User talk:Futurebird/AMA request:Race and intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Futurebird

Contents

[edit] AMA request

Unfortunatly I will not - I am overcommitted as it is with mentoring Punk Boi, work, home, etc. --Trödel 16:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have requested that your request be reviewed by others who are advocacy members. --Trödel 22:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! futurebird 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMA request

If you are still in need of an advocate, I would be willing to take your case. I can be contacted via my talk page or by email, at your preference. Seraphimblade 12:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have accepted your case. Firstly, as you seem a bit intimidated by some events which have occurred, please note that we can most certainly discuss the matter over email if this would be more comfortable. While you left a good detailed summary, please give me a recap of the events that led to your request, including any that may have occurred since you have placed it. Also, please let me know what outcome of this matter would be desirable to you. Thanks! Seraphimblade 13:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm off to work right now. The main thing I'm looking for is some way of addressing all of the information with questionalbe sources in these articles. I wish there was a wikiproject that related to this is some way. I have found one or two other users who support my efforts since I put that request in. I'm just shocked by the depth and profusion of white supremacist material and psudoscience on this site. The article I linked to in the request is a prime example. I guess I want to draw attention to this problem and I can only hope that other editors will reach a conseuns I agree with. If not perhaps this isn't the right place for me. Right now it seem that two types of people watch these article those who wrote them and who are hell bent on defending their agenda. and a few people like me who areappaled by these articles. There are not enough neutral opinions. It's chaos. I do think this is a function of the fact that wikipedia is mostly white. I don't blame the vast majority of for not caring much either way about these issues. I'd probably do the same thing in their shoes. The few who do care scare the socks off of me. Add user:Ryan Delaney to that list. He deleted my comments and those of another user on the talk page for Race and intelligence --when I went to leave a comment saying "please don't delete comments" I discovered a lot of complaints about edits that fit a white power agenda. And an image that resembles the flag of the SC KKK on his user page. This is the kind of thing that's bothering me. futurebird 13:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a look over what you've brought to my attention. Thank you for providing the information. Seraphimblade 13:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Whew! I was wrong about the flag, see below. futurebird 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Glad you already sorted the flag issue, one would certainly hope we don't have that type of thing going on around here, and good to know we don't! I've had a look over the discussions you're having, and you do have quite a contentious issue here. There actually are Wikiprojects which specifically address factual issues (WP:FACT) and neutrality issues (WP:NEUTRALITY). While I haven't seen this to be a specific problem, I would like to remind you that WP:NPOV is clear on one point-we may not state that any view, no matter how noxious or offensive it may seem, to be wrong. We can present the views of its critics, we can present factual information which contradicts it, but what we can't do is editorialize. In your opinion, is the main issue with the article unreliable sourcing, or a non-neutral presentation of that information which is there? Seraphimblade 00:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


It depends on which article in the series we're talking about.

Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)

  • Most of the content of this article relates to the Snyderman and Rothman study, which says that the media are playing down the potential for a genetic basis for IQ that is linked to race. This study is not terribly important or universally respected. It deserves a sentence or two at most not a whole article.
  • The title of the article is misleading. It claims to cover the media portrayal of the controversy over race and intelligence, but in fact, it mostly covers the Snyderman and Rothman study. There is no mention of the long history of racial minorities being portray as stupid in the media. No mention of the books and papers of eugenicists which were at one time well respected by the scientific community and the main stream press. In other words, and lack of balance.
  • The graphs dominate this article and they are from the Snyderman and Rothman study.
  • The tone of the writing, despite editing supports the genetic hypothesis and the image used attempts to cast "so called Demonstrators" in a negative light.
  • The article was outright misleading before I edited it using tightly cropped quotes to conceal information that might contradict the POV of the author.
  • The article give the appear of being well research and backed up by citations, but often these citations. reference the same few authors.
  • This article is so absurdly lopsided I would support deleting it. Though, I'm open to the idea of a massive revision (one that would reduce the current content in to a paragraph and expand in to other areas.)

Race and intelligence (Accusations of bias)

  • This article is mostly a rebuttal. It also suffers from recentism. The *title makes those who have pointed out bias sound whiny, does the subtitle "Complaints of persecution. This article should be called something like "potential for bias" since, especially in the historical context bias isn't just a possibility but a nearly universal fact. Modern research that is regarded as biased only by some should be covered in other articles to avoid the implication that it is biased.
  • Material from other articles that is critical of the genetic hypothesis has been shunted here.

Race and intelligence (Utility of research)

  • This should be condensed and placed in the main article, Race and intelligence.
  • If left a separate article it should talk about what the original utility of race and intelligence research was, historically, namely a justification for slavery and other social policies.


Race and intelligence (explanations)

  • Article leads with the ideas of Linda Gottfredson, who is far from the mainstream. The intro paragraph should reflect all sides of the debate.

Race and intelligence (References)

  • Hopelessly convoluted footnoting system makes it hard to revise the articles.
  • Seems to be designed to intimidate people out of revising the current content.
  • If a source proves to be suspect it is impossible to trace it back to see the articles that reference it.
  • References should be contain in the article to which they pertain. I have found errors in the reference tags, incorrect dates, and broken links, these would be easier to fix and reconcile if the references were in the articles.

I could say more, this is what comes to mind off the top of my head. The task of achieving neutrality will be enormous. I can't do it on my own without quitting my job! And I certainly can't do it alone when my comments are being removed from the talk pages, and every well sourced fact I add is tagged as 'suspect.'

So, as you can see, it is mostly about unreliable sourcing and non-neutral presentation of that information. I would voice these concerns at the articles, but I'm pretty sure my comments would be deleted from the talk page or prematurely archived by User:Ryan Delaney. I feel bullied, to be honest.futurebird 01:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly see your concerns, and indeed, in such contentious subjects, it is very easy for bias to creep in over time and be difficult to root out.
I had a look at the page in question, and it does appear that User:Ryan Delaney deleted some comments. While some of those comments were a bit off-topic (about the subject rather than the page), much of the commentary was on-topic, and I agree that the removal of those comments is questionable. He has also now protected the page against editing. It is not generally legitimate for an administrator to protect a page on which (s)he is involved in a content dispute. If you would like, I can assist you in preparing and filing an incident report on this matter, as I believe bringing it to the attention of a wider group of administrators may help the situation. Seraphimblade 02:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that would help a whole lot. Thank you. futurebird 02:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest the following:
I would like the current situation at Race and intelligence to be investigated. User:Ryan Delaney, who is involved in the dispute on this page, has deleted comments from the talk page [1]. While some of these comments may have been off-topic, other deleted comments clearly discussed the article. He has now protected the page [2], and edited the article after protection was in place [3]. I do not believe that it is appropriate for an administrator to protect a page when involved in a dispute regarding it, nor to edit the page after protection is in place and other editors are unable to edit.
If that would be agreeable to you, you can file the report, or I can file it with a statement that it's filed on your behalf, at your preference. If that is not to your liking, or there are additional issues you feel should be investigated (note that content disputes will not be evaluated at AN/I, so those should be left out), please let me know. Seraphimblade 02:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it does appear, looking at talk, that some productive discussion has been taking place. It may actually be better to see how that turns out. Seraphimblade 02:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
True. I see no reason to go through all of this is my comments are not removed from the talk page again. futurebird 20:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break 1

Hopefully, the discussion that's currently going on will pan out-you're quite entirely correct, the article as it stands is a terrible mess with all kinds of POV problems. The whole thing reads like an argument between the two sides more than an encyclopedia article (as does sometimes happen with controversial topics.) You may wish to have a look at the article on Abortion (and encourage everyone else involved to do so)-this handles a controversial topic relatively well, and has even been passed to Good Article status.

Handling the entire article, as it stands, is probably unrealistic and will result in a never-ending argument, and splitting it apart before there's consensus on handling is a recipe for POV forks. What you may wish to suggest is that everyone go through the article focusing on one section at a time, and agree on the handling of that specific section. Some of those sections may indeed be appropriate to spin off into separate articles (though that probably should wait until the assessment process is done), some of them may only need some minor detail work, some certainly need some serious NPOV work, and quite realistically, some need to be removed outright or rewritten from scratch.

Another possibility would be to make a draft article on a subpage (in userspace or on the article's talk), and work on an entirely new rewrite with the input of all involved. Quite often, with a page that large in that bad of shape, this can actually be easier and faster then working with what's already there. You also may wish to ask for the assistance of the neutrality project, as of course they're used to dealing with NPOV problems-and generally the worst NPOV issues come on controversial topics. I'd certainly be happy to file a request with them, if you'd like.

Finally, you may wish to remind everyone to beware of the tigers, as it appears they're getting loose there. That essay contains some excellent advice-while all of us personally probably have strong opinions on what we write about (on a project in which we can participate in whatever we want, why would we write about things we don't care about, after all?), but sometimes it's all too easy to forget that this project is not for advancing a viewpoint-simply to provide an encyclopedic overview of the issue. On controversial issues, we do our best work when we properly frame the debate, make sure to note when a given position is held only by a minority of those studying the subject, and allow the sources to "speak for themselves", rather than letting them speak "in Wikipedia's voice." For example, "Dr. John Doe stated in a 1999 study that..." rather than simply repeating what he said as undisputed fact. In the end, we should ensure that the reader has all the information (s)he could possibly need in order to make a well-informed decision, but we should always leave the actual decision to the reader. Seraphimblade 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


There are some good things happening on the talk page, like moves to restructure the article. But it seems that the article is still locked due to a long edit war over the table at the end. The admin who locked it is the only one who can make changes. and at the request of one user made a spelling correction. I'm fine with this happening but the whole situation seems a little unfair, especially when we consider the fact that this is the same admin who deleted my comments from the talk page. I'd rather have another admin in charge of locking or unlocking this page. Considering how bad the edit war over the table was I understand why the page is locked, but I also still don't feel that the admin is a neutral party in all of this. Perhaps I will file the report after all. I'm thinking it over. Again, thank you for all of your help. This has helped me to focus on what my concerns are and take careful steps and not get (too) angry. futurebird 23:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Very welcome! Have you contacted Ryan Delaney with your concerns about the protection and edits? He may be willing to address them, if he will, no urgent need to get anyone else involved. Seraphimblade 05:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stormfront link

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/wikipedia-white-people-page-keeps-340624.html?t=340624

I thought I should pass this on to you. I think that something like this is going on with the Race and intelligence page too. Not that I have a link for it. But, it shows that it can happen. I'm not paranoid. futurebird 01:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It happens, but to be quite truthful, I would imagine most idiots from Stormfront or their like would be pretty likely to pull obvious trolling, vandalism, or attacks, and wind up blocked very indefinitely and very quickly. Seraphimblade 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right about that. I guess I'm just being paranoid again. The page is still locked and the talk page is going in circles. futurebird 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions on the way forward

It does appear that suggestions on the talk page have at least moved to reliability of sources. I'll have a look over some of those sources later myself when I have some time-from an initial glance at some of the things being said, it looks like some of them contradict themselves!

As to ways forward, I have some different ideas, you may wish to try one or any of them:

  • To avoid a specific discussion of "race", the article could be made into a more general topic such as "Genetic influence on intelligence." It seems there is a lot of confusion as to what actually comprises "race" and what is a non-racial but still genetic influence. (I don't think that confusion is limited to the article's authors here, either, there seems to be a huge amount of confusion on that in general.) A subsection of that article could certainly explain that while race and genetics are sometimes linked, they're not the same thing-sociologically, it has a lot to do with geography and self-identification as well.
  • I see mediation has been suggested once, and that some parties don't necessarily want to go with it, but I would highly suggest you try again. It really can work, and I've seen that for myself.
  • You also may want to file a request for comments, to get some outside and uninvolved opinions on the subject. Sometimes this is good at helping to break a deadlock.
  • If all else fails, it may wind up in arbitration-the page can't stay protected forever. This, however, is a very bad outcome, and ArbCom will generally only look at behavior and will not rule on content.

In terms of relative merits of these, I would suggest that formal mediation is probably your best bet. The MedCom mediators are used to dealing with the toughest cases you can possibly run across, and still getting things to an acceptable resolution. If you can get people to agree to formal mediation, it really is the best possible way. RFC is helpful, but generally those who respond to RFC's find an extremely long talk page daunting and will move along to comment on another issue. If you do choose to file an RFC, here's my suggestions:

  • Talk to everyone involved in the dispute first, and get their agreement. Realistically, no one has any good reason to not agree-if they're really as right as they think they are, they have nothing to fear by someone outside the dispute examining their position.
  • Have everyone agree on a neutral wording for the RFC request. Remind people that those are required to be written without a bias toward one side or the other, and no one will respond to an obviously-biased RFC question.
  • Have the RFC direct to a section at the bottom of the talk page, entitled (for example) "Summary of disputants' positions". Each person can write a statement summarizing h(is|er) position there of no more than, say, 500 words. (Links can direct to a specific section, just use a # sign in the wikilink).
  • Once the statements are in, the request wording is agreed upon, and the RFC is ready to file, have everyone agree to shut up and listen for at least the first week the RFC is up. The only editing anyone involved should be doing on the talk page during this time is to post a simple "Thanks for your input" to any respondents. If the first person to respond gets jumped all over, they'll likely also be the last person to respond. Similarly, if the debate's continuing on anyway, people will wonder what good it can possibly do to consider the arguments and type a response.

Hopefully, something of this will do some good! If you'd like some help phrasing some of these suggestions, or with suggesting mediation, I've been involved with some debates that required these things, so I'd be quite happy to. Seraphimblade 14:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I've been in mediation a couple times with very positive results. As long as everyone involved is really willing to see the other side, it can solve problems that really seem intractable. Hopefully you get assigned a mediator pretty soon. Of course, if you need any assistance during the process, feel free to let me know. From what I've seen you got your feet under you here very well though! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 11:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)