User talk:Generalrelative

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spork Wielder (talk | contribs) at 18:07, 16 March 2021 (→‎Bloody Sunday(1939)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Italo-Ethiopian War

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

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

Libya

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

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

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

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

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

Nice edits to R&I!

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

July 2020 at Women in Red

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


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

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

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Negroid

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

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

HR&IC

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

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

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

Racialism

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

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

August 2020 at Women in Red

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


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

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

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

September Women in Red edithons

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


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

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

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

October editathons from Women in Red

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


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

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

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red

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


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

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

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

Italo-Senussi War

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

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

SPI archives

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

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

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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

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

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

December with Women in Red

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


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

SPLC

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

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

Richard Lynn

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

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

Important Notice

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

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

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

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 19:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Your draft article, Draft:Jennifer Szalai

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

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

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

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

A New Year With Women in Red!

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


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

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

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

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


After they edited the page War crimes of the Wehrmacht

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

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

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

Franks

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

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

The School discipline article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

February 2021 at Women in Red

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


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

Thanks

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

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

March 2021 at Women in Red

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


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

Disruptive Editing

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

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

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

Once again: this issue has been discussed at length for years and no clear consensus has emerged. Take it to WT:MOSCAPS if you want to debate this. Generalrelative (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Sunday(1939)

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

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

March 2021

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Race and intelligence. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Spork Wielder (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Generalrelative&oldid=1012498092"