Talk:Chris Brand

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Statistics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Chris Brand, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Sources

Most of the citations in this page go to unremarkable personal websites, some of them racist in nature. Once again, Wikipedia proves its worthlessness as a reliable source of scholarly information. Randy Blackamoor 06:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo (him holding a newspaper calling for his firing) seems to be intended to elicit sympathy for his side in the controversy, which doesn't seem right for an encyclopedia article. Anybody think it should stay?--Nectar ^T 01:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that adding photos of subjects makes their articles POV? Can you explain how this photo "seems to be intended to elicit sympathy"? Thanks, -Willmcw 08:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see also that you are the editor who uploaded the image. ? -Willmcw 08:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia proves its worthlessness as a reliable source of scholarly information." Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that can be edited by anybody. It should never be seen as a reliable source. 19:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.200.200 (talk)

Removed unsourced material

For a while the article has said "Chris Brand is a widely discredited(citation needed) white nationalist(citation needed)".

I have removed these because they have been present for a while and no one has sourced them. And what does "widely discredited" even mean? He's either discredited or not. Perhaps "widely considered to be discredited"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.185.79 (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Externals links

One of the external links was a link to a Wikipedia page that was already covered by a category, so I removed it. Of the remaining links:

Summary of Chris Brand controversies - currently gives an internal server error - may need to be looked at again. If it stays offline, it needs to

be removed on the grounds that it's a dead link.

IQ & PC - what is claimed to be Brands' blog. If so, that would probably cover clause 1 of WP:ELOFFICIAL, but clause 2 is debatable - this is a personal blog that covers material not covered in the article.
Amazon reviews written by Chris Brand - WP:ELOFFICIAL says to minimise the number of links and to avoid WP:UNDUE. It also says More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites This link is a series of reviews and so lacks the sensationalist nature of the blog mentioned above, though they are opinionated.Autarch (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

Brand is certainly a controversial figure. But statements about him in Wikipedia articles need to be sourced, by Wikipedia policies. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's especially important to look up sources about living persons connected to the recent ArbCom case, to clean up the articles in this category. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crapification of this page

I don't know a thing about him, never heard of him before. But these recent edits look like garbage to me. Badanedwa (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "garbage" I don't mean it isn't true, but it's badly written and uncited crap. Badanedwa (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it as best as I can, don't know anything about this guy. Badanedwa (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]