User talk:Ethicosian

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 10:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you are editing in this area, you need to read this alert carefully[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

Doug Weller talk 10:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral expectations[edit]

In conjunction with the above, I'd suggest your read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You're editing in a contentious area so it's important to be civil. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Race (Race and intelligence)[edit]

It's arbitrary to claim that cultural anthropologists don't have the credentials to discuss race matters. If race was solely biology, then what would be the biological basis of tagging a native African who would test (genetically) closer to [than the white neighbor of] a native European? If then we are to dismiss genetics and solely rely on physical features, what if the neighbor (except for skin color) has more African features than this African? What remains of the biologist right to claim that his judgment call in deciding race is solely the property of biology? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not arbitrary at all. It's standard that experts in the relevant field are referenced. Cultural anthropologists simply aren't trained in the relevant issues, eg. genetic variation ratios between taxa. It's really absurd that you would even claim cultural anthropologists should be referenced on questions of biological validity. What do you make of the fact that bio!ogists disagree with cu!rural anthropologists about it? Who do you think is parroting stuff outside their expertise? Is it a neutral question or a politically and emotionally charged question? Any guess what's going on there?

Your statement is worded badly. Are you saying there is more genetic distance between African sub groups than between some African sub groups and Europeans? Ethicosian (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About your question (second paragraph of your answer), I am not making any such claim! I am merely presenting a hypothetical case where the biologist decision would be outside of his training and would be based on a judgment call.

I am not claiming race does not exist, neither that there is no genetic or physiological basis of such a classification. Who am I to question anything here? I am merely saying that it is arbitrary to claim that only a biologist has the credential here. Whom are we to decide who has or does not have the credential, or claim what a race is or isn't? You'd be relying on your own arbitrary constructs of what race is or isn't to include academics who are credible in race matters. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ethicosian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What's this about? Not everybody that questions modern PC science is "Mikemikev". I notice the involved editor Doug Weller blocked me. He was posting misleading surveys on the status of the race concept earlier. He is biased. Ethicosian (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What is the reason for my block? It seems like the reason is that Doug Weller wants to push his POV. Ethicosian (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]