. Generalrelative (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion that no consensus as been reached confirms that the basic rules of English grammar apply. Your edits are abusive and violative of the language standards of the OED. Please stop your disruptive editing. User:Blaugraf — Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:VAR: Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." In any case, there is a proper forum to discuss this issue and it is not here. Generalrelative (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Sunday(1939)

The edit you made on "Bloody Sunday" includes biased wording and puts the crimes committed against ethnic germans under the radar. I think putting less biased wording on the section will make it a more neutral and fair description of what happened. If you would like to learn more about this there is a documentary on it here [ WP:SPAM link removed Generalrelative (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC) ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memethepenguin (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Memethepenguin: I would be happy to have this conversation with you on the article's talk page so that others can weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with threat of escalating on R&I

As I'm sure you've noticed, the same user who's been trying one thing after another to undermine the RfC on R&I is now threatening to escalate to dispute resolution if the sentence about no scientific evidence for racialist hereditarianism isn't deleted. Is there any way we can avoid being dragged into a relitigation of the RfC? I've politely warned the user repeatedly that refusal to accept consensus is regarded as unconstructive. If the user insists on escalating beyond the talk-page, this could become even more of a time sink. The original RfC lasted 5 weeks with around 50 editors participating, and was followed by further contentious debate with the same editors at AN and ArbCom. Any ideas? NightHeron (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: It is annoying that this topic is such a time sink, but I suppose that's why so few editors are actually in the trenches defending R&I from POV-pushing on the daily. I'm actually not super concerned about dispute resolution, which is what this user proposed, since that's handled quite tightly by a moderator. From what I've seen, the process leaves very little room for the type of shenanigans they've been able to get away with on the talk page. And I expect that any effort to start a new RfC on another forum will be rejected out of hand. I could of course be wrong about this, and in that case I will just have to wade back into the trenches –– because, and I think you will agree with me here, it is really consequential that Wikipedia gets this issue right when so much else on the internet is dominated by quackery. In any case, your last request to "drop the stick" was well stated. Maybe they'll listen. Generalrelative (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me posted concerning the specific forms taken by the racial hereditarianism advocates' refusal to accept consensus. I was glad to see the closing of the ridiculous complaint at WP:NOR/N. NightHeron (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You probably know about Ferahgo's RfC at WP:RSN trying to overturn last year's RfC, but I wasn't sure, since Ferahgo decided not to give notification to participants in the earlier discussions. Another editor put a notification at WP:FTN, which is how I learned about it (since I don't watchlist WP:RSN). NightHeron (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how utterly unethical of her not to inform the community. Thanks for letting me know, NightHeron. I hadn't yet seen. Generalrelative (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stonkaments (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter


--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Sexism article

Hi,

Based on your work at domestic violence, you may want to keep an eye on sexism and note the talk page discussions there. Crossroads -talk- 03:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, Crossroads. Looks like more of the same type of civil POV-pushing we saw at Intimate partner violence a while back. I'll add it to my watch list. Generalrelative (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello! I removed your post just now from WP:ANI but I want you to know I saw it and I'm looking into it. Incidents of this sort are meant to be handled as discreetly as possible, and posting to the busiest noticeboard on the project is not really compatible with that. You can have a look at WP:EMERGENCY for more info. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your vigilance, though. I had a look at your post and the offending edits, and I see that Deepfriedokra already blocked the editor's IP range. You're right that logged-out editors can sometimes move to other IPs when they're blocked, but (not to get too technical) it's usually not the case for ISPs that use IPv6 addressing (the longer alphanumeric IP addresses). Blocking their /64 CIDR range normally prevents that editor from editing unless they move to a completely different network. If you're interested in more information, there's a pretty good explainer at WP:/64. Deepfriedokra also removed and deleted the edit, so hopefully that settles things.
If you do come across other edits of this sort, and you can't find an active administrator to contact privately, then emailing Special:EmailUser/Emergency is better than posting to a noticeboard. The email is monitored 24/7 and incidents are handled very quickly. Thanks again for your help. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Understood. My apologies for the process error. Thanks for the clear explanation, and for letting me know how I can deal proactively with this type of edit in the future. Generalrelative (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Irmela Mensah-Schramm has been accepted

Irmela Mensah-Schramm, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DanCherek (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism revert

Researching more, I agree we can't say Peron was simply "left-wing" when he was both left and right wing according to all relevant Wiki pages including that for his offshoot parties - which seem all leftist.

A note on Fascism#Definitions. I note on p. 14 of Sternhell ref. on Valois in History section says (which could be included in the article):

"The very birth of the (Valois' fascist} Faisceau involves an ambiguity fundamental of which neither the Valois movement nor the movements of the thirty could never be freed. This ambiguity is inherent in the very nature of fascism in France: movement developing a ideology of a revolutionary, anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist character..."

In the Fascist Economy section: "Fascism presented itself as an alternative to... free market capitalism."

Currently, Stanley G. Payne's anti-liberalism concept is wikilinked to generic liberalism. Wouldn't the anti-liberalism concept refer to anti-economic liberalism, not all liberalism, which encompasses socialism and social democracy which fascism often endorsed or was not against per this article and environmentalism which unclear fascism ever had a position on? I lack access to his book to find out and correct the wikilink, but perhaps you have insight? Skingski (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer to your question is no. Most scholars, including Payne, see fascism as a reaction against political liberalism. Indeed, in practice fascists tended to side with business interests and focus their repressive violence –– before gaining state control at least –– against socialists. (After gaining state control they tended to focus their violence on colonial subjects and ethnic minorities, since by then socialist resistance was effectively neutralized.) Though fascist rhetoric was full of contradictions I am dubious that you will find reliable sources claiming that any fascists ever endorsed social democracy. That is, as far as I understand, about as far from an accurate claim as one can get. If you think that the article makes this claim (which you seem to imply), I would suggest you read it again.
The relationship between fascism and environmentalism is a trickier subject, but in this case beside the point since environmentalism is a separate topic from liberalism. The two only happen to be conflated in contemporary American politics. Generalrelative (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

Some boba for you! Abacus1997 (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted talk page comment

Hi, could you please clarify why you deleted my talk page comment[13]? Everything I said was factual. Stonkaments (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you received an WP:AGF warning from a well respected admin for the same comment [14] so it shouldn't be a huge mystery, right? Your opinions on other editor's motivations are neither factual nor appropriate topics for article talk page conversation. And if you imagine that Doug Weller and I are alone in thinking your comment was inappropriate you are wrong there too; I was thanked by three highly experienced editors for that revert. I will add that continuing to insist that other editors have not explained to you how and why the sources in question support the article's text –– when we have done so again and again –– is, at this point, disruptive. Generalrelative (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) Assuming good faith doesn't apply in the face of clear evidence[15] of bad faith.
2) That entire thread is discussing editors' motivations. If the topic of editors' motivations is inappropriate, it should be removed entirely, rather than singling out a single critical comment for removal.
3) I have yet to see a single convincing argument that the disputed claim accurately represents the cited sources. Simply saying it doesn't make it so. If you can link me to where you believe this argument was made most convincingly, that would be greatly appreciated. Stonkaments (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) Um, your "evidence" here is a link to another comment you made which contains more baseless assertions. Also note that in that comment you are defending a sock of notorious white supremacist Mikemikev. Is that really the company you want to be keeping? In any case, per WP:AOBF you need to provide diffs which show bad faith in a way that would persuade a neutral observer in order to allege it without violating WP:AGF. If you imagine that you have done so then you are suffering from a delusion (as evinced by the fact that you persuaded exactly no one at NOR/N).
2) Sure. I would have reverted the OP too if I had seen it before others had responded to it.
3) Just as a test case I will point to one of many examples from recent discussions when you asked this question and received a direct answer:
Can you point to just one example (of either fact or opinion) from any of the cited sources that supports the assertion that there is no evidence of a genetic component? Stonkaments (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Stonkaments, That is what Hunt is communicating, that there probably is some difference (as there would be between any two randomly selected groups), but it is within the observational error range of the methods we have. This is scientist for 'no evidence' the same way that 'works as well as placebo' is medical researcher for 'it doesn't do anything'. MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
If you can't accept this then I'm afraid that Hob Gadling was correct when he stated that you do not understand how scientists talk and what they mean when they do. Whether that is because you are unwilling or simply unable is not for me to ascertain.
In either case, please note that this is the final straw of patience I have for you. Unless you manage to find something new to say, any future comments you make here will be reverted as disruptive. Generalrelative (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP adding hereditarian fringe to Brain size and personal attacks/accusations

Hello. Recently an IP has been removing long-standing WP:CONSENSUS material from the geographical variation section of the Brain size article and adding material regarding racial difference in brain size and intelligence with multiple J. Phillipe Rushton refs (combined with other refs that discuss geographic differences in brain size but not intelligence). It looks like a mix of WP:FRINGE and WP:Synth. I reverted their edits explaining that racial hereditarianism is fring here per the RFC (and posted a link to the RFC, but they reverted me stating that there were other co authors besides Rushton, that Rushton had ben published in many respectable jornals, and accused me of "pushing a leftard agenda". They seem to have ignored RFC and the poinf regarding fringe. I thought perhaps you might take a look since you have engaged recently on these subjects recently. Skllagyook (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Skllagyook: Thanks for the ping, and for your diligence. I removed the rest of this exchange as clutter. Let me know if the problem persists. Generalrelative (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant URLs

Re [16], the PMC ID and the DOI already link the full text, that's why the link is considered redundant. See Help:Citation_Style_1#Identifiers. Nemo 17:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo bis: Aha, my mistake. Thanks for the info. Generalrelative (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd and Dostoevsky

Just an afterthought: I can't help asking myself, why do people hate George Floyd so much that they get themselves blocked in order to besmirch his reputation ? Maybe the answer has been given by Dostoevsky in his The Brothers Karamazov, when he has the old Karamazov say: "I played such a foul trick on a certain man that I started to hate him." If the roots of old racism were economic interests, maybe today's racism is rooted in bad conscience. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400: Aha, yes! Brilliant insight, brilliant quote. Sometimes, it appears, their bad conscience is so great that they begin posting portraits of Nietzsche on their user pages. Generalrelative (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Who'll start a new R&I RfC?

I'm concerned about letting the POV-pushers start the new RfC. I'm sure you've seen what AndewNguyen wants to do. The problem is that those of us who are content with last year's RfC don't think a new one is necessary. However, it'll probably happen, whether necessary or not. To prevent mischief, it would be good for it to be a simple, straightforward question about fringe, and be held under EC-protection on the R&I talk-page. It would be bad form for me to be the OP, since I was the OP last year. If you or anyone you can suggest would do it, I'd be glad to help with the tedious task of notifications, including the many participants in last year's RfC. NightHeron (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that we both suggested each other at the same time! I think you did an excellent job of formulating the question. Thanks for stepping up, as always. Generalrelative (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it wasn't subtle

more like passive aggressive. I shouldn't be editing there at all. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sluzzelin: Ha, got it. It's tricky to know what's what sometimes because editors come to these debates with such varying levels of background knowledge and reading comprehension. But I'll remember from now on that you're someone with a sophisticated understanding and will interpret what you say accordingly. Generalrelative (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I admit that I lean toward taking the perspective of the 'average' reader, but in this case it was just dishonest. Apologies. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

confused

You claimed adding the detail that it was the left side of a face when merely "face down" is stated is "not an improvement".

This is clearly wrong: it's an improvement to add extra true information. I don't think you should remove that. WakandaQT (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WakandaQT: I would be happy to have this conversation with you on the article's talk page so that others can weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sex differences and User:MordvinEvgen

Hey, I saw you in the sex differences in intelligence page. Do you think you could have a look at the sex differences in cognition page? User:MordvinEvgen has been editing it and I don't trust his edits. He seems to be a sex difference denier, and editors have warned him about the way he edits. They keep removing his edits, but then he comes back with the same thing, partially or fully, or something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.128.238 (talk)

37.47.128.238: I don't see anything systematically wrong with those edits. Indeed, they seem to be creating some semblance of WP:BALANCE on an article which already relies too heavily on primary sources. And at least one of the studies this user cited is a meta-analysis, which is basically the gold standard per e.g. WP:MEDRS. Generalrelative (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You looked at his edits at the cognition page. So let me just say you can't add balance by adding primary data to match against the other. Wikipedia says that's artificial balance. Look at the edits others have challenged him on. He keeps trying to make men and women the same. If you look at the refractory period data, it's almost all about men. It's artificial to make men and women seem the same in terms of orgasm and some other sex differences. You restored a source he added to the refractory period article. It's based on a Finland study. This goes against the advice he got about sourcing on his talk page and at the orgasm talk page. This editor keeps adding bottom-of-the-barel sources to pages along with sketchy phrasing. And you're supporting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.128.238 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
37.47.128.238: I'm not an expert on this topic so it's not immediately clear to me what the preponderance of reliable sources say on each of these points. But certainly the meta-analysis appears to be a good addition. In any case, this looks like a content dispute which you should be discussing on the article's talk page. Attempting to WP:CANVASS individual editors is not going to help your cause. If you'd like to draw more experienced editors into the discussion the right way, consider posting a neutrally worded invitation over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. A neutrally worded message could be something like: "Hi, I am wondering if the following sources which were recently added to Sex differences in cognition should be considered reliable...." It would then be proper to alert the user with whom you've had the disagreement on their talk page. Also: you need to sign your comments by typing four tildes ("~"). See WP:TALK for more on talk page etiquette. Generalrelative (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant no scheme by contacting you. You said canvassing is bad. A canvassing rule under "Appropriate notification" says it's okay to contact an expert. I thought you were an expert or someone with a lot of knowledge on sex differences of the mind. I was looking for someone with multiple positive edits to cognition or intelligence, or physiology, to review some changes by this editor. Chose you. Sorry to have bothered you. 37.47.128.238 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why I removed the Weiten quote

Besides the reason given in my edit summary, another reason is that I've never heard of anyone wanting to know the IQ of an applicant for an undergraduate or PhD program or a faculty position. If IQ were a measure of ability to do excellent academic work, I'd expect it to be a standard item on an academic CV. But I've never seen it there.

Other than that quote, I think that all your edits really improve the FAQ. NightHeron (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: Makes sense! Thanks for the explanation. Generalrelative (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: Thanks for your additional work on the FYI! I removed one of your quotes so thought I should extend to you the same courtesy: I removed it because, while it added emphasis to the "it could go both ways" point, it was only referring to its own findings in this quote, not to the issue as a whole. Reich's wording, on the other hand, while it could be clearer and more emphatic, is at least speaking for this corner of the genetics profession is a way that clarifies how/why he is not a racial hereditarian. If you disagree with my choice, I'd of course be happy to discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recall being very pleased when you found that quote that explicitly says that, if there were a (very small) average genetic racial difference in intelligence, it would be just as likely to favor Blacks as whites. I think it's a very relevant observation. The racial hereditarians don't just believe in racial differences for which there's no evidence; they unanimously believe that these racial differences must favor whites. In other words, the issue is not just pseudoscience, but racism as well. Because of Wikipedia policy about civility, we don't often use the "r" word, and that's correct. But what I like about that quote is that it doesn't beat around the bush. However, if you believe it's out of place, that's okay. I certainly won't insist. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NightHeron: I like that about the quote you provided too! It's just that this FYI is meant to persuade the skeptical (or at least persuade them not to disrupt a settled consensus), and if one clicks through to that study it is clear that the authors are referring only to their own findings, whereas Reich is referring to the overall topic. Generalrelative (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid point. I'm convinced. NightHeron (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

I knew that sooner or later...

we'd end up on opposite sides of a Wikipedia issue. From [17]: Though the meaning of among and amongst is the same, the frequency of use is not. Among is much more popular than amongst. The Oxford English Corpus counts about 10,000 mentions of amongst in American writing. However, among appears over 300,000 times. The difference is less extreme in British English and other international English dialects, but among is always more common. (emphasis added) However, I promise not to edit-war against amongst. NightHeron (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: Ha! Finally!! Truth be told I hate "amongst". Was just trying to apply the guideline as I understood it. Happy to be reverted in this instance! Generalrelative (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's your call. NightHeron (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Generalrelative (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Among

I don't know how correct this is, but I recall hearing that one can be "among" the audience, but during the intermission, the audience can talk "amongst" themselves. I think "amongst" is synonymous with one meaning of "between", whereas "among" is it's own word.

Which reminds me of something else I'd heard: "English is not a language. It's three Germanic and two Latin languages wrapped in a trenchcoat." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Good quote about English. However all the sources I've looked at agree that "among" and "amongst" are semantically identical. Generalrelative (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Might very well be. What would I know? Half of my vocabulary is a Jeff Foxworthy skit and the other half is words I found in some academic book, and remember just to use them whenever possible to make myself look smart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Socks editing School discipline

Did you notice that the two editors whose edits you just reverted each have only 1 contribution, and they made very similar edits 14 minutes apart. Perhaps if this continues the socks should be reported to WP:SPI. NightHeron (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: Ah, you're right. Good catch. Let's see if it becomes an ongoing problem. Generalrelative (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

August Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

September 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

WP:ROPE

I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cullen328! Looks good to me. As a relatively inexperienced editor (compared to many of y'all) I'm going to stay out of the MfD debate, but I appreciate being looped in. Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but I would be happy to hear any comments that you might have about my version. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, I've added a couple of thoughts over at User talk:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance. Thanks again for including me in the discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's the thing

You said: "Restoring status quo. Changes of this nature will require establishing a new consensus on the article's Talk page." In that case, can you at least respond to my post on Talk:Conservative Democrat rather reverting my justified removal of certain entries? Thank you. Total random nerd (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I've replied at Talk:Conservative Democrat#This page needs to be fixed. Generalrelative (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Liz Ogbu

Information icon Hello, Generalrelative. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Liz Ogbu, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted comments at Talk:Zoonosis

Hi Generalrelative,

I just saw your message on my talk page. I'm new to this, so thank you for bearing with me. Would you clarify the process for archiving comments which are no longer beneficial to the talk page? Is there a formal archival process or should these comments be deleted as I did? I propose that the previously deleted comments be archived. Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Thanks again! RiesHunter (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RiesHunter, thanks for your reply. Just so you're aware, the relevant part of WP:TALK is WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE, and there you will find a link to the instructions: WP:ARCHIVE. Happy editing and welcome to the project, Generalrelative (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generalrelative, I just archived the comments. Thanks for your guidance—I appreciate it! RiesHunter (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RiesHunter, great! Thanks for doing that. Generalrelative (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ANI notice

At Talk:Nicholas Wade; the IP recently disrupting the article with tags has gone on to ANI, but as far as I can see they haven't notified anyone. So, here it is, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tagging_ettiquete. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Generalrelative (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

probabilities

Once I visited a remote indigenous village in Chiapas, and there I met a guy I had never seen before who turned out to live in my street in my (very far away) city. There are millions of streets on earth, so by naive reasoning this was an extremely unlikely event. But I didn't tell him "the odds of you being here are so small that I don't believe you exist". Incidentally any-city any-meteor is closer to the correct model and the parameter that matters is the product of the number of meteors times the number of cities, which might be quite a large number. If you search for "coincidences" at Scholar you can find some of the large literature on the subject (of mixed quality). I don't believe this "Sodom" paper for other reasons, but the low probability argument is simply not valid. Cheers. Zerotalk 04:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that coincidences occur has no bearing on the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I can tell you’re not trying to be a jerk or anything but I’ve told you already that I’m not interested in debating basic principles like this. Generalrelative (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211


Online events:


Special event:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

November 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Please review my talk content relative to the article on the Italo-Ethiopian War

Hello, please review my talk content relative to the article on the Second Italo-Ethiopian War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Ethiopian_War) concerning your reversion of my edits. I notice that there are previous complaints in your user talk page about non-NPOV content in that article.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Generalrelative&oldid=1052875793"