Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 51

message: I think it needs to stay locked until the dispute is better resolved. I've refrained from reverting them, but the majority of the edits made since it was unlocked need to be reverted. --W.R.N. 03:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have compromise suggestions for any of the edits you think should be reverted? --JereKrischel 04:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SLR, you can't "compromise" NPOV/NOR/V itself. --W.R.N. 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WRN, you can certainly compromise on personal interpretations of NPOV/NOR/V.  Let's at least try to imagine that we all have valid interpretations of NPOV/NOR/V, and we need to find some middle ground.  If we sit around believing that the other person cannot be compromised with because they don't know the true meaning of NPOV/NOR/V, we'll never find consensus.  --JereKrischel 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lock the article? 

message: someone tagged "Arthur Jensen and others" with the [attribution needed] tag. NPOV calls for naming a prominent proponent, not an exhaustive list. what did the tagger have in mind? --W.R.N. 07:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to know, who are the "others" futurebird 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you make that a personal research project so we can remove the tags? --W.R.N. 18:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you name at least one other?  Or can we more narrowly tailor the line to a citation only to Jensen? --JereKrischel 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it'd be better to name names on this one. In this case the word "others" is vauge-- There's no rush to fix this, but-- it'd be better, I think, to just say who the people are. futurebird 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur Jensen and others[attribution needed] 

message: Help:Minor edit - A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.
By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.
The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences not to display them. If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please do not mark it as minor.
::I never know what people will think around here so, I never check it.futurebird 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fyi - minor edits 

message: the flynn effect is not a sub-topic of R&I. otoh, it's discussed as it related to R&I in depth in the explanations section. i don't think we have any intention of merging the f.e. article into this one or redistributing its contents into subarticles of this one, so we shouldn't move the content here. --W.R.N. 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge of flynn effect 

message: i note that there are now 3 big and 2 smaller top-level sections. for those interested in the organization of the article, are there any thoughts about this? i'm thinking along the lines of WP:Summary style, opinions about what's missing, etc. --W.R.N. 23:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  while you're thinking about that 

message: fyi - average IQ scores of the Irish in Ireland have been studied by Lynn but I'm having trouble finding the papers. Here are the scores I know about:
87 - Gill & Byrt, 1973
97 - Buj, 1981
93 - Carr, 1993
91 - Carr, 1993
--W.R.N. 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you think this is relevant why don't you make an edit and source it too? Please edit the sub article so we don't end up with a content fork... I'm working there on a section on stereotypes about Jewish intelligence. (Still reading the sources, it's just a stub now.) But if you think it is important to point this out then ... please, go ahead, and by all means, and make the changes. I can't wait to see the sources for this. Race and intelligence (media portrayal)futurebird 00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I can find the 2ndary source that summarizes it, I will. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of primary sources, which is an NOR violation in the making. --W.R.N. 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  irish 

message: FB wrote:
#Take the summaries now in this article and put them on the pages of the sub articles. 
#Remove redundancies
#Clean it up a bit 
#write a summary/intro 
#merge back. 
if you are keeping the same subarticles, that works just fine. --W.R.N. 06:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  workflow 

message: requested it. --W.R.N. 08:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  requested page protection