User talk:Maunus

Talkback

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at La Pianista's talk page.
Message added 00:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

retreating...·Maunus·ƛ· 22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC) sorry to hear that Ridiculus mus (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If its not too late, I will make an effort to hang in there - though I'll need your involvement to keep me motivated. I apologize for leaving you there to fend for yourself... it felt as though I was beating my head against a wall. Logic prevails (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If Logic prevails is User:Maunus under another guise, may I say I thought our discussion about the authorship of the Nican mopohua was a good augury for future cooperation, and for a while I took your silence on Juan Diego as tacit support, but now I see your silence reflects wiki-exhaustion (or worse). I sincerely hope you will rebound - in your own good time. Meanwhile, I have only today discovered that it would have been both more courteous to other talk users and more useful all round if I had put my proposed re-write on my user page (as I have now done with a re-write I am floating for Francis of Assisi). When I can face configuring all the footnotes, I will move my proposed re-write of Juan Diego there too. At first I thought the new article would be far too long, but it is almost done (currently 7,200 words). The real problem is the length of the footnotes - as to which I was expecting a rebuke and am/was hoping for guidance - from you in both cases :) Ridiculus mus (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Logic prevails is logic prevails. We are not related, he was responding to a statement I made on his talkpage. I have enjoyed working with you as well. Thanks for the concern.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you back. Logic prevails (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

new looks

Hello Magnus/Maunus,

I've looked at your new looks in the user page and other areas and it looks good. Nice flying bird also. I am glad you are an Admin here at the English WP and I like your areas of interest. To my own completely subjective taste you are one of the nicest Admins I've seen around here. Hope you have time to continue doing the work you've been doing with all the academic responsibilities too. Good luck in general in your career. (I've made also some small additions in my own page lately, that you may or may not be interested to know about.) Regards, warshy^talk 19:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Biopower

Hello Maunus

Regarding article Biopower,what I am trying to show is that the Foucault use of Biopolitics with which leads to his own theory of biopower has an historical precedent meaning that has beeen used through out recent history and did not arrive with Foucault's use I felt that the audience/reader should at least know.I have presented Agamben Thantopolitics as an example of this in doing so it widens the concept Biopower to future researchers,and is in no way trying to undermine Foucault's term Biopower.Many Thanks Richardlord50 (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize that that is what you are striving to do, but the article as it is now gives a much larger amiunt of attention to the non-Foucault usage than to the Foucault usage. That isa problem that is best fixed by giving a more comprehensive descvription of the Foucault and post-Foucault usage. In short I believe you are focusing too much attention on a small corner of the topic and ignoring the more important parts.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I will try to use more on the post Foucault usage but it was an attempt to give unkown version of the term.Many ThanksRichardlord50 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize and appreciate that, but the article should describe the topic as a whole.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nahuatl and Twitter

Nice to see you back, would have been a shame to loose you altogether - having said that, I'm more often than not on the Gaelic wiki these days, less hassle...

Anyway, I would have sent this in a pvt message if I could find the button but I can't. With your interest in Nahuatl, I thought you might be interested in a resource [1] a friend of mine has been developing to help speakers of smaller languages find each other on the sea of English that is Twitter. So far, there are 5 Twitterers that seem to at least occasionally use it. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that is an interesting tool. I don't tweet myself - I have enough to do around here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U filing information

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you seemed to be interested in endorsing an RfC/U regarding User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I have started the RfC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and since I have never done one before, I can only hope it was done correctly. Please feel free to respond to this as you see fit. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

List of language families

Good morning, friend. There's an editor User:Trikemike who keeps automatically including Japonic in Altaic in this list. Japonic is not generally included in Altaic. He's not talking in either his edit summaries or on the Talk Page. I've posted on his Talk Page as well with no response. If you're not too busy, could you weigh in there? Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but User:Trikemike is at it again--just blindly removing Japonic from the article without bothering to even post an edit summary. --Taivo (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"we liberals"

Sorry. I can see how that must sound to a liberal who doesn't agree with me. From now on, I'll say something like "Liberals like me aren't afraid of race-crime statistics." And whether you're a "liberal like me" or some other kind of liberal will be entirely up to you. Leadwind (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why you have a need to label yourself like that anyway, but at least that would be an improvement.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

FTR, I'm a Scandinavian-descended liberal interested in history, religion, linguistics, and culture. That doesn't qualify me to be a liberal like you, but I wouldn't be surprised if you and I were actually closer than our differences on evolutionary psychology might suggest. Leadwind (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

AE

its live at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Miradre The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 8:34 pm, Today (UTC−4

r/K selection theory

Hi Maunus. Just a quick question. I wouldn't disagree with your recent edits to the r/K selection theory article, but in deleting reference to latter day use of r/K selection theory, it obscures the fact that it is still frequently used (as a quick Web of Knowledge trawl reveals). Anyway, I appreciate that what was there before was WP:SYNTH (and I had a hand in that), but I was wondering if you had any advice about how to alter the article so that it was clear to readers that, rightly or wrongly, it is still being used by researchers today? I figure trying to find a more recent review (post-Stearns 1992) would be a start, but perhaps you have a better idea. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

First question is whether it is important that the theory is still used once in a while? Lots of antiquated theories are still sometimes applied either by researchers that didn't get the memo for some reason or for reasons that have to do with the particular study (maybe it is trying to replicate results of a previous experiment, maybe it is just using the model as a heuristic). If we can find a secondary source e.g. a biology textbook that mentions r/k selection theory then maybe it also mentions the current status post 1992 and maybe gives more detail about the contexts in which the theory is currently used. I think looking for mentions in recent textbooks would be a good way to go about it.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Good shout - once it's back open after refurbishment, I'll have a look in our library. My own ecology textbooks are altogether too old to be helpful here! Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

break

2 weeks, got "real" writing to do, if such a thing still exists? Happy Easter, if you celebrate it, belated solstice, goddess Eostre and all that. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Former possessions of Norway

I have responded here. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 11:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I am glad you understand my concern.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at CordeliaNaismith's talk page.
Message added 23:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Do you have acess to "Inteligence"?

The journal "Intelligence" is cited in Race Differences in Intelligence (book). I am little concerned about the reviews there being accurate representations of the actual reviews. That concern is compounded since each one of those People in the recpetion section is a presumably a living person. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The quotes are accurate, but only represents the conclusive paragraph of the review in Loehlin's case, and leaves out some serious criticisms from Mackintosh. Loehlin also faults Lynn for his incorrect definition of race and his use of the notion of "pure races": "I would, however, find fault with Lynn's treatment of race in at least two respects. First, he does not emphasize that the vast majority of genetic variation is not between populations, but among individuals within them. Race differences are fairly small potatoes, if what you are interested in is the variation in the intelligence of humans. And second, he is not always as careful as he might be in the language he uses. A statement like “clines are hybrids between two pure races” (p. 13)—is simply to invite trouble. The phrase “pure races” is bound to evoke old-fashioned racial stereotypes— baggage that Lynn does not need. And the statement is imprecise as well. To the population geneticist, clines are simply geographic gradients of gene frequencies. Such gradients may result from interbreeding between previously separated populations, as Lynn suggests, but this does not define them, as they may occur for other reasons as well, such as differential selection in different parts of the range of a species, a notion that should not be theoretically objectionable to Lynn." And he mentions that " I checked a sample of 40 of the 615 rows in the IQ tables against their sources— selected mostly on the basis of being readily accessible to me. Result: 14 of the 40, about 1 in 3, showed discrepancies, although mostly minor ones." Mackintosh's review amounts to a full rejection of the validity of Lynn's scholarship.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Egregious Omissions that totally misrepresent a living person's position on topic such as Race an IQ would seem to a BLP violation you think? A statement like that in my University's department would likely lead to firing... or if Emeritus position would at least cause limiting of any future grants from the University. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean? That Lynn should befired for misrepresenting Mackintosh? But wikipedia BLP policy doesn't apply to Lynn...·Maunus·ƛ· 00:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Make sure We are clear with each other with what we are communicating to each other here. You have indicated that here that Mackintosh criticism have been left out thus [[the article misrepresents Mackintosh position. Which to me seems like BLP issue to me. forget my digression with funding business was merely trying to point out that such misrepresentation could conceivably have impact on Living persons like Mackintosh. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the text as it currently is misrepresents him, it just leaves out some of the criticism, but it doesn't exactly give the impression that Mackintosh loves Lynn's work. Which he clearly doesn't. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading it again the summary of MAckintosh doesn't leave out the criticism, its just in the prose summary not in the quote. I think the text fairly summarises Loehlin and MAckintosh's views. I don't think there are BLP issues here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

its pain to have to scrutinize these editing sprees but the integrity of the Encyclopedia depends on it. Take care The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles of interest

Thanks for letting me know - I've looked at three you listed, and what is happening is discouraging on many levels, not the least to have Wikipedia be a good source. I'm a historian, not a scientist, but have enough sense of the current consensus to see that it is being misrepresented in many of these articles. Will try to see where I can help.Parkwells (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. I don't think it is necessarily a scientist that is needed, but rather somone able to put the science into its proper social/historic perspective. Any help an attention will be gratefully received.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI notification

I have reported you to the ANI. See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Maunus_accuses.2C_tags.2C_and_deletes_comments_of_new_editors_as_being_sockpuppets_without_evidence_or_justificationMiradre (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

, nice try. If that is not Mikemikev then its a meatpuppet brought in by you.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek's editing

I would appreciate input from other editors about the issues I raised with Volunteer Marek's editing here.Boothello (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

opinionated self published sources

It is meaningless whether its considered bt some to be reliable WP:RS - it is still a self published opinionated sources attacking other people and as such fails clearly WP:SELFPUB please don't replace it without discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, and you are editwarring.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please not post out of the timeline, its generally confusing and it makes it very difficult for users to understand the discussion correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Any confusion is due to your posting a new thread about a topic that was already being discussed.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at Killervogel5's talk page.
Message added 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

White flight

This is really trying my patience. Miradre is insulting. I've been going back to his sources to see what they say, and try to paraphrase if I think it's needed. Just finished about a month working on very contentious issues on Hemings and Thomas Jefferson, and am not sure I want to do this again. Isn't anyone else working on these articles? He makes endless lists, conflates data from 30 years apart without indicating when the data is gathered or evaluated, and insists on every paragraph citing "white flight" or thinks it doesn't count. No one has been so aggressively rude in my years on Wikipedia. Everything I add to try to provide history and context, he labels OR or synthesis. There may also be issues of Copy Vio. Is Book Rag a mirror site? If not, the Urban Decay paragraph was copied from there, together with its sources.Parkwells (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have responded by e-mail.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

^ Ping.... You got Mail The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

obscure S.Am langs

Hi Maunus,

I was wondering if you could advise me on a couple points. The Kariri languages might now be classified. Ethn. calls them "Kariri-Xoko" kzw and gives alt names of Xoko and Xukuru. Xukuru is listed separately xoo and also given the alt names of Kariri and Kariri-Xoko. Am I safe in redirecting Xoko language and Xukuru language to Kariri, or are those names common to several languages? Kaufman says Xukuru is a lang only Greenberg would dare to classify, and I see that Catembri is called 'Kariri' as well.

Similarly, is there another Salumã language that remains unclassified? And does Patagon go under another name? Is our claim justified that Teushen and Haush were Chon languages? (Claim made at Tehuelche language.)

Also, I can't find an iso3 code anywhere for the Lule language, on Ethn. or LingList, and it might still be spoken. Not assigned?

I'm trying to clean up the red links in the S.Am. language listings, even if it's nothing more than assigning an iso3 code so we can keep the languages straight for future ref. — kwami (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

South of Panama I am really out of my element with classification. The most recent stuff I have on those areas is Kaufman's now dated work. I will look at what I can get my hands on.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnologue classifies Vilela as a Lule-Vilela language, but there are no other languages in that grouping. Lule then seems to be unclassified.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems Lule has to be extinct: [2][3]. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) If I may butt in, Lule was never listed in Ethnologue because it was extinct and in S.A. Ethnologue often ignored the extinct languages (thus ISO 639-3 is also spotty in dealing with the extinct lgs). The only evidence for Lule is a grammar and vocabulary written from 1732. There is a nice summary of the language in Willem F.H. Adelaar with Pieter C. Muysken, 2004, The Languages of the Andes (Cambridge), pp. 385-391. Xoko and Xukuru should not be redirected to Kariri yet. The Kariri languages are clearly listed in various sources, but never include Xoko or Xukuru. I'll do a little more digging, but they should not redirect to Kariri at this time. --Taivo (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Most sources link Lule and Vilela. Adelaar says that's probable but at a relatively deep time depth. --Taivo (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Adelaar also seems to treat Lule-Tonocote as one language.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Campbell 1997 follows Kaufman in leaving both Xukurú and Xokó unclassified. --Taivo (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I set up Xukuru languages and attempted to address the naming confusion there and on Kariri languages. However, both Ethnologue and LinguistList conflate Kariri and Xoco. I don't know if this is simply confusion over the naming, or if it was a conscious decision. LingList might simply have copied Ethn on this. ?

I wouldn't expect a language extinct as long as Lule to have an ISO code in Ethn. But I thought there would be one in LingList that Ethn. might ever direct to. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The ISO 639-3 codes were originally based on the Ethnologue codes for all the languages that did not have ISO-639-2 codes. No new ones were added with the expansion of ISO 639-2. New ones are added when linguists working around those languages find a hole in the codes and submit the paperwork for a new code. I've added about a dozen codes that way. Many Native American linguists have an anti-SIL prejudice because they are a missionary organization, so adding ISO codes isn't a priority for them. I hadn't noticed that Lule didn't have an ISO code, so I'll add it to my current list for which paperwork is needed. --Taivo (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently Xokó language is still a rd because Kariri is where they are discussed. But it would be nice if we could know if Ethn. is correct on this point. Maybe Ribeiro? — kwami (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Found this interesting little quote from a dissertation (Sílvia Aguiar Carneiro Martins, 2003, "Gender and Reproduction: Embodiment Among the Kariri-Shoco of Northeast Brazil", University of Manitoba PhD dissertation, pp. 14-15): "According to language classification...different authors have considered Kariri as a specific language. Lowie (1946) and Nimuendaju (1981), based on grammatical accounts from Capuchin missionaries during the seventeenth century, have the same opinion that Kariri was used as a common language by different groups through four dialects: Kipéa, Sabuja, Kamuru, and Dzubukuá. According to the geographic location, Dzubukuá was recognized as the dialect that people used in the region where Kariri-Shoco live today. Rodrigues (1986, 49) identifies Kariri as a language that belongs to the Macro-Gê language family...All dialects of the Kariri language have disappeared....Northeaster indigenous groups in Brazil today are mostly monolingual in Protuguese, including the Kariri-Shoco." --Taivo (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Another dissertation separates Kariri-Shoko and Shoko: Clarice Novaes da Mota, 1987, "As Jurema Told Us: Kariri-Shoko and Shoko Mode of Utilization of Medicinal Plants in the Context of Modern Northeastern Brazil", University of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation. Only the abstract is available through ProQuest, but it includes: "Two societies of indigenous descent--Kariri-Shoko of Alagoas state and Shoko of Sergipe state..." --Taivo (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Another search of the Biblioteca Digital Brasileria de Teses e Dissertacoes (bdtd.ibict.br) yields a totally different set of results if you search for "Xukuru" than if you search for either "Kariri" or "Xoko" (which yield the same results). --Taivo (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I found a dissertation from the Federal University of Pernambuco on the phonology Dzubukua and have ordered it through interlibrary loan. --Taivo (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

White Latin American AfD

Twinkle did not create the actual nomination page, so I went ahead and removed the tag on the article and the transclusion on today's AfD list if you want to try again. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I was creasting it manually. Could you please add it back and perhaps act less quickly in the future.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Then you're not going to like this one: you forgot to include the boilerplate template in the AfD. Favonian (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm experiencing some connectivity issues screwing it up for me. I think I got it now.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The frigging system is running in molasses, so you and I were stepping on each other's toes. Favonian (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I thought I had added this page to my watchlist, but I had not. Everything seems to be fine now, but in the future I would recommend creating the nomination page before adding the transclusion on the AfD list to avoid this kind of thing. I was not aware you could have Twinkle do only 2/3 of the process, which is why I thought it was a glitch. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a glitch due to server lag, twinkle froze in mid process. But I was doing it manually while you deleted the afd notice on the article. If you had waited a few minutes with deleting it I wouldn't have had to do it twice. It doesn't matter now, but sometimes it is good with waiting to fix others problems untill you are sure they aren't doing it themselves. Thanks for keeping an eye out though. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it was almost 15 minutes before you created the page, which seems long enough to me for a normal nomination, but since your nomination was longer and more thorough, it obviously took longer than I would expect. But as you said, it doesn't matter now. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WLA

Hello, Maunus. I'm Pablo Zeta from Argentina. I've read your user page and your alleged credentials are impressive. I don't doubt your knowledge on anthropology, but I think you are missing some points here. I see your expertise field is Amerindian culture, languages, etc in Mesoamerica, so I won't even attempt to discuss with you any of those topics, for your knowledge will surely far surpass mine. But we're dealing with White people here; and as I am born and raised in Latin America, there are aspects of the region's culture and racial/ethnic identity that you don't know or you don't understand. I think that you are simply applying your knowledge on anthropology in a context you're not familiar with, and so I see things very differently. The concept of "White pople" in Latin America is more relaxed than in the US; since colonial times, a person who was at least 7/8 European and 1/8 Amerindian could be considered "White" no matter that small degree of admixture. In LatAm, if you have a Caucasian phenotype, European/Middle Eastern ancestry, and you act and dress like an European, you are considered White. That's the criteria I use to justify the restoration of the photograph.--Pablozeta (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid you are arguing based on personal experience, not academic knowledge of the topic. I have read extensively about race and ethnicity in Latin America and there is no one definition of "white" that is valid for all of Latin America, and White Latin Americans do not form a group. A person who is White in Colombia may be pardo in Brazil and vice versa. You say you were raised in Latin America and so you have some kind of mystical knowledge about the entire continent - that is nonsense - you may have knowledge about the particular place where you were born or have lived, but knowledge about all of Latin America comes from reading about it - something which I have done. I can refer toacademic studies that back up my statements, I doubt that you can do that.Secondly wikipedia policy on attribution of people to racial, ethnic, religious and sexuality based categotries strictly requires that individuals selfidentify as members of that category - someones subjective judgment of their "phenotype" is never enough. Also: you are not living in colonial times. The casta system and the pureza de sangre laws are no longer in effect anywhere in Latin America - nobody counts how many quarts of "white" blood anyone has. Countries like Mexico have not counted "white people" since 1921, it is not even a valid statistical category there - the same applies in other countries. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Maunus making accusations of White nationalism at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Latin American

Hello, Maunus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Miradre (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why, thank you.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mexican Genetic Study

My mistake, the source for the ASHG presented Mexican Study of mestizo genes shows up the Abstract page for the 2006 meeting (http://www.ashg.org/genetics/ashg06s/). But, click on that link, then go to where it says "SEARCH ONLY", then there'll be several little places where to type stuff you want to search (on the left hand side). Go to the one that says "Abstract/Presentation Text" and type in "Mexican mestizo" and you should get 9 results. The 7th result is the study I put on the Mexican people article. It should be titled "Evaluation of Ancestry and Linkage Disequilibrium Sharing in Admixed Population in Mexico." Then you'll see that I did not put false information. I'm not sure why the link won't take directly to that page (I think it's because it's a pop up little screen from a Java command). Have a good day!--Fernirm (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice to find out how to make a source out of it that will take one directly to that page and not to the general abstract page for the 2006 meeting.--Fernirm (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think if it is a notable study you should be able to find references to it in peerreviewed publications, referring to such instead of an online reproduction of the results would spare you the problem of finding a way to link directly to the content. A good day and a pleasant evening to you too!·Maunus·ƛ· 22:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, did you see the study though (I gave you the instructions above); But can you help me find a way to make a reference out of it that takes one directly to that page, because it is a valid study, and I don't think it's fair for people here to be putting unsourced information about Mexican's race and genetics, while there's a genuine study that's not being put here. I'm not very knowledgable on computers and that stuff, so do you know how I could make it into a source that'll take one directly to that page instead of the general search page?--Fernirm (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The link does not take me to the source. I am not a member of that website and I do not wish to be. Sorry, but I can't check it. I think you should try to find a reference to it on another website that does not reuquire membership. Or better yet in a peerreviewed journal.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to be a member to access stuff there (I accessed it originally without a membership), plus to be a member all you have to do is to create a username and a password (no e-mail, etc. required). I put another link, I'm hoping it works now, because it worked for me.--Fernirm (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That new link you included works. Conference paper abstracts are not very good sources though, and I encurage you to look for one published in a peer reviewed journal. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is one place that I know published the study, but it was on a blog, but the blog's link takes one to the homepage of the ASHG website. I'll try to find a publisher though.--Fernirm (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci's involvement in race articles

I just asked a member of Arbcom about Mathsci's current involvement in race articles, [4] since Mathsci has promised to permanently stay out of these articles was a condition for his topic ban being lifted in December. I feel that Mathsci's dominating of Miradre's noticeboard threads is unhelpful so I'm notifying some other people who have been involved in those. Risker suggested that this is dealt with in an arbitration amendment thread. I haven't been involved recently, so I don't think I'm the right person to request an amendment. But I think the rest of you might want to consider Risker's suggestion, if Mathsci continues to be this heavily involved.-SightWatcher (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know MathSci has not edited any race related articles. If you think he is breaking his promise perhaps you should bring it up with him?·Maunus·ƛ· 00:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That is my understanding too. I have added a section on Sweden to White flight, but that only concerns immigration to Sweden. Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci what you promised was "never again to edit articles or their talk pages related to race and intelligence, broadly construed." [5] and "to be completely disengaged from the articles and their talk pages." [6] I don't feel you've kept that promise. You are actively involved in the talk page for the Pioneer Fund article, which is certainly related to race and intelligence, broadly construed. Your appearance in several noticeboard threads lately also doesn't seem in line with your promise to completely disengage.-SightWatcher (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Could the two of you perhaps have this rendez vous somewhere else that is not my talkpage?·Maunus·ƛ· 01:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The Color of Crime (New Century)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from The Color of Crime (New Century), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Rrrrr5 (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, Maunus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

R&I dispute

Hi Maunus. I was wondering whether you're going to reply to any of Volunteer Marek's new posts on the Race and intelligence talk. Either his reply to you about why he wants to restore the Paige and Witty material, or his comment that "There really is no intelligence/race or even an IQ/race controversy, aside from a small number of fringe racist researchers like Rushton and Lynn" and the article should be changed to reflect that.

You've given me the impression that you don't completely agree with Volunteer Marek's rationale for the changes he's been making, so I wanted to ask if you had a suggestion about how to resolve this conflict. I tried starting an RFC about a similar issue on the Rushton article, but none of the people commenting were familiar with that topic, so none of them addressed the specific thing I was asking. Whenever I try to undo any of Marek's changes, regardless of how carefully I explain my reasoning, Mustihussain reinstates the changes due to "no consensus". But Marek's attitude on these articles makes me think he might not be interested in building a consensus, and either way his incivility makes consensus-building very difficult. Again, I understand and sympathize that you've been frustrated with these articles lately. I am trying to learn, and I ask that you be patient with me. Any advice would be appreciated.Boothello (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to be straight forward with you and give you full disclosure. I dont trust you. I have a strong intuition that you are collaborating through off-wiki means with other editors who are now topicbanned, blocked, or otherwise not supposed to be able to edit these articles, about pushing a certain agenda. However, even if I am right, there is currently nothing I can do about it, so I will have to try to act towards you as any other good faith editor. If I am wrong and you are not collaborating with any other editors or trying to push any agenda, but just happened to appear on the scene in the wake of a protracted arbitration case and happen to have the same degree of knowledge of the hereditarian literature they had and share most of their opinions and ways of arguing, then I apologize beforehand for treating you unfairly. There is however things that you can do to work to convince me that you are not just here to make the job harder for me and those other editors who are interested in representing this view balancedly, and in its full context. You can for example take the opposite approach that many of your predecessors have taken which has been to include the hereditarian view and let others provide the opposing viewpoints at their leisure. If you show me that you are conversant with both bodies of literature and interested in representing both fairly that would go along way towards me being able to think of you as anything other than an annoying meatpuppet. If you show you are interested in other areas unrelated to this field, and edit those as well, that will be another big step. In sum - I am sorry if you feel unfairly affected by the acts of previous editors, that is unfortunate, but at this point you will have to do some work to get the full benefit of good faith from me in this area of wikipedia. I have responded to Marek regarding the parts of his argumentation that I disagree with. I value the rules and policies of this encyclopedia, and I strive to maintain my own scholarly integrity (as you probably know I edit with my identity disclosed - something that I think should be a requirement for editing, especially in this area of the encyclopedia). Previous pro-hereditarian editors have found me to be fairly reasonable when confronted with good arguments, even when coming from people I don't trust or like. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the honesty. If there's as much a history of socking on these articles as some people have said, I understand your reservations. I would like to eventually demonstrate to you that I care about the quality and balance of these articles, rather than pushing an agenda. I also will try to take your advice and edit outside of this topic area, time permitting.

If my edits up to this point have shown a pro-hereditarian slant, that's likely due to the balance of editors involved in these articles. When pro-hereditarian editors such as Miradre introduce poorly-sourced content, usually editors such as you and Aprock deal with it before I even notice it. But when pro-environmental editors like Volunteer Marek make changes that are unhelpful, there seem to be very few editors willing to object. That said (and as I just responded to you on the R&I talk) I agree that the article is currently somewhat unbalanced in the hereditarian direction, and I look forward to constructively collaborating with you and others to improve it as a whole. However, it does take a little more effort to overhaul an article than just to debate ongoing edits.Boothello (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There are still many articles that are basically as Miradre and others with similar idea have written them - not exavtly badly source but with a very large gathering of any pro-hereditarian statement ever published, but only symbolic hints of the opposing view. Aprock and I only have so much time - whereas apparently Miradre had neverending amounts of time...untill now when he is suddenly gone.... What makes these articles frustrating is that editing gets bogged down in discussions and there is very little progress and very little possibility of moving away from any given status quo. But discussion is necessary simply because of the level of controversy and I wish Marek would have taken an approach of using the talkpage before doing such controversial changes, since doing the edits and then being reverted inevitably puts the discussion off to a bad start.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Do you have any advice about this discussion? [7] I'm not sure where it's going at this point, and thought maybe you'd have a comment to offer us in the thread. Thanks,Boothello (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Greetings; I'm Pablo Zeta. User Demonair Rai y I have found new sources that seem to be "tasty" in both data and conclussions, but I need time to process them. These are some: Whiteness in Latin America: Measurement and Meaning in National Censuses (1850-1950) escrito por Mara Loveman. Journal de la Société des Américanistes. Vol. 95-2, 2009. Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America. Historia de América Latina: La Independencia. escrito por Leslie Bethell. página 25. Cambridge University Press, 1985. Traducido por Angels Solá; editorial Domingraf S.L., Barcelona. (2000) América Latina como sociedad de colonización blanca Inequality in Latin América. So I propose this: suspend this AfD, allow me to have a draft of this article in an anex to my user page, so I can process the sources without Damocles- sword hanging above. I think this is a unique change to give the article the perspective it requires. ¿What do you think of my proposal? --190.7.225.2 (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are block evading, and that doesn't really suggest that you are going to have a userspace in which to work on anything. I think it is possible to write an article about "whiteness in Latin America", although I think the natural way to approach it would be to write that as part of Race and ethnicity in Latin America. There are many much better sources about the different racial categorizations that exist throughout Latin America than the one's you propose, some of them mention how the category of White is interpreted in different countries and suggests that in some countries "white people" do have a common identity - not however one that is common with "white people" from other Latin American countries. Regarding your proposal I don't really have any way to accept or decline, I cannot retract the nomination as lots of people have already voted and will want a solution to the problem, you don't currently have any editing rights. If it is deleted and you get your editing rights back you can of course work on it in your userspace and recreate the article when you feel it is good enough to not be instantly deleted for the same reasons. If it isn't deleted and you get your editing rights back then you should definitely work to improve the article anyway. I would suggest you start by trying to get your editing rights back. That would require somehow convincing the blocking admins that you are aware you made a mistake and you won't do it again.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No Problem

No problem with the help on that article. ;) The article was indeed very biased and it appears to attempt to exaggerate minority crime rates by quoting old statistics (such as statistics from 2001 and the 1990s when crime rates were higher in general) and sometimes quoting sources with questionable statistical calculation. While the crime rate is indeed elevated in non-white communities the article is bereft of factors contributing to why and sometimes exaggerates the problem using statistical artifacts such as crime rates per capita. Since minority communities are smaller the few heavily-minority urban centers of violence heavily increase the crime rate. People just assume this crime is evenly distributed throughout non-white communities instead of taking into account this is being caused by a few spoiled eggs in certain areas and police profiling of minorities for certain offenses. I'd be glad to help clear up some of these other pages soon. :) Full Shunyata (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

White Latin American

Hi Firs, do you think you might be able to give a more detailed analysis of how you have weighed the arguments. I am concerned that most of the keep votes are not actually adressing the deletion rationale, but are reacting to other arguments that I have not made. I would be interested in knowing which arguments on the pro and contra side you see as being valid.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maunus,

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Your contention in this debate was that the article should be redirected because "This article creates an [ethnic] group out of a synthesis of statistical artefacts, and should be deleted per WP:OR WP:SYNTH, WP:NEOLOGISM". You also stated that "There is no body of literature that considers "white people" in Latin America to form a coherent [whole] about which it is possible to make general statements. Rather the literature on race in Latin America always states that there is wide variability about what being "white" means in different latin american countries."

user:Pablozeta came up with a large number of links (including several PDFs from journals) that use the term and discuss the topic, so it doesn't appear that the article violates WP:NEOLOGISM right from the start. Although you discounted one source as "fringe" and the census data as insufficient for an article, you did not provide any link or source to back up these assertions. Who considers this author fringe, other than you?

user:Miradre based his 'keep' rationale on non-policy reasons, and you called him a "Single Purpose Account dedicated to pushing a pro-White Nationalist viewpoint"; his !vote can be discounted, but so can your response to his comments.

user:Rangoon stated that there were many books which discuss the subject, and provided a link to back up the claim. Although you discounted the link (based on a single false result), there clearly are valid books discussing the topic. Again, it doesn't appear to be the neologism you claimed it to be in your deletion nomination, nor would an editor need to rely on WP:OR to write an article.

user:Redthoreau gave a somewhat WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS rationale for keep, but then supplemented it with this comment: "Many of these "white categories" are not scientific, or even academic – but they are part of the popular parlance and represent notable [phenomenas] with the always tricky, disputed, and controversial issue of "race". You are obviously an intelligent person, but I think you may be letting your anthropological "hat" (with its own embedded esoteric vernacular and definitional parameters) in conjunction with your closeness to this topic as it relates to Latin America - cloud your judgment on this issue. You are right to demand that we address and accurately reflect the many nuances of people who self-identify or get labeled "white Latin Americans", but I don’t believe that deleting the article altogether is helpful in furthering the understanding of our readers."

user:SamEV and user:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) stated in their rationales that the term is an "official category in some Latin American country censuses". If true, it again demonstrates that the term is not a neologism. Your reply to Richard was borderline hostile and had little to do with the discussion.

user:Colonel Warden stated that the topic is notable (which wasn't the deletion rationale), but then added, "Neologisms are new words. There is no new word here as the title uses ordinary English in an ordinary way. The article is just taking the topic of White people and looking at it for the geographical/cultural segment of Latin America. This intersection seems quite reasonable and is covered by third-party sources."

user:Reference Desker listed four books which discuss the term.

user:Silverseren stated: "White Latin American is listed on multiple censuses in the area, as has been shown above, and has been discussed in numerous sources. I don't understand why people keep trying to delete article on ethnic and national groups. The article uses the definitions given in the sources and isn't a synthesis of anything." SilverSeren provided links to back up his assertion.

I believe I discounted most of the rest of the 'keep' rationales; however, even with some good arguments for deletion or for merging, there was by no means a consensus for deletion or merging, which resulted in my closing the discussion as no consensus. I know you were not arguing for the deletion of the article based on lack of notability, but on WP:OR WP:SYNTH, and WP:NEOLOGISM, but many of the arguments above directly dispute that deletion rationale using policy-based reasons or by providing citations that indicate otherwise. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Firs, thanks for the very detailed analysis of the arguments. I can see that part of the problem was with my argumentation, as I didn't provide sources to back up many of my claims. I will be sure to do that another time, thanks for obliging me in doing this. It is always nice to come to an undersanding of the reasons why someone else doesn't agree with what is obvious to you. Thanks!·Maunus·ƛ· 11:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus,

I know that for a subject matter expert, it's often difficult to relay the information that already is so obvious to an expert. I agree that it might be better to provide some sources during these types of deletion discussions; short quotes would also be helpful. If (for example) Smith (2008) says the demographic is too varied of a group to treat meaningfully, that would be helpful to have in the discussion. Back it up with PDFs or other links to reliable sources. Provide proof for the claim. Anyway, best of luck in future discussions. Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 15:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FTN post

I have asked Sir Fozzie to drop some ARBR&I notifications as this tag teaming is really unacceptable. I wish I could devote more time to it at the moment and be of more help. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks very much like coordinated activity imo.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree but that cant be proven at this point. Fortunately they are going back to the basics of R&I and not mucking up a dozens of article across the Encyclopedia. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You should know...

that 98 IP has selectively deleted a massive number of posts on Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen (~ 100Kb), mostly her own (from the middle of threads), but some of others' including some of yours [8]. Oddly enough, nobody noticed in time (or cared), transforming the talk page in an unintelligible monologuish morass. I'm still working on repairing it... Tijfo098 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He also removed his comment from my talkpage. I thought it didn't matter at the time.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Unreplied comments of hers are not the issue. But (for instance) she transformed a thread from this to that. Since the I had not watchlisted the talk page, it seemed really odd that someone with a clue (The Blade of Northen Lights in this case) would give that sort of off-topic reply to my post, and then argued with himself! And that's just a small sample... Tijfo098 (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 14:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the section entitled "Deletion of another editor's comment." Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 16:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:ANI/Evolutionary psychology

You need to post diffs of what you consider troublesome edits, otherwise your report will be ignored. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

RFAR ammendment request

I have filed a request to amend the Pseudoscience arbitration case in a manner that might concern your editing style. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Pseudoscience. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Re 'leaving the scene for a little while'

No problem - we are all volunteers here, and we all have other priorities - and a break from this nonsense would probably do us all good: I know my temper is getting frayed. Did I see somewhere that you are off to do fieldwork soon? If so, I suspect that this should at least free you from the trivia here, and give you other things to concentrate on. No bad thing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

yeah, I'll be leaving in a month so there'll definitely be three months free from wikistress. But I'll try to taper down from now on. I am now trying to convince myself the sky won't fall down on us just because wikipedia has bad coverage of social science related topics. ;) ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No, evidently the sky is going to fall in for other reasons entirely ;) [9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In the EP AN/I somwhere Andy mentioned that you were heading out into the field. Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

don't stay gone too long

You're the only detractor of EP who is nevertheless willing to add any actual information about EP to the page. That means you're the only one who's demonstrated an ounce of neutrality. Leadwind (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, it actually means something to me coming from you. I apologize for any harsh words I have said to you, and wish you happy editing.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Leadwind (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Good luck and best wishes - Off2riorob (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing through a block

Very, very, very naughty. Please discuss this with the blocking administrator. Mathsci (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And get him to tell yourself that you are supposed to be taking a break from all this nonsense too ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Luckily he allowed me to retain talkpage access. ;)·Maunus·ƛ· 21:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This smacks of cronyism. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark... Mathsci (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure is, but it ain't me. I ain't welcome there no more.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following but it's been a pleasure working with you. You might consider what I did, which is to focus my editing efforts on a non-English wiki. Things are much more civil on the Gaelic wiki I must say and less... political. Tu hèel k'ìin! Akerbeltz (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Feedback requested on new R&I lead

I just made a proposal here about a possible change to the lead of the race and intelligence article. Feedback about it would be appreciated.Boothello (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the proposal is very well balanced. You remove the AAA, AAPA and UNESCO and APA statements with a dubious rationale, and insert a statement of hierarchy with a token statement about "lack of consensus". The way to fix the problem that the AAA, AAPA and UNESCO reports do not occur in the article body is not to remove it from the lead, but to write a section about it which is obviously relevant and lacking. While the wording that there is general agreement that genetics affect individual IQ scores is technically not at odds with the statement that the cause of group differences is unknown, it is turning a complex issue into a simplistic phrasing that cannot but confuse the reader and make them think the hereditarian position has more empirical support than it does. For example the kind of influence that people agree genes have on IQ is the difference between neurotypical people and genetic mental disorders and syndromes. There is no agreement that genetic influences explain any of the intra individual variance in IQ among neurotypical people. In this way the statement is misleading, and while I think Marek is wrong in his statement that they are contradictory his misreading does point to the problematic nature of your phrasing. I do agree with Marek's criticism that your change does not fix the problem of giving undue weight to the hereditarian minority view, but rather exacerbates it.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the race and intelligence talk page, the wording about genetics affecting individual IQ scores isn't an addition I made, it was already in the article. I disagree with your statement that there's no agreement that genetics affects variation in individual IQ scores among neurotypical people. Sources that support this include the APA report, the Handbook of Intelligence, Deary's Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction, Plomin’s Behavioral Genetics, and Hunt's Human Intelligence. In addition to the APA report, these are all mainstream textbook sources, and I'm not aware of any similar sources in the relevant fields that disagree with this assertion. I think the current wording about this is fine, but I'm open to specific suggestions about how to make it clearer, as long as it's consistent with what the sources say.

Since consensus seems to favor including the AAA, AAPA and UNESCO statements, I'll make a new proposal sometime soon that includes those. Marek and Professor Marginalia also want me to remove the reference to the Bell Curve, which I included because you suggested that. What's your opinion about their argument for removing it?Boothello (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I am actually trying to stay clear of the discussion for the time being, so I will refrain from adressing your arguments and questions directly now. I will just clarify my opinion about the particular issue: The question of heritability (and the genetic part of heritability), between group differences and the division of gene/environment contributions to individual IQ is extremely complicated and there is less agreement about it the further you move from the psychometric subcommunity of psychology - and even among psychometricians there isn't agreement. A single sentence such as the one currently there does not do justice to those complexities. I have looked through the ways these issues are presented in several undergraduate textbooks in psychology, they invariably spend most of the chapter problematizing the issues and then end up saying that there is little agreement on anything in psychometrics and especially as it relates to group differences. Regarding group differences, two of the one's I've looked at state that there is ample evidence to suggest that environmental causes can explain the gap and the question is whether genetic causes contributes anything. Regarding the question of how much genes and environment contributes to individual IQ one states that this is "a dumb question" which cannot be meaningfully answered.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I'm at a loss as to how to explain the nuances of this issue in the lead, considering the limited amount of space. If you're trying to stay out of discussions about content issues for now, I still think the best idea is to just leave this aspect of the article the way it is for now. As I said before, this part of my proposed wording is not something new, it's just what the article has said for the past several months. But whenever you decide to come back to the articles, feel free to suggest an improvement.Boothello (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling the UNESCO statement's "outdated" and "of historical interest only" is utter nonsense. The last stament is from 1978 9 years after Jensen's paper. The statement has been ratified by all UNESCO member's and has not been modified since or retracted and it is still in full effect as the basic policy governing UNESCO's policies on human rights and social inequality. The statement is referred to in many of the more recent statements. I have a hard time seeing this argument as anything other than denying that the mainstream view of international politics is in fact the mainstream view. Why is it by the way that you don't correspond with Miradre and sightwatcher when you send messages to victorchmara and vsevolod krolikov and me?·Maunus·ƛ· 18:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with Victor about this you might want to discuss it with him. As I said on the article talk, I think it's fine to include the UNESCO statement if other people want it, as long as we don't include the 1950 version without mentioning that it was revised in 1951. I can also see the logic in Victor's opinion, but I'm fine with whatever consensus decides about this.

The reason I contacted you three is because you three are clearly (to me anyway) the most knowledgeable and experienced in this topic area. SW is pretty new and Miradre is extremely pro-hereditarian from my perspective. Same reason why I didn't ask Marek or Ramdrake, they seem to be non-neutral from the other direction.Boothello (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Maunus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

E-mail

I didn't think it was actionable in and of itself, but it's certainly additional evidence of a pattern of behavior, just FYI. JTRH (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Phora

Hello, Maunus. There is a debate on the subject of Race and Intelligence centered around a video I uploaded to Youtube of Rushton and Graves at a "free speech" message board called The Phora where many supporters of Scientific Racism engage in open debate. I post there under the name Morpheus. One of the debaters there named Frank has accused me of defacing Wikipedia by editing out a quote by Stearns that was actually made by you. He suspects that I am you or am atleast in some way involved with the edit. If it's not too much trouble could you register on The Phora and verify that I am not you. If you want to participate in the actual discussion I welcome that as well. The thread in can be found here. If you decide to join please register under your Wikipedia screename. EgalitarianJay (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not going to get into that debate at that forum, I am trying to get out if it here. But I guess now at least we know where the meatpuppets come from. If "Frank" is not convinced by seeing me talking to you here, I don't see why he would be convinced because a new account called Maunus registered at the forum saying it isn't you. It is particularly silly since I am not editing anonymously here, but are in fact supplying my personal identifiable and anyone who wants to know who I am can send me an email. I have currently taken most race related articles off my watchlist and am trying to let others keep the racialist at bay. It is too stressful and not at all emotionally rewarding to deal with that crap, so I will be taking a wiki-vacation over the summer and work on other stuff when I come back to my regular contribution levels.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Persistent page tagging

I'll gladly say it to your face. Quit your persistent page tagging of articles, not just mine but others which have potential but just require cleanup. Your plastering tags over articles does bugger all to help wikipedia. It comes down to nothing but pure laziness. If you actually bothered to do research of such people then they are clearly notable. Plastering tags degrades wikipedia and does nothing to improve it. All you do is stand around trying to degrade the work of others and impeding progress. Why don't you spend more of your time trying to promote Mesoamerican articles to GA status instead of your irritating little tags. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid we disagree fundamentally about this - from my viewpoint your crusade to indiscrimimnately include all information in the world in the encyclopedia degrades wikipedia and does nothing to improve it. When I tag articles it is to attract attention and second opinions from other editors who may think differently than I do - and it is therefore a less radical alternative to CSDing, or Prod useless articles. I had oped you would appreciate that difference. I also think you suffer under several fundamental misunderstandings of our basic policies such as WP:NOT and WP:CIVIL. I will by the way have to file a wikiquette report about you continued use of personal attacks. About your allegations of laziness I can confess that I happen to both have a life that requires attention and a contribution history that compares favorably to yours at least in the parameter of quality if not in quantity. Now, have a good day.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A good day would happen if all of the lazy academics on wikipedia quit being an asshole and degrading the work of others and got on with something useful themselves. I have no doubts the waster that you are you'll attempt to file something against me as you are clearly not here to work with people and improve wikipedia yourself. You showed that to me with your review a while back of Oaxaca. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You are not exactly a forthcoming and collaborative editor yourself Blofeld - throwing around expletives is not exactly conducive to collaboration. Are you seriously still pissed off about the fact that you couldn't waltz that substandard article through GA without doing some actual reading about the topic? That is laziness and disrespect for actual knowledge. I have filed a Wikiquette alert about your personal attacks. I'll include the one you made just now in the report.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by

It was nice to hear from you last night, Maunus. I know that sometimes this place gets to you too. It would good if we could only be writing an encyclopedia, but unfortunately sometimes all the other stuff catches up too. Thanks so much for your kind words - they were very much appreciated. I don't know whether you saw my response but it was something about your content contributions. Your linguistics pages are still fantastic and you should be proud of them. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you too. I agree completely with your sentiment - when it all comes down to it the only thing making this worth the time is to be able to say that we've written some good articles.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Source of your map Aztecexpansion.png

Hello, Your map File:Aztecexpansion.png would be very much more interesting if the source could be known.

It could be very interesting, too, to merge this map with that one, in svg, to show the variations of aztec empire geography in the introduction of the main article on Aztecs in different languages.

El Comandante (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Source is Ross Hassig's "Aztec Warfare". I agree that that merger would be interesting.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Magnus. This might amuse you: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev Best regards, Mathsci (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is slightly less amusing but unsurprising. [10] Mathsci (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I am an honorary Jew now.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, everyone is Jewish unless proven otherwise ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Inukshuk

Over 90% of the word's appearances in the article were already at the -suk spelling; all I did was change the few isolated -shuks. If you want the article to use the -shuk spelling, then it needs to be consistently -shuk across the board instead of mostly -suk — because the article was already not conforming to any sort of -shuk consensus, meaning that I'm not who there's an issue with. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not claiming a consensus, indeed there doesn't seem to be one either way - but the article is located at inukshuk which suggests that the article should use that form - this is also suggested by our naming policy which suggests we use the most common English spelling unless there is a clear consensus not to. I agree that consistency is preferable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthropology

link=User talk:<snowcountry1>

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at [[User talk:<snowcountry1>|User talk:<snowcountry1>]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Maunus,

First time user so my sincere apologies if i'm doing everything all wrong here! I noticed you deleted my link to "100 of the most influential ethnographies and anthropological texts". First, It is indeed a personal webpage. Is that a no-no? If so, case closed with my apologies. If not, then I might add that it's not just five works but requires you to scroll down, and just keep on scrolling through the whole list. I compiled this by informally asking students and professors at top anthro programs around the country. Seemed to me like a useful resource and that many of my students interested in anthro are hungering for lists of good anthropology works, you know, beyond the Nisa and Yanomami they're getting in their intro to anthro courses. Many thanks for everything and apologies if adding that link was inappropriate!

Best, Snowcountry1 (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry you did nothing wrong - everything can be fixed around here so don't be shy - change everything you like - sometimes it will just be reverted if someone disagrees - that is part of the process. But I did find the way to scroll down and see the other works after having deleted the link (the webdesign was a bit confusing). I did find the site useful - but since it is a personal webpage it isn't a suitable external link anyway. The policy regarding external links is WP:EL. Best wishes and happy editing!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, Maunus!Snowcountry1 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Maunus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

UOJComm (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Economic antisemitism

Hi Maunus,

You !voted to delete Economic history of the Jews (originally Jews and money). Would you do me the favor of looking at a draft article that I am working on? The proposed title is Economic antisemitism. I'd like your input as to the suitability of the draft article for Wikipedia and whether it is ready to be moved to article mainspace. Any feedback you can provide on how to improve the article would be much appreciated. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

norwegian pakistanis

hi maunus, it seems that another nutjob has arrived on the "norwegian pakistani"-page. i suspect that user "costelloville" is also the person behind the ip-address, 85.165.230.133 [11]. in addition, "costelloville" and 85.165.230.133 have also created havoc at the norwegian site [12]. "costelloville" is now banned on the norwegian wiki [13]. "costelloville" is a spa with a very destructive behaviour. he is also disingenuous, claiming that he is "removing red links" and so on and so forth while , in reality, he's removing sources and content. he's about to break the three revert rule as well -- mustihussain (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Information about discretionary sanctions for race and intelligence

See this Arbcom decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Final_decision

In particular, "Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility."

Your mass deletion of all the favorable views presented in numerous different peer-reviewed studies by over 30 different authors and co-authors is not acceptable: [14]

Miradre (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You are funny. At least now we know that you are aware of the sanctions, so we need waste no further time making you aware of them.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A mass deletion of over numerous peer-reviewed studies by over 30 different authors that does not fit your own POV is of course not acceptable.Miradre (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In contrast to you I have neither editwarred or added statements that give undue weight to fringe views (such as insertion of 30 sources that supposedly support a wholly discredited theory). It would be my pleasure to have you report my conduct to ARBEN. Unfortunately I don't think you are that stupid.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have done none of the things you accuse me of. I hope you will improve you conduct voluntarily after this remainder. Do you have any justification for your mass deletion of material that does not fit with your POV?Miradre (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• giggle*·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You further aggravate your problematic behavior by incivility.Miradre (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Being amused by your antics is hardly incivil.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you have no justification for your mass deletion of views you do not like.Miradre (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You may leave now. Please don't post here again.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, here she goes again. Miradre has been WP:TROLLING on multiple pages of wikipedia. My guess is that she might understand things a little better if you switched to your mother tongue :) Mathsci (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your incivility.Miradre (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What incivility? The edits you have made today have constituted relentless WP:TROLLING on several wikipedia pages: too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and endless repetition of statements that have been contrary to all wikipedia editing guidelines. That conduct is not normal. You have also inappropriately templated three or four editors. I am sure you have your reasons. Mathsci (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about Cattell Talk page

Maunus, I didn't understand your statement on the Raymond Cattell talk page today, that "nobody needs to provide proof for anything in Wikipedia - they need to verify their claims by providing reliable sources". In this case, both sides are citing reliable sources, the question is about what you can factually state based on those sources. I guess "proof" was the wrong word for me to use. Tucker inserted a statement about Cattell's motivation that the rest of us believe is not actually supported by his citation, and in fact there is evidence to the contrary. Wikipedia should not be a soapbox for opinion or speculation. Do we agree? Tucker's statement has currently been removed, so hopefully we're OK now. Incidentally, his criticisms of Cattell are almost entirely in his own books, not in peer-reviewed journals. --WikiRepairGuy (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What I meant is that nobody needs to be citing primary sources as "proof" of statements in wikipedia as both sides in the argument were doing. We cannot know anything about Cattell´s motivation but we an know what reliable sources have stated about it. The fact that a statement about Cattell('s motivation) has been poublished in a reliable source is sufficient for inclusion in wikipedia - with due attribution of course (e.g. "William Tucker argues/states/suggests that Cattell was motivated by"). Tucker's books are peer reviewed books published by respectable academic presses and by a scholar who is a recognized expert in the study of scientific racism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification, we're in agreement. The issue here is that Cattell's statement says one thing, but Tucker extrapolates his statement to something else that does not necessarily follow. Cattell's former colleagues (many more respected and more widely published than Tucker, by the way) have taken issue with Tucker's tendency to do this, as noted in [15]. Tucker does have valid points, I just want to make sure that the ones he makes in wikipedia are those verifiable points, or they are framed with "Tucker argues". This particular edit by Tucker was not. Thanks, WikiRepairGuy (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is that if Tucker has published his interpretation of Cattel's motivation, it doesn't matter whether you or I or anyone else find it to be in conflict with their interpretation of what Cattell actually meant - unless our opinions have also been published. I don't know how you arrive at a comparison that Cattell's students are more widely published than Tucker - Tucker specializes in the history of scientific racism in psychology - Cattell's students specialize in other fields of Psychology. A "verifiable point" is one that is sourced to a reliable source, not those that we find to be most in agreement with primary sources (since that is OR). I think we are mostly in agreement, but I also think that several editors of the page have squandered the possibility of taking advantage of Tucker's valuable expert contributions to the article, by being somehow seeing it as their responsibility to protect Cattell from criticism that is obviously worthy of inclusion due to the fact that it is widely published in reliable sources. I would suggest taking an approach to the article which doesn't attempt to explain what Cattell was or wasn't about (truth), but instead try to summarise that which has been published about him (verifiability).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes: we need to cite reliable sources. I believe the article now summarizes and cites the position of both sides. And yes, Professor Tucker has some valuable expertise to contribute. However, the psychologists who actually knew and worked with Cattell claim that Tucker, in his zeal to argue his case, has sometimes been inaccurate and misleading in his statements about Cattell, e.g. see Professor Gillis's analysis of Tucker's writings. Even if Cattell's former colleagues are not "experts in academic racism", they are widely-published psychologists who worked side-by-side with him for years, and Tucker never even talked to Cattell.

I'm just trying to insure that the wikipedia article remains neutral and accurate. I think we've gotten there, for now. I appreciate that you are trying to accomplish the same thing. Thanks, WikiRepairGuy (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

edit warring: Miradre

You were mentioned in an edit warring report against Miradre: [16] aprock (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Armenian placenames in Turkey

Don't remove Armenian place names from articles about Turkish localities[17] unless you first have a clear consensus to do so at the talkpage. Wikipedia has ageneral policy of including minoritylanguage place names for localities where Minority languages have been or are still spoken.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You completely confused provinces with cities. For example, the article Van Province is related with a province, not with a city (Van). So we mustn't add alternative names of the city of Van. We can add alternative names of the province of Van with reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dicky Fallacy

I requested a checkuser after this account's first edit. They confirmed that this was the same editor as Nam84=Mikemikev. They also confirmed that the same person was editing as Samuel Cheadle (talk · contribs), so you might want to block that account as well. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev (July 14). Mathsci (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Innuit adjectives

Hi Maunus,

Is the frequent -q that occurs in Innuit abs.sg forms a case ending? Any conditioning factor for -q, -k, -t, -zero, or are they diff. declensions?

Also, when adding adjectival -tun (at least I assume it's adjectival), do you delete the abs. endings?

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes q/k/Ø all signal the absolutive singular case ending - this ending is however usually considered part of the stem and not an affix. Other case endings or suffixes can be appended to the stem final consonant or some affixes elide the stem final consonant. -t is the absolutive plural and always elides the stem final consonant. -tun is a case ending for the "equative case" (meaning "as a") which is always suffixed with the stem final consonant. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, equative case. I recognize the name but didn't make the connection. So, it's always -aqtun and never -atun? But then why do we get Inupiatun alongside Inupiaq? Is that the equative plural? — kwami (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Does relative/genitive -m also replace abs. -q? And do you know where the dividing line between -m and -p (or -up) is? Could you parse Tarquiup Inua?

Thanks — kwami (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are differences between languages in whether specific endings causes elision or not - in Kalaalisut the equative ending does cause elision of the stem final consonant (the word Kalaallisut is itself an example of that since it is derived from kalaaleq+sut). So when I said that equative always suffixes with the that holds within the language that has the -aqtun type endings (e.g. Inuinaqtun, inuktun, etc.). In Kalaallisut the ergative ending -p does replace the -q in the nouns that take the ergative ending - not all do. I don't knw where the dividing line between forms of the ergative suffix is. I would parse tarquiup inua as "tarqi+up inu+aa" moon-ERG soul-3pPOSS (i don't know why there is an u before the i - I don't think it should be there)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

On Google Books, the first u only appears in Man, myth & magic and LLC copies of WP articles. Everything else lacks the u. I'll move the article. — kwami (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how you would create the ERG/GEN of Tarqeq or Ijiraq in Nunavut? Is there a source available somewhere online? What I've been able to find concentrates on verbal morphology and spends little time on nouns.

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kwami. I've looked for sources on Nunavut Inuktitut grammar and havent found any readily. Ill get back to you if I do.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey

What's up with the stalking?Alphasinus (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am an administrator. I am supposed to keep an eye out for disruptive editors like you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Way to lay down the law! Leadwind (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am also supposed to keep an eye out for disruptive editors like you Leadwind, you and your friend Memills just got too grinding on my nerves and I needed a break from you, so now Im letting others do the hard work so I have more time for Alphasinus. Its a tough job but someones got to do it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Aw, don't be mad. You're one of the reasonable editors who hates EP. Don't switch over to the unreasonable camp. Leadwind (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As I have told you before I dont hate EP, I am just one of many who are unconvinced by its claims. What I do hate is wasting time on editors like you and Memills who will stop at nothing to push their POVs and make it look like some half baked fictoid is a proven fact. Happy editing to you, enjoy your stoping grounds - hope not to see you in mine.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't be mean. Let's just stick to WP policies and guidelines. If EP is a "half-baked fictoid," just find an RS that says so. Maybe I'm wrong. A good citation could set me straight. Leadwind (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

EP is not a fictoid, it is a school of valid research which unfortunately is mostly populated by sloppy scholars and political activists which causes most of the claims it generates to be halfbaked fictoids. I have presented scores of peer reviewed articles and academic press published books stating so - none of whose view points you have found worthy to include in the articles on EP. On the contrary you have consistently used EP'ers own self glorifying statement and even non existing statements in the EB to suggest that EP is the mainstream of psychology - arguing ad nauseam against handfuls of editors who are better read about the topic than yourself. I am going to say no thanks to enter that circus with you again.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to see your still alive! You are sorely missed on the EP pages. There are a few more editors joining the mix. If I could convince you to stick around, I think we could push to make some positive changes on the Criticisms of EP page. I have a huge arsenal of critical papers that I think are essential for the mainstream to have access to. Before I waste my efforts, I need enough neutral editors around to ensure that it doesn't get reverted or deleted. You were a huge part of there even being a hope on those pages for critical commentary. I hope you are able to at least drop by every now and then. If you choose to stick around, I can promise a worthy effort on my part. Take care. Logic prevails (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Maunus

Could you please take a closer look at my most recent edit to Pan-Germanism?Alphasinus (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You know very well that I have looked at it - several times in fact since you keep reverting to the same version without providing argumens based in sources or policy. You also know that I have eported you to ANI.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

r&i

please note the recent edit warring of an ip-spa. 6 reverts in less than 3 hours. semi-protection might be a good idea.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Your input would be appreciated in the discussion here.Boothello (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Strange...

I happened to notice this odd edit here: [18]. A weird thing for an anon IP to do? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

quite. Can't be bothered to investigate the possible connection between slowhand and Alphasinus implied by this.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there was any - the IP was blocked soon after as a sock. I'd posted that before I spotted the pattern... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed my comment?

Hello. Please be careful; you removed my comment here. I also rather suspect that you did not mean to reply to the listing on Cobh Cathedral as you did, since it doesn't seem germaine to that listing. Perhaps you should move it to the proper place? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

hmm, Sorry about that. I am at a public computer that is not very responsive to my intentions. I apologize for the inconvenience I've caused.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No major inconvenience. :) I just pulled it up from the history. If you're not at a computer that's easy to work, I'd be happy to move your comment up to the listing for which I'm pretty sure it's meant. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you've done it already, I see. I'll just indent it. The CP board is not like a lot of other admin boards--separate listings are divided by *. For the record, though, there's no concern that anything will be done with the quotation. I am an uninvolved administrator who works that board, and I've already told Miradre that the quotes are not a problem. It's not a discipline board, though, so I'm afraid that if Miradre's behavior needs looking at, it'll have to be taken up elsewhere. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I think Miradre's editing is deeply problematic, but agree that it is not the right forum there. About the external link I think that many journals and online journal storages do allow limited non-profit sharing for scholarly purposes (For example I think it is legal to distribute copies of JSTOR articles free of charge for scholarly purposes). I am unsure about the extent to which this kind of scholarly fairuse applies and whether it applies in this case - but I honestly don't think letting participants in a talk page discussion download a paper from 1999 is a potential copyright liability for the wikimedia foundation. Best regards! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's just policy, that's all; WP:LINKVIO just doesn't permit it. But there are alternatives, which I tried to subtly hint at, while forgetting that these are openly exercised on Wikipedia. :D In any event, now that I think about it, I think it's probably my fault that you inadvertently removed my last comment at that page. I link to a lot of Wikipedia conversations in e-mails these days, and because of archiving I've gotten in the habit of linking to permanent diffs. I bet I did that at Mathsci's talk page from habit and you followed the link, not recognizing it was an old diff. I'd better check that and change it, if so! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

edit war

an edit war has started on the norwgian pakistani page. user "regicidist" has reverted 3-4 times in less than 24 hours [19]. i suspect that "regicidist" is also the person behind this ip-edit [20]. he seems like a classic spa ("regicidist" created his account today!). user johanneswilm and user benjamil asked him to stop edit warring -- mustihussain (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

now he is threatening to ban me, lol.-- mustihussain (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Maunus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks, I've read the mail. I'll keep your points in mind.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Got beef

Grill it, bitch. I'm all ears. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg

Hi, I saw your comments on Takabeg's talk page. I don't want to comment there, since I've retired from the conversation, but I did want to make sure that when you referred to administrators giving him advice, you were referring to Sarek and others, and not to me, as I am not an admin. Thanks for your input there, which I hope will be helpful. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WP: CIVIL

It applies to Administrators as well. 66.68.87.193 (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you specify where exactly I have breached this policy?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Armenian name

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at Talk:Meskhetian Turks#Armenian alternative name.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Swedes

Swedes are a Germanic people, while the Finns are NOT. Just because they share a border it does not mean they are genetically related. In fact, they are genetically separate. Swedes are Germanic peoples like the Germans, Norwegians, Icelanders, Danes, and the Dutch. You cannot include the Finns as a related ethnic group - they are not.TheGoodSon 17:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Another thing, the Finns are Uralic peoples while the Swedes are Germanic - they are NOT ethnically related AT ALL. Show me a scientific work that genetically says ethnic Swedes and ethnic Finns are genetically related and I will agree with you, otherwise your edit is your own point of view and not scientifically backed. Go to this link: http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/EJHG_2002_v10_521-529.pdf - it shows the genetic relations of Europeans. Finns are not a Germanic peoples. TheGoodSon 17:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read the study you mention, it talks exclusively about genetic connections. Swedes and Finns share much more than a border, they are very closely culturally related, through a millennium of close cultural, political and demographic contact. There are substantial minorities of swedes in Fialand and finns in sweden. Nations are not genetic units, but cultural and political ones. There is no rule that says that the "related groups" field of the ethnic group template must only contain genetically or linguistically related populations. Being ethnically related does not mean speaking related languages or sharing genetic markers - it means having shared culture and history. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Manus, it says "related ETHNIC groups" and the Finns are not ethnically related to the Swedes. That is a fact. The Finns are a Uralic peoples related to the Estonians, while the Swedes are a Germanic peoples related to the Germans, Danes, Norwegians, etc. That is just fact. They are not ethnically related. Yes, they may share political and cultural similarities, but they are not ETHNICALLY related. Swedish-Finns are ethnically related to Swedes, but the Finns themselves are not. If they were "ethnically" related to the Swedes that would make them also related to the Norwegians, the Danes, the Germans, and other Germanic peoples - but they simply aren't. One is Uralic, the other is Germanic. Very different.TheGoodSon 18:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to know what "ethnic means" - it does not say "genetically related populations" which seems to be what you are talking about.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic groups are related to each other based on culture, language, and genetic ties. Swedes speak a Germanic language, they are much more culturally related to the Norwegians, Danes, Germans, etc. and they are most definitely share closer genetic ties to other Germanic peoples. Yes, the Finns and Swedes share a border and a long history - but there are cultural differences (you can't argue that the Finns are culturally more similar to the Swedes than other Germanic peoples), major language differences, and definite genetic differences between the Swedes and Finns. Again, the Finns are a Uralic people and share closer cultural and linguistic ties to Estonians, while the Swedes are a Germanic people that share a closer cultural and linguistic ties to the Danes, Norwegians, Germans, etc. This is fact. Unless you bring a scientific reference which states that the Finns are a Germanic peoples, then you cannot list them as a related group of people to the Swedes. TheGoodSon 18:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can because there is no requirement that relation between "related groups" means that the groups have to speak related languages. Your logics is faulty and leads to absurdities such as claiming that Saami and Nordic peoples are unrelated inspite of living together for millennia - or your equally absurd claim that French and Germans are unrelated ethnic groups.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Another thing I'd like to mention is the fact that Russia and Finland share a similar history together as Finland and Sweden, does that make Finns also related ethnically to the Russians? I mean afterall they shared a border for thousands of years, fought wars, and there was a lot of migration between the two countries. But does that make them ETHNICALLY related? No, of course not. TheGoodSon 18:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Russian is not an official language of Finland, there is no significant Russian minority in Finlland or a significant Finnish minority in Russia, Russians identify as Slavic whereas Finns often consider themselves "Nordic peoples", there is no Russian political party in Finland, the Finnish language doesn't contain hundreds of recent loanwords from Russian etc. You are making silly comparisons without thinking through the issues. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, Germanic peoples are related to each other, Finns are NOT Germanic peoples. They are Uralic peoples. ETHNIC means cultural, linguistic, and GENETIC ties. Finns don't speak a Germanic language, they speak a Uralic language. Finns are NOT genetically related to Germanic peoples, and they are culturally distant from Germanic peoples. Swedes are more closely related to Danes, Germans, Norwegians, Icelanders, Dutch, etc. Not Finns. You have no source to back up your edit, so it is your own point of view. The fact is they are ETHNICALLY unrelated. Anyone can tell you that. TheGoodSon 19:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Finns are "Nordic" politically, not ethnically. Nordic peoples are the Germanic peoples. Just because Swedish is an official language in Finland that doesn't mean they are ethnically related. Croatian is an official language in most of Austria, but they aren't ethnically related. You have not brought any facts. Bring me scientific studies linking Finns to the Germanic peoples and I will gladly add the Finns as a related group. TheGoodSon 19:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Go read this article: Finno-Ugric peoples and Nordic race. I quote "In Finnic- and Ugric-speaking countries such as Finland, Estonia and Hungary, which find themselves surrounded by unrelated tongues, language origins and language history have long been relevant to national identity.[3]" TheGoodSon 19:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, we are not going to agree on this. Your ideas about ethnicity are very outdated, basically going out of date along with ideas about the "nordic race" after WW2. You believe that being "Germanic" or "Finno-Ugric" is the only way two ethnic groups can be related, that is a belief that you are allowed to have, but please don't claim that there is anything scientific about it. Nothing good is coming from this discussion and we should just agree to disagree and you should leave the Finns in as a related group, untill a consensus is established at the talk page. Please don't post here on my personal talkpage any more.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That is what ETHNIC means - the Finns aren't genetically, linguistically, or culturally related to the Swedes. So how can you claim they are ethnically related groups? Unless you bring some kind of proof, your edit is not based on fact but your own point of view. TheGoodSon 19:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Maunus - just to let you know that TheGoodSon has raised this at AN/I for some obscure reason. Hopefully, some uninvolved admin will close it as a content dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure that it the section in the infobox can't be "sourced". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that Germanic peoples are closely related ethnically. I mean what is it going to take to get this point across to you? The Swedes are a Germanic people. OK? They speak a Germanic language. OK? They share cultural and genetic ties to other Germanic people. OK? The Finns are a Uralic people. Ok? They speak a Uralic language that is totally unrelated to Swedish. Ok? They share cultural and genetic ties to other Uralic peoples like the Estonians, Hungarians, and Saami. This I quote from the Finns article, ok? " For example, Haplogroup U5 is estimated to be the oldest mtDNA haplogroup in Europe and is found in the whole of Europe at a low frequency, but seems to be found in significantly higher levels among Finns, Estonians and the Sami.[38]". So the Finns are genetically unrelated to the Swedes, their languages are totally unrelated, and culturally the Swedes are closer to their Germanic brethren (ie. Danes, Norwegians, Germans, etc). What part of that is so difficult to understand? TheGoodSon 21:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't listen much do you? Ethnic groups can be related in many ways, not just according to which language they speak and which genetic markers they have high frequencies of. Ethnicity is not a function of genes and language. That is an outdated misunderstanding. The fact that one haplogroup is more frequent in one population than in another does not mean that the two populations are genetically unrelated, that would be absurd. It is ten times as absurd to claim that it means they are ethnically unrelated. Now go away please.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, I know that. I don't mean to be argumentative or anything. All Europeans are related genetically in one way or another, but there are groups that are more closely related to each other than others. OK? Let's forget genetics for now. You say ethnic groups can be related in many ways, so in what way are the Finns and Swedes related? Genetically, the Swedes are obviously closer to their Germanic brethren. Linguistically, they speak a Germanic language, while the Finns don't even speak an Indo-European language (Uralic). Culturally, the Swedes are closer to their Germanic brethren (ie. Danes, Norwegians, etc). "An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.[1][2][3]" That is what the Ethnic group article says. Genetics, language, culture, and ancestry are the most important part of what constitutes an ethnic group. The Finns are clearly distant from the Swedes when it comes to these, especially when compared to other Germanic peoples. Yes, they shared a border for ages, fought wars, and share political ties but that does not make them ethnically more closely related to the Swedes than say the Dutch are. The Dutch would be considered ethnically more closely related to the Swedes based on the fact that they are both Germanic peoples, speak Germanic languages, share a similar culture, and have a common ancestry. That goes the same for the Germans, Danes, Norwegians, Icelandics, and even the English. TheGoodSon 21:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You are making an assumption that "more closely related" means genetic/linguistically related. That is an unjustified, unsupported, and in fact false assumption. Your repeating yourself endlessly doesn't change that. Now please, go away and find sources for your claims. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not just genetically and linguistically, but also culturally and a shared common ancestry. That's all part of an ethnic group. Here is a good article for you to read: Ethnic groups in Europe. It lists the Swedes along with other Germanic peoples such as the Danes, Norwegians, Icelandics, Germans, Dutch, and the English as one ethnic group. It doesn't list the Finns along with them. The Finns are listed with the Estonians, Hungarians, Kven people, Karelians, Saami, Komi, Mordvins, and others as one ethnic group. TheGoodSon 22:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes because that article presents a list organized after linguistic criteria - it does not propose that those groups are more ethnically related. What is your source showing that Finns are culturally closer to Hungarians than to Swedes? Please quit trying to lecture me on ethnicity, do some reading yourself and I don't mean wikipedia articles. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Finns may have more in common with the Swedes culturally than they do with the Hungarians, but that doesn't mean that the Finns qualify as ethnically related to the Swedes. They share a border, it's natural that they are going to have things in common. Sort of like the Austrians and Croatians, they have things in common but they aren't ethnically related to one another. The Germanic peoples are one ethnic group. And I have done a lot of reading. Don't be so condescending in your replies to me. I haven't been condescending in my replies to you, so I expect the same in return. We are having a debate, not fighting. Try to remember that. You're a Dane, I'm a German. TheGoodSon 22:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

We are not having a debate. You are just repeating the same illfounded opinions over and over. You are not condescending (except when you assume that you can teach me stuff about ethnicity from wikipedia articles), but you are also not listening to arguments, but keep repeating the same unsubstantiated opinions. That is frustrating. I have asked you to leave my talkpage several times now, but you keep posting the same arguments. That is annoying. You are using "ethnically related" as if it were something that one could measure. It is not. It is something that one can estimate based on how closely related to ethnic groups consider themselves. You need to learn to listen and then you need to go read books about what ethnicity means, and possibly a lot about scandinavian culture and history. Then we can talk and have a civilized informed debate.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as you have a degree in anthropology, I have a degree in biology. This is probably where the problem lies. We have different definitions of what an ethnic group is, so we probably won't ever agree and so this is my last post. I define an ethnic group based on genetics, language, and ancestry. I think cultural ties are secondary and aren't as important as genetics/ancestry and linguistic ties. You only think it's annoying because I won't agree to your definition of what constitutes an ethnic group. I believe an ethnic group is mainly defined by genetics first and language second. Everything else is secondary. The Germanic peoples are one ethnic group. TheGoodSon 22:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but there is no biological perspective on ethnicity. Biology doesn't do ethnicity but ancestry, anthropology and ethnology does ethnicity. I can back my assumptions and claims up with a wide body of literature on ethnicity, all of which state that ethnicity is a cultural concept based on perceptions of shared culture and history. Ethnicity is never based on shared genetics, only on the idea of shared ancestry. There is no such thing as a "Germanic people" there are populations that speak Germanic languages.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Swedes and Finns

Okay, I have agreed to put the "related ethnic groups" back in the infobox and include the Finns. I guess you are right, the Finns may be genetically and linguistically distant from the Swedes, but they have shared a common border for ages and your arguments stand. However, I will also include the Dutch since the Dutch do share a common ancestry with the Swedes as Germanic peoples, so they are genetically closer and they both speak a Germanic language. I will revert the edit back to what it was and include the Finns also. TheGoodSon 02:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an acceptable compromise for now, although I think that in the long run it is better to get rid of the "related groups" field since there are no well established way of determining what constitutes a "relation" between two ethnic groups, or how "close" the relation is. If you include the Dutch, then if for consistency you will have to include all west-Germanic ethnic groups: English, Frisians, Boer, Afrikaner, Norn, Scots, Plattdeutsch and Yiddish.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

He's been indefinitely blocked by another Admin "pending an explanation of your behavior on the benzodiazepine articles and your probable use of multiple accounts". Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for ending the conflict on Hitler's religious beliefs. I really appreciate it. Shakinglord (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at Talk:Adolf Hitler's religious views.
Message added 22:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 17:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping out with the flood of new editors from Nanjing Normal University. bobrayner (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Creation Myths" in "Evolution" article

To be honest this is not really my main area of interest - and when you reverted my edit changing "creation myths" to "creation stories", which struck me as being more neutral, I would have just left it alone, but someone else has reverted my edit back in. In this context - I appreciate your apparent passion for the defence of science and common sense over fundamentalist religious nonsense (incidentally I share that passion) - just felt that stating the case in the most neutral terms available is not only Wiki policy (won't insult your intelligence with a link to the page in question, sure you know where it is as well as I do) but also actually makes the point we want to make in the defence of science all the more effectively. I have started a discussion on the relevant page anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Creation stories is not more neutral it is just using a wrong word - in science of religion the word is a "creation myth". A story is not a technical term used in the study of religion. Similarly you change of "religion" to "scriptural writings" make little sense - there are for example non-scriptural religions that also have creation myths.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"Science of religion" - now there's an interesting phrase - and I'm sure not a recognised academic subject - perhaps you mean "comparative religion" - still very much a humanity (or perhaps a "social science"?) - not, I am sure, a physical science with precise and universally accepted terminology.

"Creation stories" is very often used in studies of comparative religion. Just do a search on the term if you don't believe me. Many of the hits (at least in the top two or three screens of results) are to serious academic books and articles. This is probably why the term "Creation Story" is given as an alternative in Wiki's own article on "Creation Myth".

A creation story/myth being described as "in a religion" is not very academic - the difficulty for the people who in fact DO object to scientific thought on religious grounds is very much their bibliolatry (worship of a book). In practical terms, 90% of religious objection to science comes from nutty fundamentalist Christians - about 90% of what's left comes from Jewish and Muslim theologians. I believe the odd Hindu gets a word in now and then. If a Samoan or a Zulu is foolish, literate and Westernised enough (all three qualities being required here) to attack western science on the grounds of religion then the odds are a million to one he will do so from a Christian (or, just possibly, a Muslim) perspective anyway. So where are the mass of religions without written scriptures attacking the science behind evolution on the strength of their creation stories/myths?

The fact is that the only reason why anyone would use "myth" (which essentially means nothing more or less than "falsehood") in this context is to offer a gratuitous insult. Now I am prepared to insult superstitious idiots just as roundly as the next person - especially if they come knocking on my door (although even here being polite is almost always the best way to get them to leave, quickly) - the point is that an encyclopedia article is not the time and place to insult anyone. Just think, we might, just by being polite, win a "convert" to common sense. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If I may butt in in support of Maunus, "myth" does not mean "nothing more or less than falsehood". That's one of the meanings, but it is by far not the only meaning, and is usually not the most prominent meaning in dictionaries. Myth (disambiguation) has rather a nice introduction, and wiktionary:myth gives links to dictionaries. A myth in the sense used by Maunus (without presuming to speak for Maunus) is a story important for its symbolism far more than its truth. The Genesis myth is far more about understanding the fall of humankind than it was ever a serious attempt at a scientific account of creation (the latter idea is a modern fundamentalist invention). You might also look at one of the banners at the top of Talk:Creation_myth indicating that this use of the word myth has consensus approval, at least for that and related articles.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point - most words are more or less ambiguous - my original argument (itself largely superseded anyway by some very literate discussion on the page concerned) was that "story" (which in some contexts can also mean "falsehood") is at least a little less "loaded" and more "neutral" than "myth", which in practice nearly always has the connotation that it is essentially "untrue". Consensus seems to be building that "traditional accounts", in the context in which we were discussing, may be even better. Sorry Maunus - I did get a bit carried away in the "heat of debate" - the point is to have a better article and a better encyclopedia - not to put each other's arguments down - something I really forgot for a moment. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sonora

I get the copy/edit tag on Sonora but sheesh, I am a native speaker of English and I wrote the thing. It was NOT machine translated. First of all, it is synthesized from many sources and two, it looks nothing like Spanish version of the article.Thelmadatter (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That is strange, I have mistaken your writing for machine translation before (in the Oaxaca article). I didn't know you had written the article on Sonora, so I was certainly not trying to be rude to you. I really think the article has some huge syntactic problems that makes it very difficult to understand (basically a very artificial feeling syntax which make me think it was translated directly from another language). If you disagree with the tag, just find a third editor and hear what they say, if they disagree that the article has language problems just remove it. Sorry for insulting your writing, I didn't mean to do that. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that its a combination of A: my writing style and B: my sources are from Spanish. It wouldnt surprise me that some Spanish syntax creeps in, especially on the longer articles as the brain gets tired. If you see a long article about Mexico with LOTS of citations ... its probably mine. :D Thelmadatter (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You certainly are one of wikipedias best content editors in articles related to Mexico, the last thing I would want to do would be to dissuade you from keeping up that good work. I am copyediting the Sonora article now and must say that I am impressed by the amount of information in it. A very good article in spite of the language issues.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Check "Telugu Dravidian but some linguists classify as Indic" in the talk page of Telugu Language Article. You will understand how this all started. Taivo is systematically removing information from Telugu Language Article to push his point of view. Please investigate the whole edit war before concluding whose fault it is.Thanks Nagarjuna198 (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have looked sufficiently on the talkpage to make up my opinion of your editing style. When you break policy it is your fault, never anyone elses. Taivo didn't twist your arm and make you call him dumb, a sockpuppeteer, nor did he use mind control to make you break the three revert rule. Take responsibility for your own actions. You need to reconsider your editing attitude seriously, or you will face a block. You should be thankful that you are able to edit at this point, a less friendly admin would have blocked you as soon as you broke 3rr.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, you reverted a fifth time after I posted a warning on your talkpage. That means that I have no choice but to block you now. Take the time out to read our policies so that you have a chance of sticking around as an editor when you come back.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I didnt see your comment before editing. Anyways you have given me fair chance.Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC).

This comment almost made me think you understood our policies. Apparently you didn't.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 22:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Maunus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

r&i

while you're at it, take a look at these recent sources (2 secondary, 1 primary):

• dagbladet  : infeksjonssykdommer fører til lavere intelligens [21]
• scientific american: why is average iq higher in some places? [22]
• intelligence  : statistical inference and spatial patterns in correlates of iq [23]

-- mustihussain (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

They look very interesting and relevant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

quɐstion

I was just studying your quite singular new signature. It had caught my eye already a while ago. Would you mind sharing some secrets here? I was wondering what characters you're using to create this wonderful mirror effect? And, how does the mirror image come out in bold types? If you think that these are important trade secrets that should not be shared I'll understand. Thanks. warshy^talk 18:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The special characters are IPA font. Instead of the M I use an upside down W. Then in the mirror image I use n for u and u for n and I use the upside down IPA a character for the a - the final letter is a normal w. It's bold because its linked, and it links to this page for which reason it is black/bold here. Also the s is not actually mirrored!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You mean to say that the "s" doesn't really need to be mirrored because it already mirrors itself as it is, "naturally," right? Pretty ingenious, I'd say! Neat! warshy^talk 18:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Or actually, thinking better now, the "s" really cannot be mirrored... Still cool! warshy^talk 18:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Economy of Mexico

I'm trying to update the income levels and size of GDP statistics on the economy of Mexico page using the IMF references but the url as you stated is very long. I apologize if it messed up the page and made it too slow to edit. But do you know of anyway to introduce the info from the same URL without it causing these slowdowns because the 2010 info is now obsolete? Pvt.Billinghurst (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WalkerThrough

Thanks for the archiving job. I'm sure it was the best thing to do under the circumstances. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Alexandre8

Would you consider revoking talk page access? N^oformation ^Talk 22:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user socking, you blocked the IP and he's going on mine and Ian Thomson's page trying to argue that he wasn't. Since he's a blocked user he's not supposed to be posting anything but unblock requests, correct? N^oformation ^Talk 22:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice him posting on your pages. He shouldn't be doing that of course.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm. He wasn't actually blocked. So he is allowed to log in an use his talkpage and those of other users... On second thought I am an idiot - if he was editing YOUR userpage then obviously he wasn't blocked.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm odd, I could have sworn the AN/I report ended up with him being blocked. I'm too lazy to try and find it so I guess I'll leave it alone for now, if he starts with his old behavior we can go from there, unless you feel like doing something about the socking. Thanks. N^oformation ^Talk 00:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

He did get blocked, but appaently only a cpl of days. I think he was just editing logged out, not socking. Dont you?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I see, sorry I remembered wrong. I don't think he was just editing while logged out as he's denying it was him that made those edits, check out my talk page and that of Ian's for the conversation. Considering the insult used (socialist) has nothing to do with the BC/BE thing, I find it really hard to believe it could be two different people. Thanks again for your help. N^oformation ^Talk 00:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you guys are confusing two different things. back in march I edited without logging in, for which I think my ip got a block for. I think Maunus is thinking about that. As for the thing to do with BC/CE, I was blocked about 3 weeks ago for edit warring with it, but this sock puppetry is the first I heard about today. Look I understand the confusion that noformation has about the comments being the same, if he wont beleive my defence he wont beleive my defence, but here it is. In the papers last week there was a massive article written by Boris Johnson, the London mayor against BCE, calling it left wing political correctness. it was in the Telegraph paper, the 2nd or third most read in the country. In the article he uses the same argument I did. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8788464/BC-or-BCE-The-BBCs-edict-on-how-we-date-events-is-AD-absolute-drivel.html. If this doesnt but your mind at rest noformation, I can't really try anymore. Apart from the fact I wasn't even at a computer at the times of the edits. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

So you're confessing that you're really Boris Johnson? ;) I am sorry for the confusion, I remembered you got blocked three weeks ago and when I saw the similar from an IP edit I thought you had to be block evading, and blocked the IP. I guess you weren't. Then Noformation asked me to take away your talkpage acces and then I just did it without realizing that you weren't blocked anymore! Sorry for that confusion I made sure to state in the unblock summary that the previous block was unwarranted so it is visible in your blocklog. Stay off the BCE/BC issue and you'll be fine.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lol it;s ok! I was trying to give wikipedia a break after my last recent block, and then I logged back on and found this maassive thing about socketpuppetry. So I kinda got drafted back in, all I need wiki for at the moment is for the difference between Church Slavonic and Old Church Slavonic lmao. Thanks for your help. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to something you wrote

"I don't like the proposed section on truth since it doesn't explain that wikipedia doesn't care about truth at all" you wrote.

This is precisely why many people think the lead sentence needs to be changed: to make sure that people do not have your misunderstanding, and understand that it is absolutely false to say that "wikipedia doesn't care about truth at all". If you think that's policy, then you're mistaken. Truth is a huge concern, and the new version makes that clear.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well if you say so that has to be true. But it is going to be a problem for wikipedia in the future if it now wants to care abut truth - because in most cases there is no such thing, only different views. I edit mostly articles about topics where there is no objective truth and the only thing one can do is make sure that the different viewpoints are well balanced according to significance/notability. I can see it becoming a problem in future editing if people think that for example it is a matter of truth whether Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians or not, whether Intelligence and Race are related, or whether X organization are terrorists or freedom fighters. Those are the kind of cases where "verifiability not truth" make a lot of sense. Another example of what I mean could be if the NAtional Inquirer published an article that Leonardo di Caprio has been abducted by aliens. We of course don't publish that. But that is not because it is unlikely to be true, but because it is not a significant view - National Inquirer publishes that kind of nonsense every week. However if Mr. Dicaprio sues and wins putting National Inquirer out of business the view becomes significant EXACTLY because it isn't true. I have a feeling that the editors trying change the policy are coming from a different domain of wikipedia such as science, where there is a strong belief that wikipedia should provide the hard facts - the truth. However that is not really all there is to the world. My other concern is that if were are to be concerned about truth we will be put in a situation where we do not only have to evaluate sources in accordance with their notability and significance but also ina ccordance with what is true. That for me leads straight to Original Research. But as you wish.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the reasons you voted the way you did initially, I'm slightly confused as to why you simply struck your vote altogether. There's no shame in being wrong in hindsight when consensus is developing strongly the other way, but... dang. Doc talk 07:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think my reasoning is wrong. But when the guy who owns wikipedia says that my ideas about what wikipedia is about is wrong I would be silly to insist.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What the hell, I've unstruck it now. If the boss wants wikipedia to be in a certain way then I guess he can make it so, I don't need to make a happy face to it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for entering a discussion where I may not belong, but as long as Wikipedia's policies contain WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, and the principle of anonymity, the search for truth, whatever truth is, can be sidetracked quite easily by the "masses". Encyclopedia Brittanica is so widely respected because its contributors are highly qualified and take personal responsibility for their contributions. We know who they are, so they are more careful in their contributions. But because they are qualified, they don't have to cover every notion that has ever been put forward in their field just because some editor or groups of editors thinks it's relevant or important. As long as any Tom, Dick, or Harry can edit Wikipedia anonymously, without regard to their qualifications on a particular subject, then "Wikipedia truth" will always be subject to the whims of consensus. The Randy in Boise issue is a real problem and interferes with that "search for truth". --Taivo (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Taivo. You should participate in the discussion and poll at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't own Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I was wrong again. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposal will obviously pass. It will be a sad day for those of us who have understood that "catchy phrase" all along for the last six years that it's been in place (though I've only seen it for a little over half its life); but everything changes eventually. Consensus is what establishes what those changes are, and as Kenny Rogers said, "You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away and know when to run." It's time to back away from the poker table and break into a quick jog. Cheers... Doc talk 06:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Lothrop Stoddard

You added[24] the following passage to the Stoddard article, citing Spiro's book:

He describes among other things Stoddard's visit to the Hereditary Health Supreme Court[1], a court that decided whether people would be forcibly sterilized. After having observed several trials where Germans accused of being dysgenic were condemned to sterilization, Stoddard stated that the eugenic legislation of Nazi Germany "was weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way"[3]

I was just reading Stoddard's book about his time in Germany, and I think that that passage is at variance with what he actually wrote about his visit to the Hereditary Health Supreme Court. He describes several trials he observed, and in none of them was the respondent condemned to sterilization; the court generally ordered further medical investigations or, in one case, ruled against sterilization. He says that the verdicts were based on a meticulous investigation of facts, and notes that the respondents had recourse to two levels of appeal, which apparently could postpone the final decision by years. In fact, he claims that the judgments were "almost too conservative" due to these judicial measures that the respondents could resort to.

So, contrary to your edit, he did not attend trials were people were condemned to sterilization (or if he did, he did not describe them), and the reason why he described the Nazi sterilization laws as scientific and humanitarian was that he thought that the rulings were based on fair medical and judicial procedures. Regardless of how accurate Stoddard's picture of Nazi eugenics is, the article currently misrepresents what he wrote. What does Spiro precisely say on this?--Victor Chmara (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a fairly long time ago and I am no longer in possession of that book. However I have provided a page number making it easy for yourself to check. I think it is probable that Spiro and Kuhl have not simply based their accounts on Stoddards published writings. In anycase your problem isn't with my edit but with Spiro and Kuhl's books. The particular page appears to be available on google preview[25] - but of course you'd need the entire book to find out what evidence he may use part from Stoddard's published book. My wording should probably changed as it is basically so close to the original that it is plagiarism. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have Spiro's Ph.D. dissertation; the book "Defending the Master Race" is closely based on it. In the dissertation, he describes Stoddard's visit to the court somewhat more accurately, not directly claiming that Stoddard witnessed people being condemned to sterilization. In the dissertation, he cites only Stoddard's book, so I doubt that he has any other sources. However, after your last edit, I think the passage is OK.--Victor Chmara (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It is obvious from Kuhl's notes about the cases he witnessed that with overwhelming probability they ended with a sentence of sterilization. He also mentions that Stoddard notes about one of them (a manic) that he should definitely be sterilized.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Stoddard himself clearly thought that many of them should have been sterilized. However, as he describes, none of them were actually condemned to be sterilized (at that point at least). Stoddard describes the verdicts in four cases as follows:

Case 1: The Court concluded that sterilization had not been proven mandatory and sent back the case for further investigation.

Case 2: Since they were not absolutely sure, the case was remanded for further clinical investigation.

Case 3: The High Court ordered the girl sent to a clinic for observation. It also ordered more research into the family record.

Case 4: So the Court finally concluded that, despite her most unprepossessing appearance and her simple, childlike mind, she was not a moron within the meaning of the law and therefore should not be sterilized.

There may have been cases where the court gave an order of sterilization, but Stoddard does not describe them. The book can be read here[26].--Victor Chmara (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That fact is peculiar in the larger picture of things in which we know that the Nazis sterilized several hundred thousands and Lothrop Stoddard went back to the US contributing to the same there (on a somewhat smaller scale, but still comparable). (I guess th Nazis might have chosen to let the enemy journalist visit only particular court cases to help their image). I think it would be a good idea of putting the description of Stoddard also into that larger context rather than focusing solely on the details of his trip.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article is about Stoddard and not the Nazis, so we should get the details about Stoddard right even if he was mistaken. I don't know much about Nazi eugenics, but I would guess that they often went strictly "by the book" just as Stoddard describes, even if it was a rotten book.--Victor Chmara (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should get the details right, but without losing the perspective - Stoddard is nowadays mostly notable because of his relation to Eugenics in the US and therefor also for his relations to the Nazis. I think you are probably right that Nazis went by the book (why wouldn't they - they wrote it themselves) - so much so that in 1934 ca 3500 of 4000 appeals of sentences to forced sterilization were rejected.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The court that Stoddard visited was a second appeals court where only the most-borderline cases ended up.--Victor Chmara (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That might explain that statistical oddity.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Maunus. You have new messages at Talk:Satoshi Kanazawa.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Need your prose skill - evolution

Hi Maunus - just to let you know I do appreciate your skills with prose and I agree with you on this. I admit that this is not my strength and that the evolution discussion is frustrating. However, I was wondering if you would be willing to give a hand with the following sentence:

"Throughout its history as a discipline it has maintained an extended synthesis, the means to test, and the most comprehensive explanation to date on the history and origins of all biological phenomena."

What are your thoughts? I think the last paragraph needs a real nice punch line. I am of the opinion that this sentence: "Since Darwin, the theory of evolution has been expanded, refined and rigorously tested, and scientists today overwhelmingly accept evolution as a fact." - is blah. It is uninspiring, it just says that evolution is a fact, but it does not give any sort of 'Carl Sagan' like prose that speaks kindly to the evidence.Thompsma (talk)

I am working on my own lead proposal based on one of your earlier ones - that proposal would include more about the societal impact (creationism/social darwinism) and public debates and on current debates within evolutionary theory e.g. adaptionism/soft darwinism and epigenetics/evo-devo. I also want to write the bullet list of premises for evolution (the 1. 2. 3. list) into flowing prose. I think the "since Darwin" sentence is much clearer than the one you propose and I don't know why it would be blah, surely it is correct? Perhaps something like the famous Dobzhansky quote might be useful "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". (though quotes in the lead is not a good idea). I'll think of a way to formulate it with more panache.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review these blocks

There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.

1. J.K Sebastian (talk · block log · block user) by Maunus at 2011-10-12T12:21:30Z, expires infinity: [[WP:Block#Evasion of blocks|Block evasion]]: sock of [[User:Chaosname]] pr WP:DUCK

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I did intend it. He was an obvious and admitted sock who should make unblock requests on his main accounts talkpage, if you feel it was unjustified, please do give talkpage access back.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

relativism

Your recent edit is a oo improvement. Still, I think it is crucial to provide to or three examples tsuch that most readers of WP will be familiar with at last one of the examples. Othe3rwise, I am very concerned that they will miss the point and it is a very important point. NOR forbids us from introducing any new material that suggests a new argument but I think we can safely avoid this. There must be appropriate examples either noted in textbooks or some essayin socio or ethnolinguistics from the past fifty years, or simply some very well-known examples from popular culture that clarly illustrate the point made by Boas. There are a couople of things that realy distinguish anthropology's cultural relativism from proto-anthropological views and I think this is one of them. Mead's coming of age in samoa is a nice xamplke, very provocative, teenage girls can have caual sex and grow up to be well-adjusted adults, very different from us. Okay, values are culture bound. But Boas is pointing out that perception itself is culture bound and this is really the heart of cultural relativism because it is not about what people admit to being a belief, I think most people (certainly most 101 students in the US) believe that perception either reflects an objective fact of the world, or the structure of the brain and thus something universal to all humans, and examples from perception reveal both of these positions to be naive.

rice/lice seems to me to be just another example of what Boas called alternating sounds, except it is an example that, at least when I was growing up, was commonly depicted in popular culture. It may ven bein a textbook, I will check. But I do not see the cause to remove it. If someone objected that this is an examplke of alternating sounds that is familiar to many WP readers but NOT to most, I would consider thatr a very valid exception but I think the solution would be to provide two or three examples to increase th likelihood that most readers will be personally familiar with at leaswt one of them. I am hoping you have the resources to identify three exampls that illustrate the exast same point, but that are widely known if not from personal experince in multicultural societies thn from repressentations in popular culture. The basic point, that the speaker is not mispronouncing the word but rather that the listener cannot recognize the phoneme is a point I think we need to make in a way most readers can relate to. Somehow. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should have an example, I just wanted to wait to include one from Boas' article which I don't have handy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have it but it is totally obscure. He examines three or four accounts of Siberian indigenes that provide short lexicons in which the same words are spelld differently (indicating differen pronunciation). Another anthropologist used this data to argue that this mant that their language was still in a state of flux typical of primitive but not civilized languages. Boas's paper is armchari anthropology - I do not recall if baffin Island data enters into it - but he simply argues that th ntives have a phoneme not found in Russian or English or whatever language, but that is like two phonemes in the observer's languages. Thus the observers - and the point is that thye represent themselves as detatched objective scientists - sometimes hear one phonme or the other phoneme. Boas argues that the proposition that these natives actually do not have a single fixed phoneme but alternate between two phonemes is wrong, and that instead they have one phonemen that so-called objective observeers cannot tecognize. lesson: so-called objctive observers are no objctive but their perceptions are mediated by their own culture.

I don't think that any WO reader will have heard of the groups/languages Boas is writing about, and they will find the words Boas examines hard to pronounce which is why I thik they would just skip over any detailed account of Boas's article. This is why I favor a few exampls that are closer to hom, more familiar.

Stocking edited a volume of articls by Noas (it is not Race, Language an Culture, it is another book. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that then perhaps the best example will be Sapirs article about the psychic reality of the phonemic principle. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not know it, but I respect your judgment. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox protection

I might be in error here, if so I apologise in advance. Both the article and talk page now appear to be protected. This would be against the policy advice here [27]. Best Leaky Caldron 17:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We need a way to quell the IP hopper from edit-warring there. What do you suggest?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A range block perhaps?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

He's hopping across multiple IP ranges with different ISPs. Would it be acceptable to create a subpage of the talk page which isn't protected and allow IPs to post there (we can still delete unhelpful posts there)...this is what has been done on certain user talk pages.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(adding) Also the policy on this seems inconsistent because it states "If the page in question and its talk page are both protected please make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit instead." which would imply that it can be acceptable to protect both.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Cheers. I found that there was inconsistency and have amended the policy after seeing Eraserhead1's Aug 21 edit to the policy following a consensus on that talk page. I also found this short discussion which helps clarify things.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinions needed

(Cross-posted to you and Victor Chmara)

this discussion needs some additional input from other people familiar with the R&I topic area. It's another dispute between myself and Volunteer Marek about whether when a researcher is a Pioneer Fund grantee, or is controversial for some other reason, it's NPOV to bring up the criticisms against them when introducing them in a single sentence. Both of you have commented on this issue before, and I quoted some of your earlier comments about it. We don't agree whether the current issue is the same as what was discussed previously, though. Even if it is, it'd be useful if we could resolve this issue permanently so it doesn't crop up again and again.Boothello (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It'll be helpful if you still keep an eye on the discussion. The source that you added to the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies article describes that journal as "mainstream conservative" not "far right", so the statement that this journal is associated with the far right appears to be unsourced. I think it's more consistent with the source to refer to the journal as "conservative" rather than "far right", and I'd like to know your opinion on it.Boothello (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a pretty selective reading of Tucker. He writes that Pearson changed the idiom of Nordicism for a more mainstream conservative one in JSPES (i.e. JSPES was more mainstream than Neo-nazism - which I dont think says as much as you read into it). In the rest of the context he stresses that this was more of an image issue since he still recruited ex-Nazis and far right republicans associated with racialist and anti-semitic movements. This book makes the same argument more forcefully, linking Pearson and his Journals to a general trend towards integrating ex-Nazis and fascists into the New Right movement. It mentions the JSPES explicitly as a part of this movement.[28]. Perhahps "far right" is a misnomer since that label is not very descriptive - but "conservative" is not at all descriptive of the kind of viewpoints that Pearson and his friends worked from.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

For some reason I'm not seeing this. The source you linked discusses Pearson a lot, but it only mentions that journal three times. The first time it's to mention that the journal is copublished by George Mason University and added two new officials of the Mountain States Legal Foundation. The second time it's just a citation to an article in the journal, and the third it's to quote a letter from Ronald Reagan that spoke highly of the journal.

I know that book is making the argument that Pearson tried to give neo-Nazis a veneer of respectability, and an alternative perspective is that he really did reform into a respectable conservative. The first perspective is more prominent, so it's fine for that to be the most prominent perspective at wikipedia. But I think it's crossing the line into original research to assume this definitely applies to a specific journal for which there seems to not be any direct evidence that it's an example of this, especially when it's a journal copublished by a major university and endorsed by a U.S. president.

Maybe it's a valid perspective that neo-Nazis have infiltrated George Mason University and won Ronald Reagan's support, but I think it's an equally valid perspective that this journal really is what it presents itself to be. Or to put it another way: if a journal is being published by a major university, being cited by mainstream academic publishers (as I mentioned here), and has received the support of a U.S. president, I don't think that as wikipedians we should be able to determine that this is definitely a fringe neo-Nazi journal.

Anyway, what matters is: what do you think is the best way for articles to describe this journal? Ideally, it should be a wording that doesn't try to judge between your perspective and Ronald Reagan's perspective.Boothello (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Mazatecan languages

Please check this sentence, I am not nativ english, but it sounds weird for me at some words and numbers: For incmletive transitive verbs only the first and third person prefix varies from the neutral form, whereas the 2nd person and 2st person plural form is identical to the neutral one. in Mazatecan languages#Tense and Aspect, best regards --Diwas (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and reworded it to "In incompletive transitive verbs, only the first person singular and third person prefixes vary from the corresponding neutral forms; the first person plural and second person forms are identical to the corresponding neutral one", so hopefully it reads a little better now --Miskwito (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, those were a couple of rather confusing typoes of mine.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Diwas (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Maunus! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Personal attacks

I removed personal attacks per talk page guide lines, please do not restore them. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are not the kind of personal attacks covered by the guideline. He is talking about your observable behavior not characterizing you as a person. DOn't edit the comments of peiople with whom you are in an editing dispute is the relevant argument here. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are, Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. He is accusing me of all sorts and these are personal attacks directed at me, I will remove them as ATG refuse to. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It is incivil yes, but not harmful. You are exaggerating the problem out of proportions and removing perfectly valid criticism of your editing style. Editwarring on this issue will get you blocked, nothing more. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, they are incivil and rude, but not harmful. Maunus made a perfectly good point there. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Mexico

What was the problem with my changes? I just condensed all the information about etnography into one section and updated the language figures with the new data from the 2010 census. I don't think that's controversial.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For one it uses the word "ethnography" wrong. "Ethnography" does not mean demographic information about ethnic groups. It also placed undue focus on Mexico's demographic relation with the US - giving a US-centric view of the country. You removed sourced information about the formation of Mexican national identiy and introduced irrelevant information about population genetics in to the section about ethnic groups. Furthermore the article reintroduced changes that have been discussed and rejected in the talkpages. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I did not introduce (or remove!) anything in my first edit, and in the second I just replaced old figures about the indigenous languages with newer ones from the census. The part about the formation of the national identity was never removed, the one about genetics was already there. You might want to check the diffs again. Also could you be a little more specific about the already discussed but rejected changes I supposedly reintroduced?--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok checking the diff you didn't remove the part on mestizaje - just moved. But you did split section into an erroneously titled "ethnography" which even more erroneously included material on population genetics which is unrelated to the study of ethnic groups. These are the changes other editors have editwarred to include. Honestly I thought you were a sock of a previously banned user who has editwarred to make the change of connecting genetics with ethnicity - but reviewing your contribution history I can see that that is unlikely to be the case. I also disagree strongly with the prominent focus you give to migration - mentioning emigration to US before the internal ethnic composition. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you just reintroduce the newer census figures for the indigenous languages then? Since you don't seem to disagree with that edit.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That would cost me some extra work since in that edit you also remove information and add links to articles with the wrong language names instead of the ones that were already in the text. For example you put a link to Maya language which should be to Yukatek Maya language a link to Zapoteco that should be Zapotec languages and you use Spanish spelling for Náhuatl when we always use the English spelling Nahuatl without the accent. You can introduce the newer statistics without changing the rest of the content and structure.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're worried about the "extra work" (ie changing two links) perhaps you should have avoided having this discussion entirely.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am not going to repair your faulty work. And trust me I would have rather not have had this conversation - I am just trying not to be rude. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you've failed pretty spectacularly at it. A new user edits a page that's in your watch list and you automatically assume that he's a disruptive sockpuppet out to destroy your work without even looking at the changes... whatever happened to AGF?--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet or not, your changes were bad and had to go. Now you can go reinsert the newer statistical figures while keeping the links intact (also without removing the information about the less spoken languages), or you can stick around here bickering. But if you choose the latter it will be without my participation. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No it's ok, you can keep the article the way you want it to be. I won't be intruding in your turf any longer, Wikipedia has enough articles for the both of us :P Ultimate Destiny (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

3RR breach here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.123.214.25 (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

both editors warned.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI

I brought this up at ANI.