Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 53

message: Could we have a quick straw poll as to where we still have disagreement?  WRN wants to go to mediation, and I'd like to include everyone here who may have an opinion.
As far as I can see, we have two options:
1) Organize articles with "Race and intelligence" containing a sub-article "Race and intelligence (Research)", and subsequent sub-sub-articles under there.
2) Organize articles with "Race and intelligence" being primarily focused on research, and having all sub-articles in "Race and intelligence (Research)" moved up to be sub-articles of "Race and intelligence".
3) One article which is succinct and to the point including appendices of specific research. --Kevin Murray 20:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to rewrite option 2 as you wish.  I don't believe that in option 1 there is any need for duplication of materials, but simply a concerted effort to make sure materials go in the right place.  We'll consider your vote in this straw poll as your own option, as you wish to define it.  I suggest we avoid characterizing what we believe the differences between our options are until mediation is started - simply describe your option as a course of action, not as a rebuttal to our proposed option. --JereKrischel 09:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. But to be clear here and now, the difference is that I'm arguing for sticking with 2 levels of articles, a hub and many spokes. whereas the current article structure as you have built it has 3 levels, meaning that material at level 3 has to be summarized in level 2 and then again at level 1. --W.R.N. 09:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can probably eliminate the level 1 summaries, and simply push things down to level 2.  It will probably mean a lot less kb of article, and just might get this main article into a workable size. --JereKrischel 10:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: in the way we've written it, I think your "level 1" = my "level 3". The problem with that is what you actually have to eliminate are the level 2 (intermediate) articles from the 3-tier scheme. There are two of them currently, "research" and "controversies". IMO, these should go, and the articles nested under them should be just 1 step away from the main article. there wouldn't seem to be a net effect in the main article from this. it should never be bigger than a list of short summary style sections. --W.R.N. 11:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are so many sub-topics and sheer data under both research and controversies, that having a three tiered structure is critical.  Unless what you're suggesting is that we prune the main article down to nothing but an intro and links to sub-articles...is that a suggestion on the table? --JereKrischel 11:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article, being a summary style main article, should and mostly does contain individual sections of summary (<=3 paragraphs each) with a "main" link to the subarticle where detail are contained. the current 2nd tier articles "research" and "controversies" don't map to single ~3-paragraph entries in the main article, but rather to large sections which themselves contain ~3-paragraph subsections. then the 2nd tier articles contain near identical duplications of what's in the main article, sometimes in a little more detail. this is an unnecessary and problematic intermediate step. here's how summary style and this article should work: every topic that is significant should have one principle subarticle and one corresponding summary section in the main article. if the detail in that principle subarticle grows too long, then summary style can be iterative repeated on that article. there shouldn't be any "many-to-many" networks among the subarticles. merely as an organizational aid, in the main article like subarticles can/should be nested under headings, but the super-headings should not have their own subarticles. that's what currently exists and is a problem. --W.R.N. 11:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what I'm suggesting is that we should prune the 3rd tier summaries from the 1st tier article, and only have them in the 2nd tier.  Simply put, I believe there are too many articles you would consider "significant" without any thought to organization and hierarchy - we could have 2-3 paragraphs on three dozen topics here, and be right back where we started.  Organizing ourselves in larger swaths allows us to make the main article a fairly simple one, and go into any level of depth we want...as an article gets too big for its britches, we simply subdivide in some logical fashion, and add a tier.  I believe we've already gotten to that point to justify 3 tiers, although in some cases you may want to go as far as 4, due to the copious detail. --JereKrischel 11:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll and formal mediation

message: *Option 1 --JereKrischel 05:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to rewrite option 2 as you wish.  I don't believe that in option 1 there is any need for duplication of materials, but simply a concerted effort to make sure materials go in the right place.  We'll consider your vote in this straw poll as your own option, as you wish to define it.  I suggest we avoid characterizing what we believe the differences between our options are until mediation is started - simply describe your option as a course of action, not as a rebuttal to our proposed option. --JereKrischel 09:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. But to be clear here and now, the difference is that I'm arguing for sticking with 2 levels of articles, a hub and many spokes. whereas the current article structure as you have built it has 3 levels, meaning that material at level 3 has to be summarized in level 2 and then again at level 1. --W.R.N. 09:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can probably eliminate the level 1 summaries, and simply push things down to level 2.  It will probably mean a lot less kb of article, and just might get this main article into a workable size. --JereKrischel 10:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: in the way we've written it, I think your "level 1" = my "level 3". The problem with that is what you actually have to eliminate are the level 2 (intermediate) articles from the 3-tier scheme. There are two of them currently, "research" and "controversies". IMO, these should go, and the articles nested under them should be just 1 step away from the main article. there wouldn't seem to be a net effect in the main article from this. it should never be bigger than a list of short summary style sections. --W.R.N. 11:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are so many sub-topics and sheer data under both research and controversies, that having a three tiered structure is critical.  Unless what you're suggesting is that we prune the main article down to nothing but an intro and links to sub-articles...is that a suggestion on the table? --JereKrischel 11:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article, being a summary style main article, should and mostly does contain individual sections of summary (<=3 paragraphs each) with a "main" link to the subarticle where detail are contained. the current 2nd tier articles "research" and "controversies" don't map to single ~3-paragraph entries in the main article, but rather to large sections which themselves contain ~3-paragraph subsections. then the 2nd tier articles contain near identical duplications of what's in the main article, sometimes in a little more detail. this is an unnecessary and problematic intermediate step. here's how summary style and this article should work: every topic that is significant should have one principle subarticle and one corresponding summary section in the main article. if the detail in that principle subarticle grows too long, then summary style can be iterative repeated on that article. there shouldn't be any "many-to-many" networks among the subarticles. merely as an organizational aid, in the main article like subarticles can/should be nested under headings, but the super-headings should not have their own subarticles. that's what currently exists and is a problem. --W.R.N. 11:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what I'm suggesting is that we should prune the 3rd tier summaries from the 1st tier article, and only have them in the 2nd tier.  Simply put, I believe there are too many articles you would consider "significant" without any thought to organization and hierarchy - we could have 2-3 paragraphs on three dozen topics here, and be right back where we started.  Organizing ourselves in larger swaths allows us to make the main article a fairly simple one, and go into any level of depth we want...as an article gets too big for its britches, we simply subdivide in some logical fashion, and add a tier.  I believe we've already gotten to that point to justify 3 tiers, although in some cases you may want to go as far as 4, due to the copious detail. --JereKrischel 11:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Is inappropriate because:
1. Presents one side as a fact without discussing arguments agains.
2. Incomplete, there are many other studies and listings not mentioned.
3. Presents material from nonacademic sources such as self-published trade books.Ultramarine 20:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Lynn latest book is a trade book, not from academic press. Again, NPOV requires that the arguments against these data should also be presented.Ultramarine 20:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That is your opinion,  I disagree. 2 is the main problem, having a long table without opposing views.Ultramarine 20:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  UM, can you point us to some alternative research, which we can include to support your position.  If you cna get me half way, I'll include the research. --Kevin Murray 21:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lynn's book is not an academic source. But again, the most important thing is that these tables give the impression that this is undisputed and unchanging. It should be presented in context.Ultramarine 21:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * JK can we develop an example of this format?  I'm not wed to the format of the table, nor the content, but I do think that it adds value in several ways including taking the focus off this topic being a US centered black & white subject. --Kevin Murray 22:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: I never intended this for the main article. As it grows over time it may warrant mention in the main article, but white supremacists groups, for all of their offensiveness and habitual abuse of research on race and intelligence are not terribly influential or important. Ideally there will be a few sentences in the main article about this probably in a paragraph that also covers the Pioneer Fund and other items related to blatant racism. But, at this point, I feel having this section is undue weight, rather like having all of the information about how Jenson got death threats or the S & R study in the main article-- these are issues that are a part of the controversy, but I don't think that many serious academics are worried about "stormfront" and their ilk. Also, it's not fair to try to equate academic racism with "hate groups" the academic often think that they are doing the right thing, and they even think they "care about black people" to use a Westism... :P -- futurebird 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree. if the controversies article can becomes more than a mere duplication of what's in the main article section, i would probably retract my objection to it. i don't think the research article could/will ever become more than a repeat, but i stand open to be corrected. --W.R.N. 22:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry about the confusion.  I was simply trying to match the top-level outline to the 2nd level outline...what we should probably do is come up with a good intro section for controversies, and remove all 2nd level summaries from the 1st level.  I'll see what I can come up with. --JereKrischel 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, the only reason I put this in the main article was because I didn't know where it should go and things were moving around too much and I didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle.futurebird 23:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: White supremacists section, not in the main article

message: I've reviewed back through the history of this article for the last year.  Clearly this is and has been a controversial topic, but up until just before the article was protected in late January, it was a fairly stable article.  However, since the protection was removed on February 11, this article has become bloated with unrelated material, and much of the excellent materials have been removed either completely or to sub articles.  
What was a very good article has now become almost unrecognizable virtually overnight over 7 days.  
I propose that we revert this article to the protected version (Jan 22) and come to an orderly consensus on specific changes to be administered by an neutral editor or editors.  Or perhaps someone could suggest another earlier version, which would be a good starting point.
--Kevin Murray 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a good idea at all. I think that will be too confusing, and we'll risk losing sourced information. futurebird 23:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All materials and sources are archived in the history.  Nothing is lost unless there is a deletion by a Admin.  --Kevin Murray 00:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article is going in the right directing. Moving back would be a step in the wrong direction. Please give us time (and help?) reseolve the current version in to something coherent. futurebird 00:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm OK with this. --Kevin Murray 00:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more than happy to count the 3-tier structure as stable, pending our mediation request.  Moving back to January 22nd would probably cause more disagreement at this point, and having the current structure in place gives us a better example of what people are proposing. --JereKrischel 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You will get less argument from me if i see the history section restored and the research tables returned.  Also if you stop reverting people's work without discussion. --Kevin Murray 00:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that you felt there was too much history? futurebird 01:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I felt that there was way to much detailed history being put into the introductory paragraphs, and suggested that it was better to move those additions to the history section if not redundant there. --Kevin Murray 01:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you need you show me where and how this is happening. I think, in terms of restoring the old history section, you have point. It was good section, if a little too long. Could you take a look at the new history article and come up witha better summary than what we have now? I think WD just left the first two paragraphs there as a place holder and ther're pretty random. If you can come up with something about the same size I'm all for improving that "summary" (it's not really a summary right now...) futurebird 01:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As for moving things from other places in to the history section can you give a few examples of what you have in mind? futurebird 01:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Um. Why do I have to do it? I didn't take them out... Are you basically saying that if this doesn't happen you'll revert the article back to what it was a month ago?  futurebird 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't say that you had to do anything.  And I said that if we don't take meaningful steps back toward the stable article, I will continue to advocate the return of the protected version, which is moving back 7 days of mahem since it was unprotected on 2-11. --Kevin Murray 01:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, we need to be civil. JJJamal 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I suggest that you propose a "stable" version which we can evaluate.  I'm game. --Kevin Murray 02:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting locking the article again? That didn't work the last time that we tried it. We can come up with new summary sections, though. JJJamal 02:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the suggestion was to use an old version of the article as a temporary "stable" replacement while all the outstanding issues are mediated. That way the article isn't left hanging at a low-quality mid-transition point. It would take a ton of effort to fix all of the summary section, but of course that's an ultimate goal. --W.R.N. 03:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why don't you pick a "high quality" version and roll back, and we can see whether we can gain consensus? --Kevin Murray 03:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultra, JJJamal and I have all said that we don't think this is good idea. Let's see what JK says. Right now there is no agreement to make this change. futurebird 03:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not about a vote, it is about coming to consensus for the best encyclopedic article not a soapbox for redressing the evils of racisism and white supremacy etc.  I can't see any solution without intervention at this point. --Kevin Murray 03:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that this isn't about a vote. It's about finding some middle ground. Simply forcing this revert isn't finding middle ground. I've asked questions about what changes you think we should make and you have not answered them. I think it'd help if you'd start by doing that. I've raised concerns about sourced information being lost that have not been taken seriously. I'm getting that "steam-rollered" feeling again. Can we talk about this more, please? 03:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me add this, I do support making new summaries, as long as information with footnotes is not lost in the process. That is my major objection to the revert. futurebird 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Where is it now? JJJamal 08:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There was no consensus for doing this. I think that you should change it back. futurebird 03:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There has been no consensus for the changes in the last 7 days either.  WRN has picked a good course for stability.  No information from footnotes or otherwise is lost. --Kevin Murray 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kevin Murray's proposal is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy.  I agree that "unstable version" is POV pushing.  Also, it is practically sacrosanct here that anyone protecting a page do so regardless of its status/condition.  We NEVER protect the page at its so-called "stable version."  In fact, our portection policy states clearly and up-front, "During an edit war, do not ask for a page to be protected on a specific version or, if it has already been protected, reverted to some version other than the current one."  If the page gets protected it will be in its current state.  This is not an endorsement of the current version, just an indicator of when in the dispute the decision was made to protect the page until heads cooled down and people reached a solution.  I personally would be hard-pressed to protect the page until someone could explain to me why when the page was protected for three weeks they couldn't resolve their conflicts.  If the answer is, more time was needed, I would be very suspicious.  We do not want pages protects for such long periods of time, period.  Lengthy protection ought to be avoided as much as possible.  That said, I see that this dispute is now in formal mediation.  I think it should be up to the mediator whether or not to protect the page.  Unless the mediator feels it is warranted it would be a mistake to protect this page. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Instability of this article

message: i reverted to the locked page version, but the page itself is not locked. i made a custom tag at the top explaining the current state of the article/dispute. i copied the last version of the article before my reversion to Talk:Race and intelligence/unstable version. note that is linked from the box at the top of the article, so everyone should be able to find that page. --W.R.N. 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no consensus for doing this. I think that you should change it back. futurebird 03:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There has been no consensus for the changes in the last 7 days either.  WRN has picked a good course for stability.  No information from footnotes or otherwise is lost. --Kevin Murray 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kevin Murray's proposal is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy.  I agree that "unstable version" is POV pushing.  Also, it is practically sacrosanct here that anyone protecting a page do so regardless of its status/condition.  We NEVER protect the page at its so-called "stable version."  In fact, our portection policy states clearly and up-front, "During an edit war, do not ask for a page to be protected on a specific version or, if it has already been protected, reverted to some version other than the current one."  If the page gets protected it will be in its current state.  This is not an endorsement of the current version, just an indicator of when in the dispute the decision was made to protect the page until heads cooled down and people reached a solution.  I personally would be hard-pressed to protect the page until someone could explain to me why when the page was protected for three weeks they couldn't resolve their conflicts.  If the answer is, more time was needed, I would be very suspicious.  We do not want pages protects for such long periods of time, period.  Lengthy protection ought to be avoided as much as possible.  That said, I see that this dispute is now in formal mediation.  I think it should be up to the mediator whether or not to protect the page.  Unless the mediator feels it is warranted it would be a mistake to protect this page. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  attempt to address instability issue and prevent edit warring 

message: A lot of information was lost in this reversion. I strongly suggest that editors find the information in this reverted version of the page that they wish to preserve and then:
1. revert the reversion (if that makes sense)
2. add the information
Can we please do this instead? futurebird 04:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm Just worried things will get lost. futurebird 04:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one does any further editing to the main article, then nothing can get lost b/c we're just one edit away from where things were. Ultimately, nothing can be lost because the article history never expires. If losing things or similar is a fear and we can agree on it, we can request page protection (rather than the voluntary situation we have now). --W.R.N. 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s. I think editing in the talk space will do a lot to reduce the tension everyone is seems to be feeling when any changes are made. Hopefully this will cool tempers. --W.R.N. 04:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better if we did this in a more open way. futurebird 04:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't agree. Having the page in this version will influence the direction of moderation. It minimizes 7 hard days of work. The media portrayal section isn't there anymore. The article structure is less clear in this version. I think we should undo this revert and then add in the history section and tables and then close it down for mediation. We can resolve the issue of the table in the process of mediation. I have no problem with the history section, being there.futurebird 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * The last 7 days minimizes the efforts of many people over several years.  --Kevin Murray 04:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also don't think editing in the talk space will be any better than editing the real page. New people are coming here all the time and their edits will be lost if we put it in a hard to find location. futurebird 04:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You have violated 3RR multiple times and have been reported.Ultramarine 05:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is patently not true.  Although some of the same information was included within changes the changes were different in scope. --Kevin Murray 05:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we can try mediation first. Did you read my note below? futurebird 05:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The admins recently involved in this expressed doubt that mediation could work and suggested going directly to arbitration.  WRN has tried to work a compromise, weeks ago I tried to develop a workable solution, but as soon as the article was unlocked it all fell apart.  Now you and UM are reverting the efforts and playing a lot of games.  I'd like to work with WRN's plan if you will stop reverting his efforts. --Kevin Murray 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I only made one reversion...and I'm sorry about that for the reasons I explained below. futurebird 05:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Reversion

message: When I reverted the article recently I was doing so to correct the version Ultra reverted to, which seemed to be from my last edit. (very nice but we must collaborate) I didn't know that Kevin had revered it before me. My intention was not to start an edit war, but rather to support Ultra's change, by modifying it slightly so that edits by WD, and others, that happened in between would not be lost. I hope everyone understands. futurebird 04:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: this is directed generally and at Ultramarine in specific (see this edit and this edit). if you don't understand what's meant by a tag, ask for clarification on the talk page, but don't remove the tags. if no answer is forthcoming, be patient and/or leave a message on the talk page of the person who left the tag.
i intend to tag the detailed articles further and i hope these requests will be honored. --W.R.N. 05:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really is better to just leave them there. Or replace them with a source. I do the same thing as WRN all the time, and I tend to expect that any objections to tag will come up on the talk page. Now I want to make a little request that we (try to) refrain from doubble tagging like this one ought to be enough, right? futurebird 05:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, if you see something redundant like that, I think it would be straightforward and noncontroversial to fix it. Because the aim of the tags is to point out small problems specifically, if you can fix the problem you should of course do so. --W.R.N. 05:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't remove "unexplained" tags 

message: Folks, the page was un-protected six days ago.  And the talk page is way too long.  Tomorrow I am going to do some archiving - I will minimally archive everything up to and including the request for comment - e.g. from the top of this page to about Feb. 2.  I may archive more, as this page really is too long.  So I want to give you time to look at any of the stuff that was written on say the top third of this talk page, and make sure that anything of value that you want in the article has been put in the article, before I archive it.  Thanks. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Slrub! LTNS. Im trying an experiment (for no particular reason its at Talk:Barack Obama) on using an alternate topical system for archiving - as a way to organise the chatter on busy talk pages. Maybe it could work for this one? I think (process just now being formulated) that the first thing would be to identify the main topics for discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence/topics, and then copy archived text to there, reformatting and retitling/metatitling headers if necessary. The standard chronological archive would be preserved of course, and some system for directly linking sections of the topical archive to the chronological one seems like its in order. What do you think? -Ste|vertigo 20:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Understood: Figure out a system, call on technical means if necessary. I dont think there will be a problem provided the normal archiving is done first and linked to thoroughly. There  is no footer like system that works accross different pages, AFAIK, but something usable can be done with templates. Posting to wikien. -Ste|vertigo 00:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice: Archiving warning