User talk:Paul.rogers.1964

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 dawkins/ bell removal 2 Mass reversions are not acceptable 3 scientists 4 Why I marked the page

[edit] dawkins/ bell removal

Hi Paul happy to see someone taking an interest in improving this article. you have quoted me as arguing " for the deletion of the source since he couldn’t find it online and other people had similar difficulty. If something is not available on the Internet, that does not mean it doesn’t exist." You have misquoted me somewhat. Just to clarify: Most recently, I removed the quote in keeping with a comment by [User:Mdbrownmsw] at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religiosity_and_intelligence#pov, saying "If the Bell article was actually being used as a source, there should be a complete cite for it, instead of the brief one that copies the note from Dawkins character for character. I don't think the editor actual saw that article, but is quoting Dawkins' mention of it. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the editor was quoting someone else quoting Dawkins citing Bell. In any event, quoting one source's take on another source is not WP:RS. Quoting a source that you haven't seen is even worse." My previous removal was to merge it with the statement's most likely source, the Dawkins quote. Also, not being able to find it was not just about not being able to find it on the 'net, it was about not being able to get it through the mensa society, either. Thank you for finding it at the British library, though.WotherspoonSmith 11:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it again for the same reason that WotherspoonSmith did. If people on Richard Dawkins website forum cannot verify it then wikipedia shouldn't be repeating it. If it is verified it is fine there, but otherwise, citation by reference to a book is not enough. If it was a major study than a peer-reviewed source would reference it somewhere... If you could get a copy of the article it would be great though. Ansell 00:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice you have tracked down and ordered a copy of the original article. Thank you. I'm truly not trying to be difficult here, but if you could find something about the reliability of the source, that would help a lot, too. That is, is the Mensa magazine just a journal like my local car club puts together, or does it have some standards and review systems for what it accepts? It would help the article a lot to know this, and I predict (based on past comments) that this will come up as an issue. Personally, I'm curious about the contents of the article, having heard about it for so long. The similarities with the Beckwith meta-analysis (43 studies, since 1927, four not finding correlation) have me curious. WotherspoonSmith 09:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass reversions are not acceptable

Please do not mass revert what were each individually justified edits. [1] It does not assume good faith in other editors. If you have thoughts about each individual edit please voice them on the talk page. Ansell 04:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] scientists

Hi Paul, me again. Rather than have an edit war, I'd like to clarify: do you know of anyone, other than us and Barnum Beckwith, who has measured intelligence by looking at eminence amongst scientists? The line you have reverted just doesn't sound true to me. The authors of studies of religiosity amongst scientists have not, to my knowledge, inferred that the scientists are anything more than eminent scientists. They have not drawn the link with intelligence. To put it another way: if this was an article about race and intelligence, would you point to the disproportionate number of white/ Jewish/ black people, and say it is valuable data? If this was an article about gender and intelligence, would you look at the disproportionate number of women/ men, and say it was a measurement of their intelligence? I wouldn't. Some might, but I haven't seen them. I don't think we should.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply, I've reverted the edit again. Sorry if this was a bad time of year for you for me to expect a reply, but, as stated, I have yet to see the cited articles claiming that the eminence of the scientists was due to their intelligence. If they make this link somewhere, please let me know. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why I marked the page

I think what you say is accurate and indeed religion and intelligence negate each other but I still think some of it should discuss the different beliefs and their relationship with intelligence. Case in point: people who believe in reincarnation tend to have weaker memories than the general public. Thanks for hearing me out. I will also remove the tag. I want to raise it's status. I also didn't really want to call it totally disputed put I couldn't find the worldview tag. YVNP 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In the discussion page, you mention that one editor has been removing large sections of relevant material which you believe should be there. I don't know if you are referring to myself, user:Ansell or user:Mdbrownmsw, all of whom have removed large sections. Either way- what sections do you believe should be there still- do any meet wikipedia's standards? user:70.248.146.109 raised similar concerns last October in the talk pages, but chose not to nominate any such sections.

If you feel the talk page is not conducive to a fair discussion on these points, you could always ask for a neutral third party to assist.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)