User talk:JereKrischel/Archive 2

Calling programmers

We need coders for the WikiProject Disambigation fixer. We need to make a program to make faster and easier the fixing of links. We will be happy if you could check the project. You can Help! --Neo139 09:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion may be needed

Hello there JereKrischel. You may want (or not want to) opine at the recent AfD nomination for the Francisco Gil-White article. Just thought I'd bring it up.--Ramdrake 02:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I may need you to weigh in again

At Talk:Race_and_intelligence, on the subject of whether or not absence of criticism of the PF in academic journals should be taken to mean anything. If you have the time and inclination, your opinion would be appreciated.--Ramdrake 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

JK, we are finding ourselves on different sides of the fence on some issues regarding R&I. That's a bit of a shame since I like your contributions to this topic a lot. So let me take this opportunity to thank your for your very sensible collaboration on the article, it has improved a lot because of your good work. I hope your stay on board. Arbor 09:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Hi JereKirschel, can you let me know if you've already covered your points or wish to write another response? (Your response is already 1/3 longer than my comments.)--Nectar 08:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OK good, and thanks for your good faith.--Nectar 06:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again JereKrischel. Please take a look at the official RC that Nectarflowed created (Listed). The question he asks is this: Is there a categorical distinction between general journals and specialist journals? which I find doesn't represent the debate appropriately. I'd like to know your opinion.--Ramdrake 22:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know I took the libery to very slightly edit your clarification to the RfC question, hoping very much you don't mind too much.--Ramdrake 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad you appreciated my edit. I was worried you'd object to me changing your prose. Merci Beaucoup!--Ramdrake 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

I award this barnstar to you in appreciation of the great work you are doing on race and intelligence, in addition to your many other fine contributions. --Jokestress 05:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello JereKrischel. Just wanted to bring to your attention the following article: [1], a full-text article which discusses in depth several of Rushton's positions (including the one on the brain size-race correlation), and includes in appendices about ten or so comments from different scientists, including Rushton himself. I am trying to read the article in its entirety, as it establishes several point which we have been challenged to try and establish in the past months while trying to edit the article. Hope it is as useful to you as I think it will be to me. Regards,--Ramdrake 20:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could be of assistance. I think this article, along with its references can help significantly towards restoring some degree of NPOV to the R&I article on Wikipedia.--Ramdrake 22:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Hawaii

Kane, Herb Kawainui -- Ancient Hawaii link is the one that's commercial my edit is exacly what it say, another resource, and in no way commercial. Thanks

the power of the archive

You are welcome. I know Race and IQ is among the most controversial topics period, and thus the article needs to be very sophisticated and that often requires a lot of discussion. Believe me, I hate archiving recent, thoughtful discussion. I will make a perhaps pointless comment on the article talk page, but believe me, I respect the work you are putting into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Conclusion"?

What "conclusion" regarding PF did you arrive at and/or what did you want to discuss? You shouldn't delete discussions from the discussion page. Think At Least Twice 04:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

JK, this is Zen-master. --Rikurzhen 06:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You have severely misrepresented my position, whether the Pioneer Fund is "evil" or not is an entirely separate concern from whether they fund and encourage scientific racism. Given that many sources have alleged the latter Wikipedia should report on it. Think At Least Twice 09:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for admin attention

I'm requesting some Wikipedia administrators to communicate with a user, Aeusoes1, who is causing some problems for the Hawaiian phonology article. Please look at the article's talk page, section "Edits by AEuSoes1", especially "Edit 3". If it's appropriate, in your opinion, please consider a temporary block for that user. Otherwise, perhaps you can reason with him. Thanks. Agent X 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What on Earth is happening?

Hello JK. Just noticed that Rikurzhen has requested (and obtained) deletion of his own userpage. Has he left WP or what? Have you heard anything? Please let me know. I just hope it's not that anon (whom I'm suspecting greatly is ZenMaster) who slapped a "db" on both the article and Rikurzhen's page. Right now, I have no clue... totally in the dark.--Ramdrake 18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the reply and for following up with him. I just hope he hasn't given up on WP.--Ramdrake 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

nothing untoward. i'm going to be unavailable for a while. --Rikurzhen 20:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again JK. Now that Rikurzhen seems to have announced his intention to stop editing the R&I article for the most part (see the R&I talk page), do you still want to work on it, to give yourself a break, or have you too given up on editing this paper? Please let me know.--Ramdrake 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hawai'i History & Hawai'i Kingdom Overthrow

Hello there, thank you for sending the note (rather than reverting seven times). Gladly, I will slow the editing down and work on one paragraph at a time. I was simply surprised and dismayed to find that most of my changes from a few months ago had been wiped out without much comment. I put a note on the talk page as well. Huangdi 02:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi JereKrischel, thanks for holding the line on the sentence we hammered out together on the 1993 controversial resolution regarding the overthrow. Noticed it's been changed a few times but you catch it and revert it back, congrats! I still think it's a good sentence and a great compromise between our two very different philosphies. Shows the pen (or keyboard) IS mightier than the sword! (By the way, had to create this new User name, that's why you may not recognize it.) Mahalo!!! Kaihoku 4 December 2006

Merci beaucoup

For your extremely appropriate intervention on the talk page of Race and Intelligence yesterday. I didn't realize until too late that Rikurzhen was getting me to stray from what I think is the important point of having both explanations (race vs latitude) side by side. Many thanks to you for succintly pointing out its vital importance in the debate.--Ramdrake 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI on J. Philippe Rushton

Just to let you know it seems the editor or editors which were trying to make this article into a piece of apology for Rushton seem to be back. As far as I can tell, they don't seem to be interested in discussing their changes so far, just in reverting back whoever reverts them. I'm keeping an eye on it for the moment, but I figured I'd let you know this is happening. Regards,--Ramdrake 00:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bayonet Constitution

JK, though it's softer in tone than what I wrote, your wording is OK with me -- still NPOV. Being a fairly subtle change, though, I'm curious as to what you feel is important about the distinction. Cheers. Arjuna 02:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

J. Philippe Rushton again

Hello, me again. You may want to go take a look-see at [2] where they're talking about you (and me). The anon there has some choice words for us:

2 editors named Ramdrake and JereKrischel dominate this article and have removed all encyclopedic content from this article and have used selective quotes to try to portray a qualified and objective academic as an incompetent racist. This type of libel goes against wikipedia's rules for biographies on living persons. Also, people researching Rushton do so to learn about the theories for which he is best known, not to read a list of selectively chosen quotes trashing the man. I find this article very biased, one sided, boring, and libelous. Now that the article is semi-protected against new users like me, I encourage anyone concerned with the rules of living persons articles to revert back to my version of the article. 205.211.50.10 02:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC). I figured maybe you'd want to add your opinion... Have a good day nevertheless!--Ramdrake 12:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Tried to explain as best as I could. Hope I get through to them. At least, you got them talking rather than reverting tit for tat. That's good. Thanks!--Ramdrake 22:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring your attention that I'm heavily suspecting Liketoread, Minorcorrections and the 205.xxx anon are all socks of the same physical person. How would we go about finding out?--Ramdrake 03:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

¸Actually, I misspoke myself: I meant users: Minorcorrections, Finalnow, Centrum99 and anons: 205.211.50.10 and 205.211.52.10. All that maybe besides the point, but looking through their contributions (especially the anons) is an education, I'll let you figure out in what... wouldn't want them to acccuse me of personal attack. Never mind. Have a good day!--Ramdrake 14:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they must be just the same person! There can't be so many ugly racists in the world! The planet would be otherwise uninhabitable! 82.100.61.114 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Centrum99 is 82.100.61.114 It is easy to find out. --Zylbrsztajn (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rushton article

create another article about people who criticise race as provide a brief link on the rushton book page but don't clutter Rushton's article with criticism of race in general, because that takes away room for all the criticism specific to his book. Minorcorrections 03:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Look you are edit warring with me for nothing. I'm not against there being massive detailed criticism, but keep it specific to Rushton's work, not a general criticim of race or IQ because such articles already exist and can be easily linked to. Also I don't like your version of the summary. The previous version was much better so can you please leave it as it is or discuss what your problem with it is, because to me it looks good. Also the penis criticism seems really inappropriate. Rushton looks at dozens and dozens of variables, so why a whole section just devoted to penis size, and just one specific penis size study. Much better to criticise his methods in general than blow one specific area out of proportion, especially one as trivial as penis size. If you just trust me and cooperate with me, I have sources that can add a lot more criticism to balance the article that is specifically directed at Rushton, but the criticism you're adding is too broad (criticising race in general) or too specific to warrant a section (penis size). Let's just take it slow, because an edit war is only going to stress us both out. Some of the criticism I can cite even criticises the concept of race, but does so in a way that's specific Rushton's theory. Minorcorrections 03:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the key to working together is editing slowly. I think we should both oppose anyone who tries to change too much too quickly, regardless of whether they agree with you or me. I still have a lot of problems with your version of the article but I will not revert back. I will simply make one small change a day (at the most), so you'll know exactly what I have a problem with and why, and we'll have plenty of time to slowly go over everything point by point. Minorcorrections 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we're finally getting somewhere

If you take a look at Talk:Race and intelligence (Explanations), I think we're close to a possible solution with Rik on working in the same direction. At least, his last post seems promising. I have suggested that instead of focusing the debate on whether or not there is a genetic component to BW IQ differences, we instead focus on how much of a genetic influence there is. That way, no strawman of 0% genetic and no partly-genetic theory which turns out to be mostly-genetic. I think we can all work with that.--Ramdrake 23:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Need your help at Intelligence quotient

Somebody keeps removing two valuable links (one ot general intelligence, one to "g"). If you could just drop by the page and make your voice heard as well, maybe this individual would understand he is going against consensus and stop this persistent reversion. Thanks!--Ramdrake 14:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Contribution to "menehunes" deleted

I hope I'm doing this correctly being a new user to Wikipedia. If I'm not, please correct me. I made a contribution to the Menehune page which included that of a heiau (temple) on the island of Kauai, the construction of which was attributed to the menehune by local legend. Editor Zora deleted the additions with the comment that it was "woo-woo speculation" or something to that affect. Not sure if I understand all the Wikipedia jargon yet, but I assume that means it was deleted because the building of the heiau by the menehune is legend, but the menehune themselves are legend so that would stand to reason. Not quite sure why the other structures (Alekoko fishpond, Kikiaola ditch) would be listed but the Malae Heiau would be eliminated. Thank you.

First off, you should probably create your own user name, and then "sign" each comment on a talk page by putting four tildes (~) at the end (eg. "Arjuna 03:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)"). It's also better to discuss this on the talk page for the article in question. As for the substance of the edit, my two cents is that although not a subscriber of menehune-as-real-historical-being theory, within the parameter of the article which discusses them as legend, I see no harm. Arjuna 03:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hawaii etymology

I think I used about 10 different websites, each of which had a slightly different translation. That is why I asked for a Hawaiian language expert or fluent speaker to check it. Do we have at least one of those at English Wikipedia? Badagnani 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

How wonderful; I didn't know such a degree was possible. I did add references, as you had asked for them, much earlier this day. Badagnani 03:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Agent X will respond as he seems to have stopped editing some months ago. I did leave a question at the Hawaiian language Wikipedia as well but haven't checked back to see if anyone has answered. Badagnani 05:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

New Paulet text

I trust you on the new Paulet text. Badagnani 05:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Stub tags

Hi, I've noticed you've created a number of stub articles recently. It's more helpful if you can tag an article with a specific stub tag, such as {{party-stub}} - a full list can be found here.

Hawaii history

Good, I think multiple perspectives help make the best article for everyone. Those who are close to the subject (as you are clearly closer than I am) have a perspective may leave out "givens" that everyone there seems already to know. I'm reminded of the "Happy Days" episode in which Fonzie becomes impatient when teaching automobile repair to a novice. It isn't because he doesn't know the subject because he was an expert, but in fact the problem was that he was so good at it that he just couldn't explain it on a beginners' level. I agree that the background shouldn't be oversimplified and should be factual, and also that we should remain above the various debates over sovereignty, presenting the context and relevant issues with a dispassionate eye. I think you and the other Hawaii experts have done a good job hammering these things out in the various pages and think it's great you're improving them (with exceptions pointed out on the Hawaii talk page for removed passages that I didn't feel were adequately substituted). If the Hawaii article is too long, I agree that sections could be split off. In looking at individual U.S. state articles I see that some don't include a history section at all--all of the text is in a separate article. I don't think such an extreme solution is warranted in the Hawaii article, but probably some text could be split out into the branch articles. Thanks again for your note. Badagnani 13:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

fyi - wdhamilton

FYI - in order to simply my WP time, I've decided to switch user names from User:Rikurzhen to W. D. Hamilton.

r and i

Yeah, I'm mainly editing it to test the validity of my own ideas on the subject. I was raised to believe that education, culture, nutrition, and racism explain the black-white gap, and I hold that view to this day. I want to make sure my views are authentic, and scientific, and not based on peer pressure or wishful thinking. So I'm putting it all up to a test.

One thing I haven't seen addressed in any of the R&I articles on wikipedia is the fact that intra and inter group racism in the development of IQ are an impossible variable to control for. I plan on adding studies in this regard when we finish dealing with the stuff on the talk page.--Urthogie 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Just another note of thanks for your efforts on this topic. I have argued for a long time (see the spring 2005 archives) that the meta-analysis done to create various graphs in the articles constitutes original research, especially because the sample sizes vary widely and the data are not all collected from one source. If someone else has published the meta-analysis, we can report on that, but editors here should not be be interpreting data and compiling it for use in original works, in this case graphs. These graphs are powerful persuaders, which is why they appeal to those who wish to have them prominently featured. Many readers will only read the intro, the images, and the captions. That's why I fought so hard on getting the intro balanced, but I never had luck with the graphs. Keep up the great work! Jokestress 20:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Well said in your introduction/disclaimer to the appendix. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 10:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're doing a great job helping to sort things out at this article. Thanks! futurebird 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

deleting other people's copmments

re: race and intelligence talk page. As a rule, you should never delete other people's comments on talk pages (or their own user page). Even if you think the comments are irrelevant, unless it is clearly vandalism it is not your right to delete what other people write on a talk page. If you think the talk page is turning into a blog, my advice is this: type this at the bottom of the discussion you feel is off-topic:

and then encourage contribuotrs to take the discussion to their own personal talk pages. This is the polite thing to do. If there is a LOT of blog-like discussion, then I suggest you archive it. But please do not delete what others write. I ask you to restore what you deleted. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome - I hope you will find that this is a more respectful but ver effective way of handling the problem you are (quite reasonably) concerned with, best, SR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 09:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi there

Sorry for being absent from R&I discussion for so long, but I went through some health problems, then got sidetracked into a couple of discussions about whether cats could be owned and whether foie gras was an evil food (both with the same editor, mind you!). Hope everything is well in Hawaii. Temperature here dropped to sub-zero about ten days ago. Winter is here at last. Have a good one!--Ramdrake 22:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that slight mistake, but I was definitely under the impression you lived in Hawaii. 74 here would be an all-time heat record, although we hit 50 (Fahrenheit) the week of the New Year - and that's frighteningly hot for the Montreal area this time of year. And if you care to take my word for it, WD Hamilton is a very logical, reasonable fellow compared to one particular editor (and associated sockpuppets) I've dealt with recently. Do you know how familiar he is with the anthropological side of the story (Lieberman, Beals, and al.)? And, while this has no bearing on anything at all, my kittening season just began this week! (From a proud cat breeder). Best regards, Ramdrake 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

I think you are doing a great job. This kind of thing makes me far too angry to keep it up for long without getting sarcastic and short. I thought all such brands of nonsense were put to rest at least five years ago, seriously. Guess the wikipedia's catching up! Wow. You have more patience than I could care to dream of. But, don't lose sight of the big picture, make sure every question that you ask receives an answer. I'll be around. futurebird 05:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

race

FYI: http://www.understandingrace.org/ Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It has a HUGE section of history... futurebird 06:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This weekend

JK, can you help me find the study with the data you posted. I want to work on a graph. This page just gets longer and longer-- what I think we need to do is ignore the arguments and work section by section creating a new article that makes some kind of sense. Are you with me? I'm going to set up a sub-page for this purpose. futurebird 22:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

New intro page

Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07

Let me know what you think. I need this to be super sourced I'm talking like every friggin' word. I think I'm being more than fair... your feedback and or support would be most welcome. futurebird 03:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rushton

Hi. Can you please actually read the changes I made to the article before reverting it. I'm not POV pushing, I'm just trying to make the article more complete and fill in minor gaps. Saturdayseven

How can you call it original research to cite valid studies claiming the existence of genetic clusters which perfectly match the 3 main races Rushton explicitly defines in his book. How can you claim that the 2 predictions Rushton made is a trivial detail? It's the measure by which history will judge his theory and the article is incomplete without it. And the praise of Rushton is related to his work. As for the Native American thing, the whole section is unsourced, I'm just trying to give it some context. There's no cited review of the book that mentions Native Americans or the Flynn Effect so remove those entire sections if you want, but don't revert the changes I make to them. Saturdayseven

I think you are too strict in how you apply wikipedia's original research policy and such rigidity could hurt the article. Rushton asserts the existence of 3 biological groups, the first defined by East Asian ancestry, the second defined by European, Middle Eastern, and South Asian ancestry, and the third defined by sub-Saharan ancestry. Is it really original research to cite 2 independent studies confirming that these are indeed valid biological categories? Don't you think that's a relevant thing to point out?

And I do have a source confirming the 2 predictions Rushton made which I can add to the article. Saturdayseven

Race and Intelligence

Thanks for clearing up my confusion with Futurebird. I think you have a valid point, but I think it is wrong and unconstructive to say RIK is copping out. Please stop (this goes to RIK too) looking at this as a battle between two POVs and instead look at it solely' as a problem of good style. There is an argument, and there are critiques of that argument, and there is a defense of that argument. RIK instists that the first and third be provided, you insist that the second, and you are both right. The question is, with a complex argument, how best to represent this clearly without mischaracterizing any of the argument. I am not sure what the best way to go is but I urge you to address RIK and say "Look, let's pick this one argument and wort out a text that accurately and fairly represents it, without excluding anything form a verifiable source that is part of the argument, and let's just try to figure out how to write it up clearly. Do this not for the whole article but for one small part of it, and you will make progress. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours

For a 3 revert rule violation on Race, Evolution and Behavior. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello again

Saw what happened on REB. Just wanted to say your honesty is as impressive as your determination. :)--Ramdrake 13:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ramdrake! I wish mediawiki had a plugin to warn you when you've done 3-reverts, so that before I get carried away with the fourth one, I had a big STOP sign at the top of the page :). I guess what happens is that as I'm reverting, I'm thinking to myself, "Oh, I'm just reverting vandalism, since this n00b isn't listening to me...if I just revert ONE more time, I'm sure they'll start listening!" I guess I should probably follow SLR's lead - he often leaves messages for people, asking them to self-revert changes...seems like a good approach tactic I should try and emulate.

Anyway, I'll be back in the discussion on R&I after the block is over...I think if I can focus the conversation on what kind of changes would be acceptable to WRN, we can at least start moving forward a small bit at a time. I'm still guessing that the proper way to proceed is to work on organization, and then on details, but I'm willing to try either way. Something tells me that the difference between Race and intelligence and Race and intelligence (Research) is going to be critical in any final solution. --JereKrischel 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I can perceive, he would be much more approachable starting with the details (rewriting of the material already in there to NPOVise). Although, I've seen additions by FB that are starting to address just this point. We may get somewhere if we can just all agree on what to start working on first. But eventually, we need to NPOVise, to rewrite the outline, and to rewrite the intro. Doesn't matter in which order.--Ramdrake 18:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you may want to take a look-see here [3]. Un homme averti en vaut deux.--Ramdrake 01:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/

Nice source... futurebird 22:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) looks better than ever! futurebird 13:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Life history

The point was Rushton pioneered the application of life-history theory to explain variation among humans, or at least specifically among races. Are you saying those people applied life-history to explain human variation or specifically racial variation? If so, in what way? Saturdayseven

Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)

Wow! You and futurebird have done a great job making this article better. The sections are just what it needed. I'll see what I can do to expand each of these sections. Thank you!JJJamal 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WD has almost agreed to change the first sentence

I want to know what you think about this, besides I don't think we'll be able to make any change unless you support it.

[4]

It is not perfect, and it may need to be changed again later, but I think it is an improvement... maybe... This process is so painful. Sometimes I just want to give up. futurebird 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

race and intelligence

I have semi-protected the Race and intelligence article so you can now edit it. If you do not mind, I would like to give you some advice that I believe is important if you want your improvements to the article to last, and that will protect you from unfair conflicts.

1. Accept RIK's tremendous, if partial, knowledge. He is almost always rigorously careful about adhering to WP:V. I ask you to keep in the front of your mind the Wikipedia dictum that we are about "verifiability, not truth." It does not matter whether whether an edit by RIK is true or not. What matters is that it be verifiable and in my experience, RIK's edits always are.
2. RIK like all editors (including you) must comply with WP:NPOV. ALL "facts," no matter how verifiable, no matter how many sources can be used to support them, reflect some point of view. The safest way to protect your own additions is to be clear about the POV (from a scholar? What field? Natural science? Social science? Humanities? Or a journalist? What credentials? Or a politician? Or a civil-rights leader? What organization do they represent). If you ever feel RIK is unclear about the POV of his edits, politely insist that he make the POV explicit.
3. Beyond the above two points, here is my really BIG piece of advice: as long as RIK provides his sources do not delete or even bother to edit what he writes. I do not mean forever. i just mean for now. My advice is strategic, i want to suggest to you what would be a more constructive path at least for the time being, which is:
4. my other really BIG piece of advice which is to instead focus on adding what you think the article lacks. Let RIK add his stuff. Of course it is biased. All facts are biased. And his bias will always be a part of the article. WP:NPOV however demands, that other POVs be included too. My advice is, for NOW, focus on making sure those other POVs get in.
5. You MUST be rigorous in complying with NPOV (see above)
6. You MUST be rigorous in complying with WP:Verifiability - always provide a credible source. Credible does not mean correct, truthful or articulate or eloquent. It means someone that even your oponents must accept as an authority on the topic - some part of the topic, and in some way. A professor of journalism or political science writing in a book published by University of Chicago Press is a good example. A stanford University psychologist publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is another.
7. I URGE you to restrict the sources you rely on to those that explicitly address the relationship between race and intelligence. I realize you believe you have a reasonable argument for including material from sources specifically on "race" that do not explicitly address race&intelligence, and maybe your case really is reasonable. But I am trying to be practical. If you use a source that is not clearly about race and intelligence, some others can accuse you of violating WP:NOR which prohibits us from making our own generalizations or synthetic claims. So if you use such a source you are inviting a conflict. No, it does not matter who is at fault or who is right. What matters is making edits that are unassailable and will not be deleted or, if someone deletes them, you can with confidence revert the deletion. This will ensure your edits stick. I am advising that this - making edits that stick - be your priority.
8. My final and really really really important BIG piece of advice: If you add content that is accurate and relevant, from a verifiable source, that in no way comes close to even kinda sorta violating NOR (because you are not making ANY synthetic or general claims, only citing a verifiable source that does and that is directly about race and intelligence), and you are painstakingly careful to comply with NPOV, and if another editor deletes what you added, then make a record of that editor's deletion immediately. Also, document any violation of the three-revert rule (and be sure you never violate it ever ever). And document any personal attacks. Just keep a record, keep it to yourself.
9. If after two weeks you can document a pattern in which your fully NPOV/NOR/V compliant edits are consistently deleted (whereas you have not been deleting that person's stuff), and someone else has violated 3RR (and you have not), and someone else is guilty of personal attacks (and you are not) ... you then would have a very strong case to take to ArbCom. Very strong. Use the record you have been keeping.

I apologize if any of this sounds patronizing. And if you question my motives all I can say is I really am trying to be practical and strategic. I think if you do not follow this advice no sustainable progress will be made in the article. If you do follow this advice, I think the article really will get better, even if at a slower rate than you'd like. I am sharing this with JK; please share this advice with anyone else you closely collaborate with. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Outside efforts

Jere, I've been emailing everyone I know in academia about this article. I'm trying to get some experts in here. This is the email I sent out-- do you know any people?

I have noticed a disturbing trend on the wikipedia. Articles on the topic "race and Intelligence" contain lopsided information and occasionally racist information mostly from researchers such as Arthur Jensen, Charles Murray and Richard Lynn (Richard Lynn wrote a book called "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" that tries to prove that people are poor in places around the world because they are genetically inferior...)

All of the work looks, on first glance, to be very scholarly, there are numerous citations and lots of flashy graphs, but fundamentally, the historical context is missing and the cultural context is missing. Because of this the information is highly misleading.

I have undertaken a project of revising these articles (I've rewritten portions of these articles, using the work of Gardner, Gould, Etienne Wenger, Robert Serpell as my sources) but I am in over my head. I'm really just a high school math teacher. I'm not an expert on intelligence. I need the help of smart dedicated editors who can help bring some balance to these articles.

I see the impact allegations of inferiority can have on young people in the classroom all of the time. I felt it growing up as a minority student during The Bell Curve controversy. I think that improving these articles is important work, and I hope you can help me find the right people to work with me on this project. Here is a link to the main article. I encourage you to take a look at it and forward this email to anyone you know who can help.

-Susan Murray

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

In addition to this I'm working on improving the bio-pages for researchers who aren't on the Pioneer Fun Roll. I think it makes it seem like all the work in on this topic has come from Rushton and Jenson or something, when in fact they are just minor players.

Here's my to-do list in that area:

Bios

• Robert J. Sternberg
• Etienne Wenger
• Robert Serpell
• Terezinha Nunes
• David William Carraher
• Richard Lewontin
• Ruth Hubbard
• Howard Taylor
• Sasha A. Barab
• Jonathan A. Plucker
• Charles M. Super
• Jonathan Beckwith
• Richard Levins
• Stephen Jay Gould —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Things are going great

Since the page has been unlocked. I like you new outline feel free to ax Race and intelligence (test data) this if it gets in the way. futurebird 06:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a cool source futurebird emailed to me

[5] you should check it out. FB, is way to nice about this stuff IMHO. She knows I think that and I don't care if she reads this. You take a hard line and someone has got to do that, you know? JJJamal 02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jamal, get your but over here --> Race and intelligence (Research)‎ and help with this intro. NOW. (how's that for 'soft' :P) futurebird 04:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me with the intro I just wrote?

Race and intelligence (Research)‎

It's a mess, but it's also a start. futurebird 04:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, based on this please submit a request for formal mediation if you're up to it. List you me and the others as appropriate. I suggest that organization is the central issue to be resolved and whatever flows from that. I ask you because I'm ill. --W.R.N. 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

request

JK, based on this please submit a request for formal mediation if you're up to it. List you me and the others as appropriate. I suggest that organization is the central issue to be resolved and whatever flows from that. I ask you because I'm ill. --W.R.N. 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Two Curve Bell.jpg

Please weigh in on this IfD [6] futurebird 05:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

race and intelligence (explanations)

My goof. You should be edited now. As to your conflicts with WRN, I am not going to get involved. I urge you to follow my 9 pieces of advice (above). Be sure to comply with all policies and rules yourself, to protect yourself. And you keep your own careful record of anything WRN does that you think reflects bad faith, or ownership of the article, or violates 3RR, or violates any of our core policies, or is uncivil to you ... and when you feel too frustrated to go on insist on formal mediation following the appropriate links to the proper page to make such a request, or file an ArbCom case if you feel it is justified. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

rfm

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

according to the rfm rules, you're not supposed to change the "Issues to be mediated" that I wrote. if you want to add you own issues, they're supposed to be listed under "Additional issues to be mediated". see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a Request for Mediation: Do not, under any circumstances, edit the "Issues to mediate" section unless you are the party who filed the request. --W.R.N. 22:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

i appreciate the offer, but right now I'm trying to minimize the amount of time that WP takes in my day. i'll try to rate-limit myself in the future, and i'll register this account with a "E-mail this user" if you want to send me anything privately. --W.R.N. 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we may be able to minimize the amount of time WP takes up for both of us if we have a communication channel that's more effective than edit...refresh...refresh...refresh...edit...refresh... Feel free to make a throwaway yahoo IM account called WRN or something and contact me if you are worried about privacy and anonymity. --JereKrischel 22:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about this?

[7]

futurebird 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin and WD reverted everything

It's back the way it was when the page was locked. I just don't understand how they can do this? The article was finally starting to improve. All of the work has been lost. Now they page is "locked for mediation" or something. This isn't fair. futurebird 04:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 06:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Hey, you need to watchlist this page. There is no guarantee someone will actuall step up and mediate, so you need to watch that page to see if someone does. For more information, read this. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

your email

Check it :P futurebird 22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

about to archive

JK, before I archive it, will you make sure there is nothing here or in the following section - chock full of citations - that you want to put in one of the pages you are working on, but have not yet? best, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawai'i -- POV Push

JK, you're by far one of the most controversial contributors to Wikipedia, and you have an obvious bias against the Hawaiian monarchy. This was evident when I last dealt with you last year over the section in Hawai'i about the Overthrow. Fine, you believe that the Overthrow was justified and legal, but unfortunately everything you write is subtly but painfully POV. I don't know if it's intentional or if you believe so strongly in your view that you just don't realize it. Then you tell me that I have a POV push? Hardly, I simply want you to include a more balanced view, if not a completely NPOV or nuetral article. While reading your work, I've been shaking my head in disbelief so much that it gives me a headache.

This is hardly an exhaustive list, but to start:

RE: The Queen's poll, you say she "claimed" she had support. "Claimed" implies she was less than truthful. We have no real way to know if she was truthful or not. "Concluded" is far less inflammatory.

RE: The Queen's "overthrow". Nope, more correctly it was an attempt to RESTORE her power.

RE: Minister Stevens, you're implying that his actions had the support of the United States government, when many believe he overstepped his limits, including Grover Cleveland. Therefore, "The United States Government, through its..." should be left out.

RE: Political unrest. Many believe that Stevens used the situation to his advantage, so my change to "what he saw as" pol unrest is far more nuetral than stating he "reacted" to the pol unrest.

RE: Landing of the Marines. The addition of "obstensibly" to this sentence allows for different opinions on whether the action was valid or not.

RE: Grover Cleveland's message to Congress. This is an essential part of the story and further illustrates the difference of opinions.

RE: The Provisional Government "quickly" gaining recognition. This is a matter of opinion and also has a subtle POV push. "Eventually" is far more nuetral and in my opinion, far more truthful given the intrigue surrounding the overthrow.

You still have MANY pro-Republic POV sentences in this article that convey your POV. If you need examples of these, I'll be glad to list them tomorrow. For now, I need to get to bed.

Kaihoku 11:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, I appreciate the changes that you have initiated. Most of them I think are appropriate. Some need a little work...

I also appreciate the refresher on some historical details I had forgotten.

BUT FIRST, it occurs to me that we need to examine why this section and the following section are even IN this article. This is about the 1887 Constitution, not the 1893. There's already an article on the 1893 Const. not to mention the article covering the Overthrow. This doesn't belong here.

MAYBE we keep a modified version the first paragraph, with a link the 1893 Const. and Overthrow articles? I PROPOSE WE DO THIS!

BUT IF WE DO DECIDE TO KEEP IT...

Why did you add the phrase about "eliminating suffrage from American and European residents"? I've read the 1893 Constitution, and Article 62 states the qualifications for voting. There's nothing in there that would specifically eliminate suffrage as you contend.

Also, upon further review I find the phrase "threatened to impose" a bit strong and definitely POV. I've changed it to "proclaimed that she would promulgate".

Right before the sentence about the Queen's poll, I've also added "The queen had been presented with petitions for a new constitution, signed by an estimated two-thirds of the kingdom's voters." I feel that this historical note shows the diverse opinions at the time regarding the 1887 Const.

Moving over to the Morgan Report, your section on "Contradicted by the A.R. " falls under the Controversy headline. Should there not be both sides of the controversy represented? It's not a rebuttal, it simply states the opposite view. How can you expect to throw up your POV without the opposing POV represented?

More tomorrow. Mahalo for your laulima...

Kaihoku 10:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Was hoping to see your reasons for the recent changes under the Talk page, but there was nothing? I still think it shoud be deleted altogether... Kaihoku 11:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

mediation

fyi - i think you put your comment under the wrong heading. --W.R.N. 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, its under the correct heading for what was posted. JereKrischel is the only editor to have added a position to What should the organization of the main article be? and Kevin Murray , Furutrebird and yourself (WRN) have added your positions to What should the organization structure/relationships of the many articles be?. We will need something from all editors in both of those sections before mediation is over. I failed to update the beginning comment, that What should the organization structure/relationships of the many articles be? was also open for discussion - my opening comments only mention What should the organization of the main article be?. This was my error, and I apologise. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence (explanations)‎

I really need some help with this article. I've added a ton of evidence against the genetic explanation, but now WRN is trying to frame the whole thing in terms of "well you never know it might be genetics!" --It's the idea that no matter what you do, I mean, even if there was no test score gap, until you have proven there is NO genetic link you ought to assume that there is one. He's invoking Occam's razor and I think that's ABSURD. Occam's razor says choose the obvious cause: RACISM. duh duh duh. I've just about had it with this article. How many years will it be before people simply realise that (a) Jensen is a nut (b) we ought to have been spending all this time and research money trying to help people live better lives rather than trying to prove that people are inferior because of some 19th century vendetta in some circles of the academic community against Africa.

I'm just really angry and sick of going in circles. I need some help. I don't want to just give up and watch as all of my hard work is slowly obliterated. futurebird 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

FB, you need to remember the difference between what editors think and what published sources report. Jensen's argument is that Factor X is a violation of Occam's razor. As it turns out, Flynn agrees with him, and offers a model that avoids a Factor X. --W.R.N. 05:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You changed it while I was writing my angry note. It's not as bad as before but it's too heavy on jargon that's too much for the intro.

• social multiplier
• g factor
• Factor X (Can we just call this "racism"? Of course there are "there are environmental factors that have effects between groups but not within groups" I see them in action every single day. I need to go read Flynn and see what he had to say about this...) futurebird 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You probably want to take that question to the article talk page. Factor X has to not differ within groups. It has to affect the most affluent and the least affluent relatively equally. Flynn rejects "racism" as a non-explanation because it's a Factor X (see the 2006 Flynn and Murray debate). --W.R.N. 07:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

hawaii

• Just wanted to drop a note of thanks for helping to clean up List of famous people from Hawaii. It's an easy target for self-promotion and vanity, and I haven't had a chance to clean it up as often as I would like, so thank you. --Santaduck 23:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hawaii article revisions

Hi JK, I only had time to look at a couple of your response edits so far. Many I still find problematic, but in regards to "race", "ethnicity", and your suggestion of "ancestry": better, more accurate -- kudos. I'm heading into a huge round of external stuff, and won't be likely to do anything in the next few weeks, so unless someone else comes in, your edits are likely to stick until I am back in action and we have a chance to find compromises. In the meantime, aloha... Arjuna 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Mediation Cabal case

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Ryan4 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case page, where you are invited to participate. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality. Kind regards, Anthøny 09:15, Saturday May 19 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is now active; please see the case page for more information. Thank you — anthony^[cfc] 20:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Punahou School

Could you maybe give me a list of "things" to do for the article above? Maybe a WikiProject summary on the discussion page? I want to bring this article to at least "Good" status. Thank you so very much. Sr13 (T|C) 06:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

HeartlyHear

Aloha. I would be happy to mediate if that is acceptable to HH. Out of curiosity, are the both of you members of WP Hawaii? I know you have worked on a lot of Hawaii-related articles. I haven't seen HeartlyHear before, but I would like to see the both of you working together on the project. —Viriditas | Talk 02:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

JK, mahalo for your comments on Talk:Native_Hawaiians#Alleged_role and again, I apologize for the accidental deletion of your comment on the other talk page (I think what happened was I clicked on "undo" instead of "edit") and the inadvertent violation of 3RR (I was simply not paying attention). Taking a step back (the 24 hour block on my account -- totally justified -- was good for this purpose), I have regained a sense of humor about all this. And though we will no doubt continue to disagree on this and a variety of issues, I too will strive to act in good faith. I think both of us were pushing each other's buttons, and that's not very constructive to the overall endeavor. I'm not going to go back into the meat of this now as it's the end of what has not been a very pleasant week for anyone (given recent events), and there's no rush. Have a good weekend. Cheers, Arjuna 05:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi JK, thanks to you as well for your kind words. I agree it can sometimes be hard to argue "virtually" without creating a sense of personal affront where none was intended. I apologize for pushing your buttons too. I do argue forcefully (such is my academic training), but at the same time (this is where it would be impossible to convey in anything but in person), I think my friends would say that I'm certainly not an unkind person -- as, from your above comments (and others), I'm sure yours would say about you. In another context -- and I'm not suggesting this as anything but theoretically -- we might actually enjoy a beer together (we are both musicians after all). And I truly appreciate your offer to remove "alleged" until we can further discuss. But no, let's just leave it as is for now. As I said, the article's not going anywhere, and we can put the gloves back on later ;-). For now, enjoy Legoland with your family and try to forget what a nasty week it's been (not refering to our spat but the other thing). Aloha. Arjuna 05:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Hawaii

JK, I agree with your change (previous wording was not mine). I've been taking a break from these articles this week. Aloha! Arjuna 07:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Akaka Bill

Aloha JK. I strongly disagree with your reverts on the Akaka Bill. I think Heartly Hear had some very good revisions (not saying all of them, but many/most) of what was previous a very POV article. I'm not going to revert your revert (for now), as I'm still thinking about some way out of the apparent impasse in (what I see as) your POV-pushing and what you (apparently) think is the same from my, HH, and some others. I'd take issue with that of course -- note that I take strong issue with some of the POV edits coming from the other side from the strongly pro-sovereignty perspective; however, I think HH's edits were good and I think your blanket revert is highly problematic. (I'm putting a version of these comments on the Akaka Bill talk page as well, just so others can see them readily.) Cheers, Arjuna 07:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

JK, your unilateral and radical changes to the article are not in the spirit of consensus or collaboration. I'm sorry to say so, but you are clearly not acting in good faith. I request that you cease immediately or I see no other alternative but to go to informal mediation. Mahalo. Arjuna 03:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

JK, thanks for your note on my talk page and for your cooperation. Let's work together. Adding sections to track the changes is helpful, but if I can also suggest that we slow down a bit -- I'm sure we're all busy people and are doing this for "fun" on the side. Given that fact, it's hard to keep up when so many changes are being made at once. As hopefully you've noted from my lack of getting back into the whole "alleged" thing, I hope you will agree there's no rush to try to solve all our disagreements at once... Finally, (I'm going to post this on the article talk page as well, just so it's part of the "official" record), I think it's also worth noting that both HH and I (I'm taking his statement on faith from what s/he said) are not even sure if we support the Akaka Bill or not. Speaking for myself at least, it's from this basis that I'm just seeking to ensure that the article represent the issue fairly and not pushing a POV from either side. Representing the fact that there are POVs is fine; my point is that I'd like to see an article free of what comes across to a dis-interested observer, which is what I am on this issue anyway, as non-editorializing. Which was how it came across before. Anyhow, I haven't looked at your changes yet and probably won't get a chance to until later. But thanks for your cooperation. Arjuna 04:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

JK, as I said on the Akaka Bill talk page, I think you did a great job on fixing the major problems HeartlyHear (though I don't speak for him/her obviously) and I had with the article. You and I may continue to battle over some of these articles, but thanks to you (and HH's) hard work in getting back to a good NPOV, the result is a much improved article. So when we battle, we battle, but praise also goes when it's due. Mahalo, Arjuna 11:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi JK, and thank you for the very kind words on my talk page -- although I am 100% certain that I don't deserve that kind of credit! You keep me on my toes as well, and I'm thankful that you do. I respect your passion and intelligence -- even when we strongly disagree -- and I'm sorry if, in the heat of battle, that isn't always readily apparent. But please accept my word that it is there even than. I think it's very encouraging that we both recognize that an often contentious process can lead (and perhaps is necessary to?) to a good outcome and a better article. I'm taking a bit of a Wikibreak for the next few days, so I wish you a lovely coming weekend and aloha! Arjuna 19:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi JK. I don't know who did those recent edits on the Akaka Bill, and frankly I'm not up on how valid they are in terms of accuracy (not saying they aren't either, just that I'm not up on the nuts and bolts as you are) -- so your input there would be very valuable. Cheers, Arjuna 10:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

JK, I don't disagree with your edits by 4.246.209.215, but the changes they made seem rather semantic and/or pretty subtle (as well as not the best grammar), but not so much POV pushing. I just ask that we not be too loose with the term "POV" unless it's really merited. Mahalo! Arjuna 02:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

POV tags

Hi JK. Although you probably know what material I find problematic, fair enough -- I'll make it part of the record on the respective talk pages. Won't have time to get to that until late this evening. Btw, my intention in putting the tags there was not to escalate things, but simply to 1. flag those articles as ones that need additional work and 2. serve to notify the general reader that they may want to be cautious in approaching the material. And I don't have a problem with you putting the "totally disputed" tag on the Akaka Bill article -- it's an accurate characterization at the moment. Cheers, Arjuna 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

JK, I assume you're joking. I will not remove the POV tags, since as you well know, there are numerous citations for the positions I take and which need no further reiteration. I already referenced the book Overthrow, which is as good a starting point as any and more than suffices. Cheers, Arjuna 08:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Reposting in order to have references on the talk pages to point to here: I'm "mis-reading" Overthrow? It's amusing that you argue that that book bolsters your position and not the views I articulate. You are again both taking a very selective approach to the facts and misrepresenting what I said (ex. I explictly did not say "the U.S." but rather "U.S. agents", which is quite a different thing). And I do not need to get back into the "whether the marines were there to intimidate royalists" argument again. I have already demonstrated that clearly that was one of their intended purposes, and that they were successful in doing so. I put the POV tags up at the legitimate request of Viriditas, in order to demonstrate that there is a different view of events not reflected in the article. And my short summary above, as I said, was a short summary to justify re-insertion, not to get into additional extended debates with you at this stage. I am increasingly of the mind that such good faith attempts are futile. In any case, the point of a POV tag is to point out that the article is disputed and not the result of a consensus-based approach, not that I have to take the time to argue point by point to your requests. It most certainly is a very tendentious reading of history, as has been pointed out by numerous people over a long period of time, but most of whom simply give up in the face of your attempts to intimidate as well as your admirable tenacity. You know as well as I do that this article is POV and does not reflect mainstream views -- despite your agenda as part of the advocacy organization Grassroot Institute. I will not remove the POV tags, and will resist any attempts to do so. However, I will be happy to put the articles up for independent review if you like. Arjuna 09:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

JK, thanks for your amusing comments. As you are smart enough to know, but failing other ammunition than to request repeated re-iteration of facts already expressed and demonstrated, there is already ample sufficient and specific cause, and that the views therein are not simply "my opinion". The POV tags will stay. Aloha, Arjuna 09:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

JK, thanks again for proving my point again. Apparently unsatisfied with the degree to which your bias is represented in the article, now by requesting removal of the tags, you also seek to deny the majority of others to merely point out that the article is POV. I know you truly believe your POV is the mainstream one, but at this point I see no other option than to seek informal mediation. I request your cooperation in this. Cheers, Arjuna 09:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

JK, thanks for your comments, and perhaps we are both pushing each others' buttons again. My regrets if so, but it is very frustrating that it seems to me that you seemingly refuse to accept that I have already provided sufficient justification for the tags. Your request for further "specific examples" is a red herring, as I presume you are aware but are attempting to use as a rhetorical device. My point in the original request by Viriditas for justification of the POV tags was to make the point that the article as currently written presents a POV -- and therefore misleading -- interpretation of events. This point needs no further reiteration here, and in fact I have already requested Viriditas' assistance on this. I look forward to working with you to demonstrate that the minimal requirement of the article is that it reflect the fact (via POV tag) that the interpretation of events is seriously disputed. Until then, all the best (and I mean that -- let's cool off a bit for the next day, shall we? The article isn't going anywhere) and aloha, Arjuna 10:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Aloha!

Aloha e JereKrischel! Aloha nō, aloha kāua! Pehea ʻoe? Ua maikaʻi loa au! Kēia lā i pōmaikaʻi loa lā!

If you don't understand, just leave me a note on my talk page and I will be more than happy to translate for you. Rest assured, it is nothing bad at all.

There seems to be a lot of disagreements between yourself and other users on several different articles relating the the Hawaiian People and Hawaiian ways of life. Liliuokalani is just one example of them. Lets all try to reach a middle ground. Some of the references you use in your arguments, i.e., Public Law 103-150, say the exact opposite of what you are trying to get across in your arguments. I am in no way try to make a personal attack against you. The downfall to this type of dialog is the lack of being able to read one's facial expressions and hear the tone in their voice. A simple, innocent comment in this type of forum can easily be misconstrued. Again, please do not take this as a personal attack as this is not my intent at all.

My intent here is for all of us that have an interest in these articles to reach a middle ground. The success of Wikipedia is dependent upon view's from all sides of the spectrum. However, revert wars and personal attacks will never accomplish anything. It is my opinion, and only my opinion, that several of these pages should be protected for now until an agreement can be reached on the talk pages. After all, what we want in the end result is an encyclopedia that is full of facts representing the truth, and not personal points of view.

Mahalo ā nui for your contributions. Again, let me reiterate, that I am in now way trying to make a personal attack against you. Please do not take this comment as such. Pōmaikaʻi Akua ʻoe! -- Kanaka maoli i puuwai 01:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Aloha. Aloha nō! Aue! Interesting comment that you left on my talk page. I too would like to say mahalo for not making a personal attack. I am at a point where I am ready to take a break from Wikipedia. Pau! There are too many people on here (myself included) that have their own personal opinion about some of the articles on here. Without realizing it, a lot of people on here begin to feel an "ownership" to the articles that they either a.) create, or b.) contribute to significantly. Again, I honestly feel that a lot of the times this is done on "accident" (for a lack of better terms). I have found myself in a similar situation. That is hence the reason I think it is time for me to step back a take a break.

I think that on some of these articles, those of us that are involved in the revert wars and edit wars, should ALL take a break from them for a while. We need to let someone else come in and give their $0.02. Now, I cannot force anyone to do such a thing, but I do recommend it. I am confident that there is someone out there that can contribute to these articles with a "true" middle-ground perspective.

I am not even going to begin to answer all the questions that you left on my talk page, as you yourself said that depending upon which side of the spectrum one falls, the answers will differ. I know in my mind what I think, and I do not want to start any animosity between anyone because they don't seem to like my answers.

That is it for me, for now at least. One day, I will return to Wikipedia and begin to contribute again. In all actuality, I am not "leaving" Wikipedia, only staying away from some of the most contentious and disputed Hawaiian-realated articles. Again, mahalo nui loa. Mālama pono! Kanaka maoli i puuwai 09:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

JK, thanks for your amusing comments on my talk page. As you are smart enough to know, but failing other ammunition than to request repeated re-interation of facts already expressed and demonstrated, there is already ample sufficient and specific cause, and that the views therein are not simply "my opinion". The POV tags will stay. Aloha, Arjuna 09:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

JK, please see my comments on the Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy talk page. Aloha. Arjuna 10:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

On your insisting that Native Hawaiian religion is mere mythology

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my renaming the Hawaiian mythology page to Native Hawaiian religion under the claim that it was a "fringe POV push".

As I point out on the talk page of that article: the page must be renamed Native Hawaiian religion as there are still many adherants to this ancestoral faith. No one would even try to rename the Jesus Christ article to Jesus Christ (myth) it is POV to declare someone else's religion mere mythology.

There has been a recent special on the history channel about the continuing worship of Pele and other ancestoral gods in Hawaii. And you can see as recent as May 25, 2007 an Associated Press news story saying "The area [Halemaumau Crater, at the summit of Kilauea] is one of the most popular parts of the park and is revered by Native Hawaiians as the home of Pele, goddess of the volcano." See http://www.thestate.com/166/story/72786.html or http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/252/story/44414.html

I included more examples for our discussion here:

After an eruption MSNBC spoke to a Native Hawaiian named Piilani Kaawaloa "That’s the home of Pele the fire goddess...We believe that with the respect that we have for Pele and our belief in her, that it was spared. We believe that the land provides for us. If you take care of the land, the land will take care of you." http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079560/

There are several pages describing how the 1960 lava flow sparing two buildings was seen by many Native Hawiians as a conscious act of the goddess Pele. http://www.punaweb.org/VisitingPuna/Wheretogo/CapeKumukahiLight.html http://www.hawaiiweb.com/hawaii/html/sites/kumukahi_lighthouse.html

Even many travel books speak of Native Hawaiian religion as an active ongoing religious movement in the islands. These passages taken from Maui By Kristin Kimball, Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd., Victoria, Australia, 2006

“In other respects, the Hawaiian Renaissance of the 1970s was a reaction against tourism and an explicit rejection of island development motivated by the almighty dollar in favor of traditional Hawaiian values. …Hula performances are again focusing on the sacred nuances of hand movements and facial expressions, instead of the hip-shaking that sells luaus. ...Perhaps nothing is more uniquely Hawaiian than the sacred hula dance. …Facial expressions, hand gestures, hip sway and dance steps all conveyed the story, as did rhythmic chants called mele, some of which were prayers and others epic narratives. …The Christian missionaries thought it all too licentious for their liking and suppressed it.”

In another section the book states that while many converted to Christianity “others took the Hawaiian religion underground. While the traditional beliefs never regained their former command, the philosophy endured, often expressed as aloha ‘aina (reverence for the land’s sanctity). In part the Hawaiian sovereignty movement is rooted in aloha ‘aina, to reclaim the land regarded as abused by outsiders. Today the term kahuna (Hawaiian priest, physician or sage) if often misused by nonlocals as a catchword for any hotshot, hence the ‘big kahuna’ moniker. But true kahuna are few in numbers and must possess a deep knowledge of Hawaiian culture. Kahuna nui (high priests) must be chosen by their teacher, be properly trained and often belong to an official bloodline to gain the title. ...Different religious groups overlap: Christian sermons often include both Hawaiian and English words and public ceremonies, such as ground breaking, include a kahuna to bless the land.”

There is also the findings of "The Native Hawaiians Study Commission" created by the Congress of the United States on December 22, 1980 (Title III of Public Law 96-565). Whose report "NHSC Native Hawaiian Religion", focused on several aspects of their religion including "The need felt by some emerging native Hawaiian groups to recover self-esteem as Hawaiians by pledging faith in ancient religious beliefs and customs beneficial to group identity through participation in a live, revitalized religious setting, requiring recovery of temple and other shrine sites designated as sacred, with the privilege or right to reenact pertinent rituals in ceremonies conducive to harmonious and inspired religious expression." And presenting a "Summary of needs and concerns about Hawaiian religion with recommendations for improving religious expression as desired in the present multiethnic social setting." It notes the division along generational lines among Native Hawaiians on how vigorously to protest the US Navy's use of a traditional religious site as a gun range "The issue of Kaho'olawe looms large in the minds of young and old alike, but the issue remains a divisive polarization of opinion between young Hawaiians who wish the Navy to stop bombing long enough to allow them to set up religious practices in accordance with present law, and older Hawaiians who see no need to recover it from the United States Navy." http://wiki.grassrootinstitute.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=NHSC_Native_Hawaiian_Religion

Is it really your intent to insult thousands of people's religion because their numbers are not as large as the more prominent faiths? Santeria is also a minority faith but the editors of that page do not list its gods under mythology Santeria#Deities you won't even find the word myth in that entire article. Please undo your revision.

--Wowaconia 10:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

More on Mythology versus Religion

I have read your response to the question of whether Hawaiian mythology should be renamed to Native Hawaiian religion.

As the question centers around the naming of a Wikipedia article I point out the guidelines found at

WP:Naming conventions (emphasis added)

“Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.”

While scholars may differentiate what the word myth means “the majority of English speakers” see the word as referring to an a story that is untrue. These quotes from the Mythology page (emphasis added):

"Myth in general use is often interchangeable with legend or allegory"

"A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief"

"folktales/fairytales (or Marchen, the German word for such tales) - stories whose tellers acknowledge them to be fictitious, and which lack any definite historical setting; often include animal characters"

"A popular meaning (which English myth shares with Greek μθος) of a rumour, misconception or mistaken belief, is in marked contrast to the meaning 'stories of deep cultural or spiritual significance'."

As I pointed out before, the article on the religious beliefs of the minority religion Santeria does not contain the word myth in any form.

You will find the word on the Bigfoot page “They attribute the numerous sightings to folklore, mythology, hoaxes, and the misidentification of common animals.”

It is also on the Loch Ness Monster page “This myth successfully kept children away from the loch, as was its purpose.”

When you say “I believe in Pele, and Lono, and Ku, and my amakua, but it does not make it a religion. It is spiritual” and still call this mythology, I don’t think most people would understand what you are saying. It seems like your saying something akin to “I think Bigfoot is a hoax but I worship him anyway.” When something is untrue that means it is a lie, people around Loch Ness told their children a little lie about a monster to keep them from drowning. I really don’t think you are saying you get some spiritual satisfaction from something you are convinced is a lie.

Therefor I maintain that by the naming conventions of Wikipedia and by its call for NPOV using the term mythology on an active religion is unacceptable. It is the same as saying “Those Native Hawaiians who practice this faith believe in fairytales.” Put more bluntly (by using an expletive that means untruth) it is akin to saying “Native Hawaiians believe in bullshit.”

While I do not claim any attachment to this faith, as an American I can not help but demand that all faiths be treated with respect. I think that Wikipedia standards are in line with this as well.

As for your other points: The sources indicate the religion went underground and was not fully exterminated. This is different then when Christianity came to Pagan Rome (and Greece that was under its sway). Constantine the Great soon after his crowning started to strip and destroy Pagan temples and his successors after him began the systematic slaughter of Pagans who would not convert or those who mixed too much Paganism into their Christianity. Under centuries of active state run persecution Roman and Greek Paganism were exterminated. Because there are no true links to these past Pagan Roman and Hellenistic religions the worship of their deities today is called Wicca or NeoPaganism to differentiate it. This is in contrast to the Native Hawaiian Religion because it has an unbroken link to the past. I have yet to see any sources that claim Christian missionaries on Hawaii used murder to wipe out the belief and all vestiges of its practice. All sources indicate it survived “underground” like Christianity did under Diocletian and Nero or in Soviet Russia or Mao’s China. No one claims any of these underground believers are illegitimate, if anything they are seen as more committed and more faithful then those who can practice “above ground.”

The lack of human sacrifice and the discontinuing of avoiding certain foods or women with menses should certainly be included in the article in a section about the history of Native Hawaiian Religion. Changing practices do not mean that a religion is nullified. The Latter Day Saints (a.k.a Mormons) once practiced polygamy and the US Calvary was sent out against them to put an end to the practice, their prophet declared that he had received a timely revelation that the practice was to come to an end. This change did not nullify their claim to be a religion nor strip them of the name Church of Latter Day Saints. Likewise Reform Jews have dropped the ban on Pork but are still called a branch of Judaism. Roman Catholics after Vatican II now have services in many languages instead of just Latin, can receive Communion by hand, altar servers can now be girls, etc. and still they are called Roman Catholics. Likewise the fact that the practices involved in Native Hawaiian Religion have changed do not nullify its existence or render its claim to be linked to an unbroken past illegitimate.

--Wowaconia 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion vs. Mythology Continued

The quote that you offer states “Today's Hawaiian ‘traditional practitioners’ somehow think they can pick and choose which elements of the old religion to implement, and which to ignore. In an effort to make themselves seem more 'indigenous' or different from people with no Hawaiian ancestry, they might wear special clothing, chant certain prayers, or perform certain rituals. But the old religion was pervasive throughout all aspects of life, and it was a seamless whole.” This seems to argue that because the current practitioners do not have faith visibly present throughout every aspect of their life they are unworthy of carrying forward the name. First the author does not address inner aspects such as prayer or meditation which seem to be the most important aspects of religion and are the least easy to study or make generalizations about.

Second I find it strikingly similar to this quote about Catholicism in Europe during the middle ages.

“A key aspect of the idea of Christendom is that religious understandings pervade all aspects of social life. Its decline would therefore include the elimination of this pervasiveness” http://www.cjsonline.ca/pdf/christendom.pdf

Compare that to today's practitioner with the poll data from http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/03/pope.poll/index.html

“Seventy-eight percent [of Catholics polled after the death of Pope John Paul II] said the next pope should allow Catholics to use birth control, …and 59 percent said the next pope should have a less-strict policy on stem cell research. … Fifty-five percent said the next pope should allow women to become priest” This is despite the fact that at Vatican II Humanae Vitae declared that birth control was a grave sin and its use was forbidden, and the fact that the stem cell research is seen as destroying fertilized eggs and is the same as abortion (i.e. murder in the eyes of the RC Church). Pope John Paul II declared formally that the question of women becoming priest was closed with the answer of no. Still not only did CNN call these people (who wish to pick and choose) Catholics but so does everybody else.

I repeat that changes in practice or adherance would make a good segment in the article but in no way negate a persons claim to be a member of a religion.

The quote you offer concludes with the line “Hawaiian traditional practitioners who select religious observances they enjoy while neglecting others they dislike are as ineffective and sacrilegious as Jews or Christians who reduce the Ten Commandments to six or seven.” Actually in Judaism there are 613 commandments (these are called Halakhah). Within Judaism the first ten are differentiated not because of any importance but because the whole nation heard them before collapsing under the strain of hearing the direct voice of YHWH, after that they made Moses be their middle man.

Please look at the page on Reform Judaism you’ll see “elements within German Jewry sought to reform Jewish belief and practice. They denied divine authorship of the Torah, declared only those biblical laws that are easily understood to be binding, and stated that the rest of Halakhah (Jewish law) need no longer be viewed as normative. Circumcision was abandoned, rabbis wore vestments modeled after Protestant ministers, and instrumental accompaniment --- banned by current Orthodox and most Conservative interpretations of Halakhah (and by traditionalists of the time) in Jewish Sabbath worship --- appeared in Reform synagogues...” You’ll note they still bear the name Judaism despite abandoning all these practices.

Again changes in practice do not negate a claim to be a member of a religion.

Lastly you ask for “a reference which clearly indicates what person passed down the religion underground to what person”

Do you mean like people teaching a sacred hula as opposed to the tourist hip-shake, such as at

http://www.hulapreservation.org/meet.asp

“The group of elders HPS works with is unique in that these küpuna were generally raised by men and women who lived during the time of the recognized Hawaiian Kingdom, spoke their mother tongue, and lived a Hawaiian life. As such, they represent the last living link to a tremendously significant time in our history. Further, their upbringing, coupled with their lives in hula during a century of tremendous change, offer incomparable insight into what it was like to be a Hawaiian practitioner in the 19th and 20th centuries. We are so lucky that they are still here to share their mana`o with us!”

--Wowaconia 11:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Remarks

JK, in contrast to your comments last night, I am not amused by your comments about me on Kaihoku's talk page. It is inappropriate and insulting for you to pretend to condescend to "apologize for my remarks", which were both civil and well-taken. I await your apology. Arjuna 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll get no apology from "JK" - I speak from experience since I've had the displeasure of dealing with this person on at least two articles before. *Greg*

Revisions

I acknowledge your comments on my talk page. I don't intend to re-hash old battles, but I am letting you know where I stand, and I won't sugar-coat this. Your attempt a couple of months ago to have me remove the POV tags, when you know full well that the neutrality of the various articles was disputed, was overplaying your hand in a big way. This not only tested my good faith, it dropped it down to near zero. And although I fully recognize your right to hold whatever opinions you wish, I was then nonetheless seriously disappointed to discover some of your external writing, which I found to be the worst kind of inflammatory propaganda -- as bad as anything the other side of the debate has dished out. In short, I'm sorry to say that much respect was lost. I'm not trying to prick any feelings on your part, just telling you where I stand. Arjuna 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed find your writing disturbing. While I have made it abundantly clear that I strongly disagree with the views of Hawaiian sovereignty activists, your comparison of them to Nazis and their agenda to apartheid is, frankly, disgusting. You are entitled to your opinion, but so are others as well about your publicly held views. (JK's recent essays can be found here, here, here, and here. I'm afraid I am not mistaken or confused about what you write, it is quite clear and you fail to see that I simply see it as misguided in substance and vile in form.

As for POV tags, their justification has been ample from the discussion (my own and others') on the respective talk pages. Your position seems to be that because you summarily dismiss any contributions or objections from others with even a middle of the road POV, therefore there is no dispute, and therefore any POV tag is unjustified. This is a quite childish, but effective, strategy to simply wear people out.

You have crossed the line of decency as well as intelligent discourse, and while I will remain civil towards you, I'm afraid we will not be corresponding by email. You will simply have to take my word that I have no connection to any Hawaiian activist group whatsoever. Arjuna 10:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:HIMOS

JK, thanks for explaining the current issues from your perspective. I will go over them tonight and try to help out. In another issue altogether I was wondering if you and Arjuna could take a look at the proposal for WP:HIMOS and make some suggestions for expansion on the talk page. We really need a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Hawaii-related articles). Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 04:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Blount Report vandalism

JK, the citations that you suggest should be more specific could not actually be more so. The specific page numbers were on the citations. If you want to have any shred of legitimacy left, I strongly suggest that you self-revert. Arjuna 04:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Thanks for your e-mail. I'm looking forward to helping you and Arjuna resolve these issues. —Viriditas | Talk 02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

JK, thanks for your email as well. I assume I'm supposed to take much of it as tongue-in-cheek-let's-drop-all-pretense-at-Wikicivility-honest, no? Assuming so, I found it funny and will respond shortly and in similar fashion. We still have a long way to go, but your proposed compromise in the first para of the Apology Resolution was excellent and appreciated. Cheers, Arjuna 19:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You've gotten the message perfectly, Arjuna, and I'm glad you found it amusing. I kept thinking about the Argument Clinic sketch while writing it. I can't wait to find the next breakthrough, and in the meantime my condolences to your family. --JereKrischel 01:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ceasefire

JK, although my disagreements and frustration with you remains, I propose we stop the trashtalk we have both engaged in lately. I'm not going away and presumably neither are you, and at the end of the day we are all going to have to reach some sort of compromise, even if it is straightforward narrative with parallel analyses. But more than that, regardless of how we feel about the other, such provocation does neither of us any good as human beings. Whatever your response(s), I aim to do just that. This may well flare up again in future, but for now let's both take a step back. I have other engagements at the moment, but when I have time I'm going to re-submit the specific references you evidently did not see, and then we can go from there. Arjuna 05:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha. Seriously and with respect: can you please leave off the definition of Hawaiian thing? I know you have strong opinions about it, and that is your right, I see your point, but Wikipedia is not the venue to validate your usage. I compromised in having there be a second, less common definition, but seriously, pushing any more on this just looks like you are fronting an agenda. And I'm serious about the not wanting to give people the wrong idea. You know that improper usage can piss someone off, and that's fine if that's what they intend to do, but come on, let's leave the innocent and naive out of it, please. Cheers, Arjuna 09:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

JK, it's time to hit the hay here, but I think maybe we're at an impasse, and rather than try again, what do you say we ask Viriditas to weigh in on this? Crossposting this on your page. Cheers, Arjuna 11:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw, what I'm implicitly referring to is not some haole kid, who can handle him/herself and or learn the ropes. What I've seen -- more than once -- are well-meaning tourists who came here for nothing but a good time and only wanted to show interest in things Hawaii who used the term in that way, and when the person addressed visibly bristled, it made them (the tourists) feel rather lousy as though they were bad guests. So what I'm suggesting is that it's not very aloha to lead guests here to believe the terms are interchangeable here when they're not. This seems like common decency not to lead people into being unwitting or unwary participants in this contest. Now, if someone such as yourself or whomever who knows what they're doing and all the subtleties involved, that's another story, but I think the article should reflect common understanding, not serve an agenda, however justified (or not) it may be. Arjuna 11:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PiALOGUE

I understand the issue of the Blount Report versus the Morgan Report. Would both (or all) of you please send me a private e-mail at pi+at+upi+dot+cc (without the plus signs), perhaps CC:ing each other, and offer me your respective top priority information-to-be-added in regard to what specifically each of you would like to add next? If you have read my personal area or read about my concept of PiALOGUE then you may have noticed that I specialize in both disambiguation and mediation. Since you both have a strong point-of-view then this tells me that BOTH of you are missing something in your dialogue together. Perhaps one or both of you simply needs to learn to explain your point-of-view in a way that the other person CAN listen to. This may require an adjustment in languaging as every genius tends to have their own personal language which is differentiated from the understanding or awareness of the status-quo human being. Outright denial of the other person's position does not add to or further the overall dialogue (or PiALOGUE). Okay? Thanks! :o) -- PiPhD 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hawaii

JK, just got your note -- please pardon, I must have missed your note/explaination, but will have a look and get back to you. T/m/c (!), Arjuna 02:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

JK, wow, I have serious problems with just about all of them -- as well as the removal of the new citation. I can't get to any of this right now but will when I have time. Arjuna 02:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

John Tyler Morgan Page

Love ya, Jere, but pretty pleeeeeese stop mass-deleting historical stuff I write (especially when itʻs relevant and thoroughly referenced), or Iʻm gonna get MAD. It took a lot of research, you know. Hey, letʻs jam someday. --Laualoha 03:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey JK, as I wrote to Laualoha, I made some good faith and meticulously cited edits to the Morgan Report page). I will be happy to send both of you scanned PDFs of all those references as we move forward in making the articles more NPOV. I haven't had time to get to the objections I have on your reverts to my changes on the Kingdom of Hawaii article, but haven't forgotten it either. Cheers, Arjuna 07:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)