User:DavidLeighEllis/TalkPageArchiveOne

Thanks

Thanks for being a vandal fighter.--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

Greetings,

Concerning your question, Can some suitable sources can be found on this point?

I have a huge number of sources on the topic, but I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for. Could you be more specific? Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Ps. Your image of the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Assumption is both excellent and beautiful.

Thank you. My basic question is why Rushton, Lynn, Jennings, and friends care about R&I so much as to devote their entire lives to "researching" it. Do they want to promote the reproduction of people with high IQ? But then, IQ is a well-defined, easily tested metric, which could be used directly. "Race" has apparent sociological meaning, but the definition is hopelessly nebulous and subjective. Surely they know that "race" cannot be determined by means of any objective, validated test. And many researchers would disagree with the claim that "race" causes differences in IQ. So if Rushton, etc, see high IQ as the Holy Grail, why don't they pursue it more straightforwardly? What good do they think R&I "research" could possibly do? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The "research" done by Rushton, et al. is typically based on the following (false) assumptions,

• IQ tests measure intelligence.
• The heritability of a trait (e.g., intelligence) can be determined by comparing twins.
• The heritability of a trait is the percentage of the trait that is genetically determined.
• Every human is a member of one of three genetically distinct groups: Caucasoid, Negroid or Mongoloid (i.e., White, Black, or Asian).
• The mean IQ of Blacks is ~15 points less than that of Whites. Therefore, Blacks are less intelligent than Whites.
• The heritability of intelligence is 50-80%. Therefore, the differences in IQ scores between Blacks and Whites is largely genetic.

Researchers that disagree with their "science" will be accused of denying reality,

[IQ difference between Blacks and Whites] are as large today as they were when first measured nearly 100 years ago. They, and the concomitant difference in standard of living, level of education, and related phenomena, lie in factors that are largely heritable, not cultural. The IQ differences are attributable to differences in brain size more than to racism, stereotype threat, item selection on tests, and all the other suggestions given by the commentators. It is time to meet reality. It is time to stop committing the "moralistic fallacy" that good science must conform to approved outcomes.

— Rushton & Jensen, 2005 (link)

I don't know exactly what they hope to achieve, but I do know this...

racism: the belief that culture is inherited. That is, it is a belief that groups of people behave in distinctive ways not because they have learned to do so, but because their members share some inherited essence (called "blood"; or sometimes "genes"--but without reference to specific DNA sequences).

— J. M. Fish, 2011 (link)

Sources

---

Journal Articles

• Nisbett; et al. (2012). "Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments" (PDF). American Psychologist. 67 (2): 130–159. doi:10.1037/a0026699. PMID 22233090. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)
• Teo, T. (2011). "Empirical Race Psychology and the Hermeneutics of Epistemological Violence" (PDF). Human Studies. 34 (3): 237–255. doi:10.1007/s10746-011-9179-8.
• Goodman, A. H. (2000). "Why genes don't count (for racial differences in health)" (PDF). American journal of public health. 90 (11): 1699–1702. PMC 1446406. PMID 11076233.
• Hilliard, G. (1996). "Either a Paradigm Shift or No Mental Measurement: The Nonscience and the Nonsense of the Bell Curve" (PDF). Cultural Diversity & Mental Health. 2: 1–0. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.2.1.1.

Collections

• Krimsky, Sheldon (2011). Race and the genetic revolution : science, myth, and culture. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231156974.
• Koenig, Barbara (2008). Revisiting race in a genomic age. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 9780813543246.
• Fish, Jefferson (2002). Race and intelligence : separating science from myth. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum. ISBN 9780805837575.

Books

• Rutter, Michael (2006). Genes and behavior : nature-nurture interplay explained. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. ISBN 9781405110617.
• Marks, Jonathan (2002). What it means to be 98% chimpanzee : apes, people, and their genes. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520226159.
• Tucker, William (2002). The funding of scientific racism : Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 9780252027628.
• Graves, Joseph (2001). The Emperor's new clothes : biological theories of race at the millennium. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 9780813533025.

I hope this helps. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Later, I will wade through the article, and see if some of this can be used to help move it towards NPOV. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome.

• Cautionary note: If you haven't done so already, you should spend some time reading through the Race and intelligence arbitration case and understand the Discretionary sanctions that apply to the topic area (reading the talk page archives is also a good idea). Good faith attempts to bring the article inline with the principles of WP:NPOV and WP:RS may encounter stiff resistance, regardless of merit and many good editors have been driven away. If you choose to edit in this topic area, be prepared for a challenge. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Stjosephinteriorhdr.jpg

This is a beautiful photograph. I love HDR. You should consider submitting it to Wikipedia:Featured pictures.--v/r - TP 19:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will nominate it for FPC soon. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stjosephinteriorhdr. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Khaled Hosseini

Hi DavidLeighEllis,

Thanks for your help on Khaled Hosseini. I tried to revert the vandalism but for some reason it did not go away. Thanks for catching it!

—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 21:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Talkback

Hello, DavidLeighEllis. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stjosephinteriorhdr.
Message added 04:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 04:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stjosephinteriorhdr

David, I have a file with the perspective correction all done. Could you enable email in your WP account so I can talk to you about something privately? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 03:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind that. The file is uploaded and in the nom. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For your persistence at FPC. Your most recent nomination almost passed! You might re-nominate that one, and also nominate it at Commons FPC. Pine✉ 19:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi DavidLeighEllis/TalkPageArchiveOne. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! -- Mentifisto 00:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and Welcome

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. I also see you've recently gotten rollback rights. Welcome to the rollback team! - Amaury (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks! I am One of Many (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of 3RR

Hi DavidLeighEllis, please strike the template you placed on my talk page. I was not engaged in an edit war and by no means violated 3RR as you will see when you read WP:3RRNO. Thank you. I fell for a troll's trick --I am One of Many (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be quite mistaken. The 3RR warning was posted by User:24.130.62.57 [1]. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I am so very sorry. That I fell for that IP troll's trick. It put your signature after the warning apparently. Please accept my apology.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That's quite alright. I assure you that I've made much graver mistakes :) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

RFPP

Hi, David. I removed your request and the reply on WP:RFPP, not because there was anything wrong with either of them, but per WP:Deny. It's only a sock of a well-known indefblocked troll, so I figured we needn't give him the satisfaction of seeing his latest oh-so-funny sock name in a header. Hope you don't mind. The talkpage problem is resolved. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC).

Use of the "minor edit" tag

Hi, I note your edit here [2] is marked as 'minor'. Please have a look here: [3] where the policy is explained. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The use of the minor edit tag appears to be unavoidable whenever an edit is reverted using rollback, even if the edit summary option is invoked. I sometimes use rollback with an edit summary when the matter is quite pressing, but some manner of explanation is required. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

82.34.236.164 IP's talk page

I think this IP may be feeling understandably upset although I don't think he/she understands everything about how we work on Wikipedia. If you look at the IP's first edit, I don't think it was vandalism and I think the first warning by Mattythewhite was wrong or at least less precise than it should be. The IP's edits that falsified the note on the talk page were inappropriate, but leaving a general warning about vandalism is much less informative than a specific warning about editing another user's signed comment. I would tell all of this this to the IP myself but I think you should since he/she asked you on your talk page. Would you be willing to talk more specifically on the IP's talk page about Mattythewhite's warning (which I think was in error and I hope you agree) and about properly sourcing additions to articles and not editing other uses' signed comments? I've also left a note on Mattythewhite's talk page. Thanks, --Pine^✉ 07:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I left a source? :s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.10 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Blogs aren't BLP-level sources. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

re:disturbing username

Even though it should have notified you, I guess I'll leave this here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Ansh666. I can say that I don't believe it falls afoul of any policy, but I'll skip the "discuss with the user" part and go straight to the community. Thanks, Ansh666 06:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)