User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A thoughtful researcher I admire

Thanks to all of you for the interesting conversations that occur here. We are here to build an encyclopedia, so let's discuss how to improve as many of the 4,929,428 articles on Wikipedia as we can. Tips from Wikipedians on how to edit better, and on where to find resources for sourcing better edits, are always appreciated. I see other user talk pages have announcements about where each editor will reply to posts. Usually I will reply to your comments to me, posted here, right here on this page. I'll do my best to learn to follow to where you want me to read your posts, and where to reply to them, if you have a differing preference.

Please see my how I edit page for a detailed discussion of my approach to editing Wikipedia. Note that I am rigid and inflexible in respecting the core Wikipedia content guideline of respecting reliable secondary sources, so I read actual books and review articles rather than blogs or fringe websites when searching for information for updating Wikipedia articles. Experience has taught me that it is pointless to prefer the world of blogs for information in an era when academic libraries are woefully neglected. Professional academic librarians (who are severely underpaid, in my opinion) are well qualified to advise you on what sources are reliable and what sources are laughable in the opinion of thorough, thoughtful scholars. Ask a professional reference librarian at an academic library for advice on what sources are reliable and mainstream. The librarian will be glad to help. (And, yes, anyone who answers questions like this should be paid more to answer the questions than is usually the case.)

Please note. Somehow some editor has been disregarding the immediately preceding paragraph here, so let me be especially clear. I happen to work on pages that are subject to active arbitration remedies, and the related ArbCom case included site bans for some editors who have returned to Wikipedia as puppets. I cannot always be sure that comments posted to this page are posted by someone who had nothing to do with the case that triggered those remedies. Therefore I will make full use of my right to remove comments from my own user pages. "The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." I have the right to clean up my own user talk page and will do so. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we may as well remember that it's always hunting season for that kind of duck.

Phonetics and phonology[edit]

Thanks for your message, and your encouragement. I'm keen to contribute, but I'm afraid I sometimes strike the wrong note or come up with inappropriate material - however, I'll keep trying. My big ambition is to try to get some fellow-phoneticians to join me in contributing their expertise, and I've been raising issues about WP coverage that I think are interesting in a little blog that's read by people in the phonetics community, but so far I have not had much luck. RoachPeter (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library - Dynamed - You've got mail[edit]

Hello, WeijiBaikeBianji. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. Philg88 talk 09:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia vs Quackery – Standards vs Chaos" article online[edit]

I see a group-edited blog about evaluating medical evidence, Science-Based Medicine, has published an article today, "Wikipedia vs Quackery – Standards vs Chaos," quoting experienced an experienced Wikipedian's essay for the statement, "It may be that there are certain parties which dispute the consensus view. It is up to the editors of articles to determine, through careful examination of the sources, how notable the views of these parties are and whether they are relevant to articles on scientific matters. It is important to note that in forming its consensus it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is scientific and what is questionable science or pseudoscience. Public opinion or promoters of what is considered pseudoscience by the scientific consensus hold no sway in that determination." We'll see how that goes. I certainly hope that every Wikipedia article I read, and especially the Wikipedia articles that I edit, are edited on that basis at all times. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool[edit]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WeijiBaikeBianji. You have new messages at Sundayclose's talk page.
Message added 18:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sundayclose (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Rockefeller Foundation eugenics[edit]

You said you removed my edit that suggested this was a claim not a proven fact, But it looks like it is still up there to me. Maybe my internet connection is slow. With a claim like that, since it is potentially slanderous against the Rockefeller Foundation, isn't it better to err on the side of caution than to assume it to be a fact? Especially when the only source given is a very controversial one.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about doing anything to the current state of editing the article on the article talk page. (Oh, maybe you are referring to the partly automated message on your user talk page that I put there, which includes default text that is sometimes inappropriate for giving a general notice to an editor.) I'm still looking up sources. I am sure that there is more than one author who has written about the issue you mention. You really need to learn how to read more carefully, for your own sake. Reading more widely in better sources will help you have a happier, more peaceful life. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

English language - Malta[edit]

Hi WeijiBaikeBianji, thanks for leaving me a message. I had a look at the source you suggested and I can see that the text in the article matches that source. I don't have a strong feeling about this but the Maltese Constitution article 5 section 2 states that English is an official language in Malta so it seems as if the Eurobarometer poll is in error. Also I don't think English is actually legally official in the UK so Eurobarometer is in error there too.

I can see you've done tonnes of work on this article and my edit was really just a drive by so I'm completely happy for you to leave the article as it is now or make any change you think appropriate. All the best. Boreas74 Speak Softly 12:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this too, and I think there is a way to reflect the facts of the matter in language from another part of the source that reflects what other sources say (I'll check those) so that this issue doesn't jump out at other people who know the situation in Malta. I think the error is to refer to "official language" in that context. Thanks for your careful attention to detail; watch for my next edit. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 3[edit]

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

  • A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
  • An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25: Information Architecture Summit meetup in Minneapolis[edit]

Thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Minnesota#Information Architecture Summit meetup - I know the organizer from participation in various NYC wiki-events.--Pharos (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

IA Editathon[edit]

Email me at with yor name and contact info. I will send you details about the event and make sure you can get into the session. I plan to arrive in the early afternoon Friday and would love to find a way to meet before the session. I have a few people who expressed interest incouding Mark and jonathunder. Pharos is also giving me a lot of good ideas. It is nice that I have been able to meet up with him at my local events. Looking forward to it!

Nwhysel (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

English in NZ[edit]

The source given [1] says that English is a de facto official language in NZ. Adabow (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've already checked sources published by the New Zealand government for another article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
That sources states that it is an official language, not necessarily a de jure official language. Look at a NZ Ministry of Education website: "English, the medium for teaching and learning in most schools, is a de facto official language by virtue of its widespread use." Even see the languages of New Zealand article. Adabow (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that that is a better (and clearer) source. I'll do the article update in a while. I'm still puzzled why previous editors on the list article haven't looked beyond the CIA Factbook for the facts of the matter. Thanks for finding a source that is even more specific on the point at issue than the New Zealand Census documents. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this citation OK under NPOV?[edit]

On the Sociobiology Study Group page, there's a citation made to a book, which I've read, which is quite NPOV in it's defense of sociobiology and also has problems with what might be seen as attacks on those opposing sociobiologists. You've editing similar topics and have a history of identifying NPOV citations and statements, do you think this citation is OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in[edit]


You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Restoring of archived material[edit]

Please do not do that. states, "Do not unarchive (that is, restore) sections for the sake of reopening discussions that are effectively closed. Instead, start a new discussion and link to the archived prior discussion of the subject." The discussion you re-posted was closed two years ago. I can't edit the talk page due to it being semi-protected, but please self-revert, or at least remove the excessive restoring of archived material from your post. (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for citing a Wikipedia guideline. I'll self-revert. There are enough new sources that it's probably just as well to start a new discussion among the currently active editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in[edit]


You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Aage Bohr[edit]

Aage Bohr is now done. The article has been sent to GA for review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I saw that on my watchlist. I'll comment during the GA review. I'm going to write a "fresh start" draft of Richard Feynman in user space, and I'll make sure to share that link with you. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 11:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Henry Harpending[edit]

The Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch report is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, right? I'm trying to include a Criticism and Controversies section for the Henry Harpending article, but the user 'Dismas' is highly protective of it for some reason. This is the passage I'm trying to include:

Harpending denies any racist motivations behind his work; however, his political activities tell a different story. In 2009, he participated in a conference on “Preserving Western Civilization,” where he spoke alongside notorious racists like Peter Brimelow (president and chief contributor to the white supremacist and Jean-Philippe Rushton (president of the Pioneer Fund from 2002 until his death in 2012). [...]

Harpending is stridently anti-immigrant, stating, “I personally favor mass deportation [of “illegal” Mexican immigrants]... It might not be so difficult: there must be a large number of FEMA trailers that could be used to stock processing centers and in Utah, the site of several WWII Japanese internment camps, plans and blueprints must exist to reconstruct those camps.”

Harpending rejects the label of “racist,” because, as far as he can tell, racism does not exist. [...] Harpending argues against the existence of racism by comparing it to the “witchcraft” of the Herero people of the northern Kalihari, and suggesting that black Americans only perceive racism because of some inherent pan-African belief in “vague and invisible forces that are oppressing people.”

The SPLC report cites Harpending's own words from his blog. Surely the above material belongs in Harpending's article somewhere? The current article gives the impression that Harpending is a completely neutral and impartial scholar, and makes no mention of his numerous unsavory statements.

I've seen a lot of controversy here back and forth about that particular source (SPLC), but anyway if there is something that Harpending has said that is quoted in a reliable source, one would then use another reliable source--or several more--to establish the context of Harpending's remarks and how they fit into the overall context of his career. That's how we always ought to work here--look for all the best sources, and look at how they report the broader and narrower aspects of an article topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

GM food RfC[edit]

Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:IQ and Human Intelligence concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:IQ and Human Intelligence, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

  • Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
  • Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
  • Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
  • Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Core Contest[edit]

Silverwiki 2.png Second Prize
Dear WeijiBaikeBianji, congratulations for your joint effort on the second-prize-winning entry English language in the March 2015 running of the Core Contest. A member of wikimedia UK will be in touch soon with details about the Amazon voucher. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on your prize. I'm sorting out the prizes from Wikimedia UK. As it's in the form of an Amazon voucher, could you please email me at so that I can send it to your email address. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind notifications. Congratulations to the other Core Contest winners. I have replied to Richard by email. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • May/June 2015

Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:

The directory is live!

For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.

A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.

Stuff in the works!

What have we been working on?

  • A new design template—This has been in the works for a while, of course. But our goal is to design something that is useful and cleanly presented on all browsers and at all screen resolutions while working within the confines of what MediaWiki has to offer. Additionally, we are working on designs for the sub-components featured on the main project page.
  • A new WikiProject talk page banner in Lua—Work has begun on implementing the WikiProject banner in Lua. The goal is to create a banner template that can be usable by any WikiProject in lieu of having its own template. Work has slowed down for now to focus on higher priority items, but we are interested in your thoughts on how we could go about creating a more useful project banner. We have a draft module on Test Wikipedia, with a demonstration.
  • New discussion reports—We have over 4.8 million articles on the English Wikipedia, and almost as many talk pages as well. But what happens when someone posts on a talk page? What if no one is watching that talk page? We are currently testing out a system for an automatically-updating new discussions list, like RFC for WikiProjects. We currently have five test pages up for the WikiProjects on cannabis, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and Ghana.
  • SuggestBot for WikiProjects—We have asked the maintainer of SuggestBot to make some minor adjustments to SuggestBot that will allow it to post regular reports to those WikiProjects that ask for them. Stay tuned!
  • Semi-automated article assessment—Using the new revision scoring service and another system currently under development, WikiProjects will be getting a new tool to facilitate the article assessment process by providing article quality/importance predictions for articles yet to be assessed. Aside from helping WikiProjects get through their backlogs, the goal is to help WikiProjects with collecting metrics and triaging their work. Semi-automation of this process will help achieve consistent results and keep the process running smoothly, as automation does on other parts of Wikipedia.

Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.

The WikiProject watchers report is back!

The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.

Until next time, Harej (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Providing sources at Talk:Race (human classification)[edit]

Hi @WeijiBaikeBianji: I know you said you have sources that would help improve the Race (human classification) page. If you already have the sources that speak to the lead sentence, now would be a good time to share and discuss them on the talk page. I am exhausted from engaging in these discussions and would prefer to take step back from them. Nevertheless, I think we need the perspective of editors who can provide additional reliable sources on that talk page and move the discussion forward. Anything you can do to help improve the chances of reaching consensus would be welcomed. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what we need. Well done Daniel.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is a couple of good places to start:
    • Morning, Ann. 2011. The Nature of Race: How Scientists Think and Teach about Human Difference.
    • Lieberman, L., Kirk, R. C., & Corcoran, M. (2003). The decline of race in American physical anthropology.
    • Marks, J. (2008). Race across the physical-cultural divide in American anthropology. A new history of anthropology, 242-258.
    • Relethford, J. H. (2010). Race and the Conflicts within the Profession of Physical Anthropology during the 1950s and 1960s. Histories of American Physical Anthropology in the Twentieth Century, 207-219.
    • Lieberman, L., & Kirk, R. C. (2004). What should we teach about the concept of race?. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(1), 137-145.
    • Brace, C. L. (2005). " Race" is a four-letter word: the genesis of the concept. Oxford University Press.
    • Wade, P. (1993). 'Race', nature and culture. Man, 17-34.
    • Wade, P. (2004). Human nature and race. Anthropological Theory, 4(2), 157-172.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Maunus: Thank you for the references. I have only taken a look at the first three references you gave and noted that they are consistent with the ones I gave on the Race talk page. They still don't directly contradict the lead definition BUT they do make the point that race has little to no scientific validity. The third paragraph of the lead does mention this. I have never contested this view and I am in complete agreement with it. If you think it would be helpful to include the qualifier "discredited" or "obsolete" in the lead definition, I would have no objections. I am pointing to Phlogiston theory as an example.
Very quickly, I tried to extract the most pertinent information from the first three references for the lead definition. If you or anybody else can do the same for the remaining references, that would be helpful.
  • Morning, Ann. (2011): A good book. It does not provide a definitive answer but here are the pertinent pages.
  • p. 7, "there is no consensus among experts from any scientific background about what race is; disagreement..."
  • p. 18, I consider myself a constructivist, partial to definitions of race such as the ones by Oni and Winant (1994) and Hirschfeld (1996).
  • Lieberman, L., Kirk, R. C., & Corcoran, M. (2003): This article does not provide its own definition of race as much documenting a persistent decrease in the use of race in physical anthropology.
  • p. 17, the concept of biological race has declined significantly in frequency of use in the United States during the 20th century."
  • Marks, J. (2008): Interesting paper but still no definitive answer. Multiple definitions by different authors are given, and many of the definitions are focused on heredity. Example, p. 247, Hooton had employed a fundamentally Platonic idea of race, "a vague physical background, usually more or less overlaid by individual variations in single subjects, and realized best in a composite picture."
It also documents the decline of the use race. p. 254, The immediate academic reaction to the disputes over Putnam and Coon was that physical anthropology largely abandoned thinking about race as such, replacing it instead with population genetics.
I think a lot of this should go on the the talk page of Race (human classification) and invite other editors to chime in. As I mentioned above to WeijiBaikeBianji, I would like to take a break from this. The last few days on Wikipedia have been very exhausting. danielkueh (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
There IS no definitive answer - it is a tpoic that is still being discussed. That is the entire problem and why taking one of the possible definitions that has been mostly out of use since the 1970s is not a good idea. Also you are misunderstanding Marks wrong: They document the decline of race as a biological concept - which is also its gradual and still partial replacement with race as a purely socio-political and cultural concept. And no none of these are consistent with the three you gave and saying so is a huge part of the problem because it shows that you do not understand them. They are consistent mostly with the Smedley source, and they describe the views of the two other sources and then describe why they have been rejected by mainstream science. You need to try harder. It is not the case that race is a discredited theory. Race as biology is a discredfited theory. Race as a social,, cultural and political categorization is a well established theory. It is in the title of the Smedley source!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Maunus: What are you on about? Did you click on the wikilink? Please reread my comment above. I was referring to the new citations that I added on the Race talk page. As for the Mark reference, I was giving an example. You're missing the larger point of the above exercise. I was trying to find (admittedly very quickly) pertinent page numbers and quotes that directly relate to the lead definition. The purpose of that is to allow other editors to get an idea of these references. And why are you discussing all this with me here? If you wish to resume discussion, then please take it to the Race talk page and provide direct quotes and inclusive page numbers like I did above. In the meantime, I would like to wait and hear from other editors like WeijiBaikeBianji. Finally, if you are going to continue making disparaging comments about my "understanding" rather than actually addressing the point I was making, then I too have two words for you (taken from your edit summary of your talk page). danielkueh (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ill piss off when the host tells me to.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Suit yourself. danielkueh (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Stay calm, gentlemen. I have still been gathering sources off-wiki, with new online access I have to a newly published encyclopedia that has multiple thorough articles related to the Wikipedia article we are discussing. Celebrating Father's Day with my children took priority today, but I should be able to post citations to quite a few sources in a bit. To the general point we are discussing about the article, Maunus is correct that the consensus scientific view today is that "race" correlates only inexactly with anything biological, but it still has social salience in societies in which people take "race" seriously. I have seen this in all the countries I have lived in in both the Old World and the New. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@WeijiBaikeBianji: And here are the new ones I posted on the talk page of Race.
  1. Caspari (2003). From Types to Populations: A Century of Race, Physical Anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association. American Anthropologist, 105: 65-<
  2. Visweswaran, K. (1998). Race and the culture of anthropology. American Anthropologist, 100: 70-83. <>
  3. Cartmill (1998). The status of the race concept in physical anthropology. American Anthropologist, 100:651-660. <>
  4. McCosky, DE (2012) Race: Antiquity and Its Legacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
p. 2, Racial Formation
At its most basic, race is an ideological structure that organizes and classifies perceived human variation. Race thus allows the division of people into broad categories that presume to demarcate according to fundamental differences, such as 'black' and 'white'. As the primary role of skin colour in defining race today suggests, racial differences have traditionally been attributed to biological charactseristics, implying that racial categories emerge inherently from the human body. But, as Omi and Winant write, '(a)lthough the concept of race invokes biologically based human characeristics (so-called "phenotypes"), selection of these particular human features for purposes of racial significance is always and necessarily a social and historical process. Race, in other words, does not derive passively from human anatomy, but is dependent on social intervention, on the formulation of theories that designate the surface of the human body as the primary vehicle of race and also determine exactly which physical features 'matter' in determining racial groups.
5. Anamone, R. (2011). Race and Biological Diversity in Humans: A Biocultural Approach. Upper Saddle River: NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
p. 5. Chapter 1, Race and biological diversity in humans.
"One difficulty encountered by people attempting to discuss race today is the confusion of different definitions used by scientists, anthropologists, journalists, and the public. For example, people often refer to the "Jewish race," the Hispanic "race," or the "Irish race" as if somehow these different uses of the term race all refer to the same thing. Among anthropologists and biologists, however, race has historically been an idea about the geographic patterning of human biological variation. Essentially, it reflects the observation made by seafaring Europeans several hundred years ago that the inhabitants of the different continents were different with respect to certain physical traits, notably skin color. The term race is never used by modern anthropologists to refer to religious groups (e.g., the "Jewish race" or "Hindu race"), linguistic groups (e.g., the "Hispanic race"), or nationalities (e.g., the "Irish race" or "English race"). Religion, language, and nationality are important parts of human culture, but they have little to do with human biology and therefore should not be used in connection with the concept of race. Note that I am not minimizing the importance of, for example, being Anglo or Hispanic in Texas. Nor do I mean to ignore the importance of being Jewish or Muslim in Jerusalem or of being Serbian or Bosnian in Sarajevo. These cultural markers play important roles in shaping identities and structuring lives, but culture does not reflect biological differences, and therefore cultural differences are not relevant to discussions of biological race.
In addition to the cultural variations that distinguish individuals and groups, there are also anatomical or morphological differences between people and populations that reflect underlying biological differences. Some morphological differences are visible to the naked eye, including skin, eye, and hair color and body size and shape. Some other biological differences are just as real but are not easily seen; these including blood type, fingerprint patterns, and disease susceptibilities. Considering all of these traits that differ among members of our species, there is no doubt that Homo sapiens is a species with a considerable biological variation. Looking a little deeper, we can see that there is a geographic pattern to some aspects of this biological variation. People with dark skin color can be found in high frequencies in certain parts of the world, including sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, and certain islands in the Pacific, while people with very fair skin are more frequent in other parts of the globe (e.g., Scandinavia and northern Europe and Asia). This kind of geographically pattern biological variation is the traditional raw material of racial classifications. We can define race, then, as the geographic pattern of variation in some biological traits that distinguish different human populations. A belief in the existence of biological race within the human species is usually associated with the attempt to classify all human populations into a finite number of races based on some set of features such as skin color or blood type. But as we shall see, anthropologists have a long history of disagreeing on how this business of classifying humans into races is to proceed, with no apparent resolution in sight."
p. 163. Chapter 9, Race as a cultural construction
"How can race both exist and not exist? A clear explanation must be made here in order to clarify the basic paradox that runs throughout the modern anthropological critique of race. Let's start with the negative proposition. When anthropologists say that race does not exist, what exactly do they mean? Is this a call for a "color-blind" society in which race recedes into the political and social background because it is no longer relevant to the global human or local American experience? Does this position perhaps argue for the repeal of all affirmative action laws (as my own state of Michigan and some other states have done in recent years) because race is simply not relevant to American life anymore? Are we entering a postracial stage of American democracy in which, in the immortal words of Martin Luther King Jr. (1963), people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"? In a word, has race become obsolete?
When anthropologists state that race does not exist, they are not claiming that human biological variation does not exist: that would be a ridiculous position for anyone to hold considering that both polymorphic and polytopic variation are so central to evolutionary analysis and to the anthropological experience. People whose ancestors come from different parts of the globe really do vary in many different biological parameters, including skin, hair, and eye color; blood group genetics; and disease susceptibility. Nor do we mean that race has not significance for the lived experiences of modern people. What we mean to say is that biological theories of race and all resultant classifications of race within Homo sapiens have no significant scientific support. The problems with biological theories of race have been discussed earlier in this book and can be quickly recapped here. Race as biology involves the arbitrary selection of certain biological features (e.g., skin color or ABO blood groups, followed by the arbitrary separation of these continuously variable traits into discrete groups. Since these traits tend to be discordant (i.e., all people with dark skin do not share similar ABO gene frequencies), the resulting classifications tend to be a disparate and as numerous as the individual classifiers. This is the problem discussed in chapter 1 concerning different definitions of the concepts of "tall" and "short" among humans. While we would all agree that tall and short people can be found in human populations and that much of the difference in stature is due to genetics, who among us would be so bold (or so foolish) as to suggest a universal and biologically justified classification of the world into tall and short "races"? Scandinavians are indeed taller on average than African pygmies, but does this mean that we could successfully classify all the world's populations into races based on their stature? And if we substituted the words dark and light for tall and short and skin color for stature, would we then reach a different conclusion, namely, that we could scientifically and objectively classify humans into races? I think, and in this limited, biological sense only, I would argue that race doesn't exist.
As a result of these considerations, the notion of human race fails as a biological theory, and hence race does not exist. But what is the standing of race in other aspects of human experience, for example, in the social, cultural, political, economic, and artistic realms? If race does not stand up to scrutiny as biology, does it have any relevance or significance in any other realms of human experience? In what sense does race still have relevance and meaning for real people living today or, for that matter, in the past or future? The argument is easy to make that for much of American history, race has been a vital aspect of everyone's social, economic, and political experience. At the most basic level of political participation and of personal freedom, race was until the late 19th century the crucial dividing line between free citizens and disenfranchised slaves. Throughout much of the 20th century in America, free descendants of these slaves were discriminated against in a variety of ways: they were lynched, publicly humiliated, segregated, made to sit in the back of the bus, and forced to submit to many indignities--all on account of their perceived inferiority as a race.
Clearly, race is real in America, but this kind of race is not biological. This version of race is what anthropologists refer to as a social or cultural construction, and here is where the real strength of race resides. Social constructions of race are the cultural belief and meanings associated with people of differing phenotypes such as skin color. Different societies have different ideas about the meaning of being black, for example. Even the same society attributes different meanings to races at different times and in different places. It is obvious that being black in Mississippi meant very different things in 1850 and 2010, with the result that the lived experiences of black people in Mississippi would have been very different then and now. Similarly, race can have different cultural meanings in different geographic zones of a single society or country even at the same point in time. When I lived in New Orleans during the early 1990s, I was surprised to note the existence of a range of racial categories with which I had no prior familiarity. Such categories as creole (a mixed race involving some combination of French, Spanish, African American, and native American ancestry), quadroon (one African American grandparent), and octoroon (One African American great-grandparent) were still in every day use there, suggesting that race was constructed very differently in southern Louisiana than it was in my native New York. So in this cultural sense, it is clear that race does indeed exist, as all anthropologists would agree. Here is the resolution of the paradox: race as biology fails completely, but as a social construction has a continuing and significant relevance in America.
While accepting the historical importance of these cultural and social aspects of race in America, some critics have suggested a "declining significance of race" today and advocate for a "color-blind" society. In this chapter, we will consider how, in spite of its nonexistent status, race continues to play a vital and significant role in the cultural, social, and political life of Americans."
Thanks for your efforts. danielkueh (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've just put up a partial list of sources (I still have more to post) on the article talk page. I'd be happy to consolidate discussion there. I note that the article currently uses several sources that are quite old and have been superseded by sources I have just cited (not to mention that the article relies too much on primary rather than secondary sources, and fudges some source citations very badly for statements the sources don't support). An article on such a controversial topic deserves to be very well sourced, and I appreciate the efforts the two of you are making to share reliable sources with other Wikipedians. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@WeijiBaikeBianji: I really don't have much more to add other than I agree with what you just said. The sources you posted look great. I'm sure the editors will find them useful. Thank you very much. danielkueh (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing from memory[edit]

This edit is a little weird, as you are working "from memory." I wouldn't recommend doing that sort of thing, as you may be incorporating errors from memory's imprecision. I understand you may not have access to the sources, but I may. If you provide me with citations, I can try to corroborate the information you've added. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Start with anything you can find from the late Y.R. Chao, who was directly involved in the early 1920s definition of the national language of China under the Republic of China regime. John De Francis's later books are also good. I'm sure all those books are still available at my favorite academic library, across town, and probably in most good academic libraries. He relates in detail how the artificial pan-dialectal proposal for 國語 (of which he was the sole fluent speaker) was abandoned for Beijing-dialect-based 國語 in the 1920s. What prompted my edit yesterday was the suggestion by the previous edit that "dialect" is the better term for all of the various Sinitic languages rather than "language", as I speak four of the modern languages (Modern Standard Chinese, Taiwan Southern Min, Hong Kong Cantonese, and Taiwan Hakka), and I know well that they are all distinct from Literary Chinese, which I also spent years studying. Thanks for checking; it's always best to work with editors who check the citations. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the actual changes I made, you can see that I had changed "language" to "variety." This is intended to be neutral as to whether they are separate languages within a language family or dialects of a single language. As far as I can tell, most scholars prefer "dialect" (or even "dialect group") and ignore the intelligibility issues when it comes to Chinese, though others prefer to use the term "language." Our NPOV policy prompts us to be neutral on this issue.
I had hoped you'd be a little more specific than a list of the specific scholars. If you have access to the books yourself and have an idea where the content is, I'll leave it to you to do so when you have time. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

RE: Editing Articles on Psychology Topics[edit]

Hi WeijiBaikeBianji,

Thank you for your note. Yes, I am quite interested in editing some of the psychology articles as you suggest and have made a preliminary start on the IQ classification article. When time permits, I will have a look over each of those articles in detail along with other articles on various psychology topics. I am aware of conflict of interest in writing and try to remain neutral in making comments, as I have always attempted in marking student assignments/essays etc. I thank you for your "welcome aboard".

Gjboyle (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It'll be good to have you here. I've been slogging through a lot of reference-gathering for the articles on psychology, so I will focus mostly on mentioning new sources on the article talk pages and in updates to the article bibliographies. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Positive Suggestions[edit]

Hi WeijiBaikeBianji, Thank you for all your positive suggestions which are most helpful seeing that I'm am new to editing Wikipedia articles. I certainly will not be posting any more autobiographical material on Wikipedia again, and at the time I was completely unaware of this policy. Hopefully, things will settle down now and I can get on with the task of actually making a positive contribution. Gjboyle (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for the comment. All of that data came directly from Wikipedia articles. I used Wikipedia's data, since I felt it important that Wikipedia be consistent all the way through, and since the data was not being used to source an article. Even reading the Maize article, one gets the sense that the word "corn" is used a lot more in the world. Shicoco (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of references.[edit]

Well, the only inline references that were removed were those that I had inserted multiple times throughout the article. Gjboyle (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's talk about that on the article talk page. For the moment, I'll point to one of several approaches, one of mine, for citing specific statements in one sentence of a Wikipedia article to the exact place in a reliable source where the statement is found. It's fussy work to do, but very helpful for readers. There are some other approaches that other Wikipedians prefer. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your Deletion of Factual Information[edit]

Please read the following analysis, which demonstrates unequivocally that the wording you have deleted is indeed factual. Gjboyle (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You are new here. I have downloaded and read that webpage (which was mentioned in article talk page discussion I think before either of us became Wikipedians). That professor is entitled to express his personal opinions on his personal webpage. But to be cited in Wikipedia, a statement about a living person must be cited to reliable sources, and self-published personal webpages are not reliable sources. (That's too bad, as I suppose lots of people collect interesting information on personal webpages, as I have done from time to time.) I don't make up the rules here; I just do my best to try to follow them as I learn about them. Of course any professionally edited and published book or article about other scholars' writings about Cattell would be very admissible as a source for the Wikipedia article about Cattell, and perhaps for other purposes on Wikipedia as well. I encourage you to use the university library databases accessible to you as a professional academic to look up all the published reviews of William Tucker's writings. Those reviews are generally favorable. (I recall one review that faults The Funding of Scientific Racism for that book not having a comprehensive bibliography of sources in one section of the book, rather than just citing sources in endnotes, and I agree with that criticism.) Also try out those same databases for a wider selection of encyclopedia entries, handbook chapters, monographs, and other reliable, published secondary sources on Cattell, Eysenck, and the other psychologists whose Wikipedia articles you have been editing. They all had interesting and controversial careers and enough has been written about all of them that it should be entirely unnecessary to refer to personal websites to source articles about those scholars. Thanks for your message here. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

To WeijiBaikeBianji,

You state that: "That professor is entitled to express his personal opinions on his personal webpage. But to be cited in Wikipedia, a statement about a living person must be cited to reliable sources, and self-published personal webpages are not reliable sources." The fact is that "that professor" (Cattell's Official Biographer) does not host the official Cattell website. It is hosted and published online by St. Thomas University, Canada. "The Analysis of Accusations" published on that website is absolutely verifiable by reading the original sources as I have now taken the time to do myself and the misrepresentations that have been highlighted are factually correct. St. Thomas University is a reputable institution of higher education and the official Cattell website hosted by St. Thomas University is indeed a "reliable" source. Therefore you are not entitled to remove the statements from the Raymond Cattell article re Cattell's academic colleagues (many of whom are/were distinguished professors in major universities): "Cattell's former colleagues assert that, although some of Cattell's views are indeed controversial, Tucker and Mehler have exaggerated and misrepresented his views by taking quotes out of context, by inserting derogatory words between quotes, and by referring back to outdated writings from almost a century ago.[78]" Where does integrity and truth sit with Wikipedia??? Gjboyle (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
  • Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
  • American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Source for what?[edit]

Do I need to explain to you why the edit summary justifying this revert is nonsensical? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I just visited your talk page. You appear to be on a single-issue editing spree recently, and, yes, I am very interested in what sources you are relying on as you edit so many articles referring to languages that I speak (as declared on my Wikipedia user page). You on your user page make a very commendable statement that reliable sources are important, so I am sure we can find some kind of common ground here for approaching further article editing, after we discuss what the sources say. Please note that I have full access (through the Wikipedia Library) to Brown, Keith, ed. (2006). Encyclopedia of language & linguistics. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/04878-1. ISBN 978-0-08-044299-0. Retrieved 6 February 2015. Lay summary (6 February 2015).  – via ScienceDirect (Subscription may be required or content may be available in libraries.), a resource that may be accessible to you through your university affiliation. But that is just the beginning of sources that I have available about Chinese linguistics. Let's discuss reliable sources and what they say. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Other than slight rewording to favor neutrality in regards to the language/dialect issue for Chinese, there's really nothing substantive about my edits. I haven't made any claims that need to be sourced.
You can see from my edits at Chinese language#Varieties and the discussion at Talk:Chinese language pretty much the extent to what I've come across source-wise.
It's interesting that you have access to the Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. Taking a look at the table of contents, it seems like the "China: language situation", "Chinese", "Chinese linguistic Tradition", and "Dialect chains" might be informative. From the abstracts, it looks like the contributors consider Chinese to be a language of mutually unintelligible dialects rather than a language family. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about another editor[edit]

To: WeijiBaikeBianji

An internet troll editor "Baroccas" who apparently has opened up an anonymous account is systematically stamping COI labels on all the articles I have edited/contributed to in good faith (in my areas of professional research expertise and scholarship). How can I possibly have a COI in relation to someone whom I have never even met or communicated with in any way whatsoever (e.g., Francis Aveling) since he died 9 years before I was even born? Likewise, "Baroccas" has stamped COI labels on my edits of the Hans Eysenck article, the Carroll Izard article, the Raymond Cattell article, 16PF Questionnaire article, and the Lewis Goldberg articles, for starters. Baroccas who chooses to hide behind the mask of anonymity is just going around vandalizing boldly changing everything I try to do in good faith. Although never having had any more contact/correspondence re research design or psychometric issues with Cattell or Eysenck, than with many other scholars such as Charles Spielberger, Lewis Goldberg, Andrew Comrey, Peter Salovey, Gordon Claridge, I am nbeing accused of having a COI on all these articles. These were just colleagues with whom I interacted occasionally in relation to research/writing only. So if having a PhD in, and over 200 publications in psychometrics, psychological assessment, and multivariate experimental personality research is to have a COI--then Wikipedia has a major problem. I only feel qualified to edit articles in my area of professional competence. Can you remove the vandalism of Baroccas please? Gjboyle (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC) (Edits by WeijiBaikeBianji, the keeper of this user talk page.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am certainly not a troll, sir. Who do you think you are calling me that? On your own article Gregory John Boyle, that you personally created, you wrote "...based in part on his research collaborations over two decades with Raymond Cattell[8] and Hans Eysenck.[9] Boyle also collaborated with Carroll Izard at the University of Delaware,..." This is why I added legit COI tags on those articles and they are certainly warranted. Your 400 plus edits on the Raymond Cattell article have rendered it the most subjective bio article I have read and am in the process of cleaning up your mess! to a more neutral state. In my opinion it needs to be reverted to the state it was in, before you came along!Baroccas (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Now Removed tag from the Francis Aveling article after cleaning it up and removing peacock language. Further GJBOYLE is incorrect when he says I added COI tags to the 16PF & Lewis Goldberg articles. That's not true. The COI tags on the Eysenck & Cattell articles however, remain, to reflect the significant COI of this editor GJBoyle. A quick google search has uncovered this website and the truth about Mr Boyle, who above is professing to have no particular personal connection to both Eysenck and Cattell.
please click here:
"Gregory Boyle, Ph.D., D.Sc. .....Two of the greatest and most prolific contributors to the science of human personality during the 20th century were Professor Raymond B. Cattell, Ph.D., D.Sc., and Professor Hans J. Eysenck, Ph.D., D.Sc. ....While Ray pursued his academic career in prestigious USA universities (Harvard, Clark, Illinois),
"...........Both Ray Cattell and Hans Eysenck were my mentors and friends. Both men gave freely of their time, and their kindness and generosity was abundant. My own academic career was greatly facilitated by the intellectual support and moral encouragement of both these great men. I will remain forever indebted to both Ray Cattell and Hans Eysenck.
So, it turns out that you Mr Gregory Boyle, do have a very real connection despite professing not to and labeling me as a troll!! They were both his mentors and friends! He even refers to Raymond Cattell as Ray! The COI tags should remain and in my opinion Mr Boyle's 400 plus edits on these articles should be removed and the article restored to its original state.Baroccas (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Who are you hiding behind the mask of an anonymous user name? Why don't you indicate why you are hostile to my contributions in my areas of professional research expertise? Cattell and Eysenck were my mentors and friends in an intellectual sense only, the same as any other academic colleagues with whom I have interacted with relating to research and scholarship over the years! The difference is that I am willing to speak kindly of those who have been productive, whereas you have nothing positive to contribute. All you can do is vandalise the positive contributions of those who are trying to improve Wikipedia. Why are you so desperate to attack me? What are you hiding from? Gjboyle (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. see Wikipedia:No personal attacks I will not tolerate your personal abuse and accusations any longer. Also Wikipedia does not encourage real life identities for good reason. You were already told this by another editor, but ignored their correct advice.Baroccas (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Your personal comments about your close friends and mentors are clearly displayed right here. That is why the COI tag correctly remains on the article sir.Baroccas (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore on the Carroll Izard article GJBOYLE just then, tried deleting his close and personal connection with this subject also, with removing this edit: "The DES-IV has been used extensively in both research and practice, especially by his Ph.D supervisee Gregory John Boyle at the University of Delaware." I retored it and correctly added a peacock tag to the article also.Baroccas (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Izard was not my PhD adviser and that's why I removed it. He was a member of my dissertation committee only (along with several others) and from a different School at the University. To say that I have a close and personal relationship with a man I have only seen one time in the last 30 years is nonsense! I hardly ever had any correspondence with him at all. I only have one publication with him in over 30 years. That is NOT a close and personal relationship! You do like to exaggerate and paint a picture that suits your weird and bizarre fantasy! Please let me know if anything on the Carroll Izard article is not factually correct? Gjboyle (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have asked you sir to not personally attack me further. You ignored this by saying ..."You do like to exaggerate and paint a picture that suits your weird and bizarre fantasy!" I will not retaliate. But these personal attacks are unacceptable. The points I have made about your COI's are valid and remain on the articles.Baroccas (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Baroccas: I have been fully open, have made no attempt to hide my identity, and write only in my areas of professional competence. My informed edits are all backed up by reliable reference citations. Nothing I have written is not true. Can you say the same (whomever you are)? Gjboyle (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually Baroccas is right that writing about people and events to which one has a personal relation should only be done with the utmost care, and only in so far as one is able to do so objectively and dispassionately. Writing autobiographies on wikipedia is generally prohibited entirely. And writing about personal friends, mentors, or collaborators should only be done with full dedication to representing the sum of published knowledge (both that with which one agrees and disagrees) as faithfully as possibly. One should never reference one's own unpublished or selfpublished writings. So I think you do need to reconsider your approach to editing here. Wikipedia is about summarizing what is written about topics and people, not about attacking or defending particular views or perspectives.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus, I couldn't agree more. Writing and editing should always be objective. If anyone thinks my editing is not objective, then I suggest you/they read my latest edited book to get a sample of my writing/editing style (all chapters were closely edited by me): Boyle, G. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Matthews, G. (2015). (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs. Elsevier/Academic Press. (810 pages + xiv). DOI: Gjboyle (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji, you and others argued for "Keep" at the AFD based on availability of suitable sources. Would you please identify some so that the article can be fixed? Also, would you please do something about the personal attack in this section heading? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion that I should clean up the personal attacks from my user talk page. I reserve the right to make further edits here to uphold Wikipedia behavioral guidelines for editors. To @Gjboyle:, allow me to remind you that the conflict of interest conduct guideline applies to absolutely everybody here, and in my opinion it is best to interpret that guideline strictly, that is to broadly exclude from your editing activities on Wikipedia any article regarding which you may have a conflict of interest. Let me be clear (as I have been on one of the relevant article talk pages): I will never, ever create an article about myself here on Wikipedia, nor will I personally edit any such article if someone else creates it. I never edit articles about any relative or close friend, former or current employer, former or current teacher, or co-author. I will never edit an article about any organization at which I have studied or worked or for which I have served as a director or as volunteer staff. I never edit articles about personal friends. I have a number of close discussion relationships with psychologists, some by email and many by participation in a "journal club" (graduate seminar course) but I never write on their behalf, never edit the biographical articles about those persons, and when editing articles about general topics they research am as likely to cite sources with which they disagree as sources with which they agree. I try to become familiar with the professional literature in a few domains (psychology mostly, and also linguistics and education reform, particularly in elementary and primary mathematics instruction) and I leave other topics on Wikipedia alone. There are 4,929,428 articles on Wikipedia, and that means you and I and everybody have plenty to edit here that doesn't involve any conflict of interest. Think about it. Most of the psychology articles on Wikipedia these days are badly in need of work. Show what you can do for the project by editing some of the key (high pageview) articles about general topics of psychology that every well educated undergraduate should know about. Don't overemphasize the publications of your friends when you cite sources, and it is best not to cite your own writings at all (I follow this rule) when editing any Wikipedia article. If your contributions to the general professional literature are good, they will be noticed. (I recognized your name when you first came on board here because I have read some of your articles and book chapters before.) In general, work on the important, big articles on general topics first, and clean those up with better sources, and save the clean-up of articles about people you know for editors who have no possible conflict of interest. That's better for the project, and better for all the readers of Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi WeijiBaikeBianji. Thanks for having the strength and conviction to post your detailed comments regarding the possible COI of Professor Boyle on the administrator's page and on your page here. I made the error in hindsight, of finding this by doing a quick google search for "Boyle and Cattell" a few days ago. But reality is, it was his mentor and close friend. Just want to do the right thing by Wikipedia, but do not want to be seen in any way to be hounding Professor Boyle, but feel that someone removing the COI tag on the article, after you tried putting it back on again, was wrong and an injustice IMHO, given what we now know. Would you support at least putting this tag back on the Raymond Cattell article? I will support what you think, either way, for what it's worth. Should it be reported at the COI area of Wikipedia as other administrators have strongly suggested, for everyone to objectively decide what to do? You have more credibility and experience than someone new like me and I feel I'm now a very easy target to discredit, which I also feel is not really fair, but it's the way it is. I also feel I handled the issue poorly and probably was hounding him a bit in hindsight. Look forward to what you think? Thanks.Baroccas (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, "I will remain forever indebted to both Ray Cattell and Hans Eysenck" sounds like a rather strong statement, and I wonder how he proposes to discharge the debt? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


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

--Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

RE: Victor Klemperer[edit]

Heya, thanks for coming to my talk page. I appreciate the references, but I'm perfectly aware of what tyranny means as well as that it's commonly used in books by historians like Kershaw, Evans etc. However, as the wiki article about the word says in the lede, it generally carries extreme negativity when used which is why I removed as a violation of WP:NPOV policy. Best, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't have any role in writing the neutral point of view policy here, but I would be most surprised to hear anyone say that by policy we cannot describe the Nazi regime as tyrannical. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstand me; Nazi Germany was tyrannical, but this specific word carries extreme negative connotation. Therefore, using it on Wikipedia, which strives to maintain absolute neutrality, would be counterproductive. Why not use a common synonym that doesn't carry extreme negative connotation? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the other editors all understand the matter differently, and I know at least one of those editors does very careful editorial work here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is consensus. I'm just saying. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)