This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ludwigs2. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

A tee-shirt

lol - thank you. I'm trying to figure out the symbolism of the paperclip: should I go with something cheesy like "it binds us together"?

Spiral Dynamics

Thanks for the tips - I'll add my concerns to what I've already said on the talk page and will replace the templates with a multiple issues template.Autarch (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking for feedback

I ask for input and lay out where I'm looking to go on Tao. You've expressed an interest in helping with fixes and copy edits, and the topic more generally. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also welcome someone else to rewrite the lede to better introduce the article and reflect the scope expansion. You're welcome to give it a whack, but so are any of your talk page watchers. :) Vassyana (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

they're free!

That is, the best chill pills are. I try for humor. Laughter is the best medicine, especially in 'chill pill' form, I think. If there's an argument going on, and you can get one of the sides to laugh, sometimes that's all it takes. (some people can get royally PO'd, but that's just their own interpretation, often setting up for more humor ;) The way I see it, there's no sense being mean when there's plenty of fun to be had being nice. :) --Neptunerover (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought better of putting my answer to you on the post, but I say, good idea. We could ask the OP what's good... =)--Neptunerover (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly!

--Ludwigs2 15:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Politic, politics, and poultice

> "Faye, the way you say things puts people off, and it would help things move along if you were a bit more politic."

I know you won't believe it, but I don't know how to do that. To me, a statement is either true or false. I and people like me "throw away" the irrelevant emotional envelope in which human transmitters of information enclose almost everything they say.

To non-autistics, however, every statement made to them comes with another, invisible statement about their EGO--about whether you think them "cool" or "an asshole". Since no such parallel message was actually transmitted, these perceived insults arising from nowhere but the receiver's insecurity taint everything we say and vex every conversation we have.

To the autistic, every sentence is declarative; to the normal, every sentence is exclamatory.

Sirubenstein said: "saying that the difference in IQ between Blacks and Whites is genetic is tantamount to saying that Blacks are inherently inferior."

That seems like a non-sequitor. To me, the main implication of "the difference in IQ between Blacks and Whites is genetic" is "it's not their fault."

I was not sure what "politic" means, so I looked it up. It means "prudent and shrewd".

"Prudent" means "careful and sensible". I can't be anything BUT that. It's the normals who fuck communications up by appending: "and BTW, you're an asshole" to everything I say before they even parse it.

I always thought shrewd meant "perceptive", but when I look THAT up, I find it means "artful, tricky or cunning; streetwise". "Streetwise", like a three-card monte con-man on the sidewalk. And "artful" means disingenuous.

Those aren't just things I can't do; they're BAD things.

I don't ever try to "play politics", not just because I've discovered long ago that I'm horrible at it, but also because it seems at worst, deceptive, and at best, a waste of communications bandwidth.

> "I'm not suggesting you change what you're saying, mind you..."

Except yes, you are. Watered-down orange juice isn't orange juice, it's orange drink -- a lamer, cheaper product which only vaguely resembles what the orange tree actually produced for us.

The above was a long way of saying the following:

'> I'm just asking if you can say it in a less 'in your face' kind of way.

No, I can't. In fact, I thought my last post WAS polite and non-insulting.

That's why I stopped posting to the R/I arbitration forum for so long, until someone left a nice message on my talk page inviting me back.

Contrary to popular belief, people like me DO care when other people are mad at them (or "disappointed" or whatever polite way you people encrypt it before saying it through clenched teeth). In fact, discovering that is like receiving a huge electrical shock. So I guess I'll just stop posting in the forum again.

The kid who pointed out that the emperor has no clothes was probably slapped so hard by his mother that he's unlikely to want to discuss the emperor OR clothing.

I've been slapped SO hard SO many times that I moved into a cave in the woods where I steal electricity and abandoned so-called "humanity".

In fact, I'm surprised I ever talk to anyone but myself.

Faye - I actually understand what you mean very clearly. I appreciate your frankness, and I wish more people were able to speak their minds that freely. but the thing that gets said and the way it is said are different entities. I'm not asking for perfection; I'm not even asking for you to succeed. I'm just asking for you to try. mostly this is to help you out - the first step in convincing anyone of anything is to get them to listen to you, and that takes a certain effort towards charm.

It's not a problem either way, I can adjust the mediation style to adapt to what you do. it would just make things run a little smoother if you could manage it.

--Ludwigs2 11:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Not sure if you are still following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks, but there are a few initial proposals for the actual text of the policy that are now on the page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to comment at your AE request

Hello. I'd appreciate it if you could reply to this at your earliest convenience. Thanks, Sandstein 21:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Homeopathy if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Final decision.

This warning relates to the current WP:AE thread at [1]. Sandstein 06:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

R&I Mediation

Sorry to bother you on your talk page, but I'm somewhat stumped by this comment. I mean, "cherry picking data to support a certain POV or idealogy"? If you see that as a comment to be taken seriously given the context of the immediately preceding discussion, please explain it to me on my talk page. I don't want to kack up the mediation page with silly "debate" over what constitutes stonewalling and what does not. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, I'm not sure what it means either. let it sit a bit, and then I'll ask him to clarify it and set up a section to discuss it. --Ludwigs2 21:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the response. I didn't intend for it to come off as "aggressive", I just wanted it to be thorough. I was actually pleased to see Muntuwandi give a relatively clear and structured presentation of his concern, and it was nice to be able to respond to tangible arguments for a change. I'll try to keep it ... well, I'm not sure what, but less "aggressive" at any rate. And of course I'll apologize if he feels like I'm attacking him. Thanks for the heads-up. --Aryaman (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

not a big issue. this is more in the 'better safe than sorry' category.

--Ludwigs2 19:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Chavez

Thanks for your patience; not only have I been very busy on Wiki (because of half a dozen RFCs that came up at FAC to address the backlog-- across all content review processes), but I've also been slammed IRL. I'm only about a quarter of the way through, only having reviewed so far some of the deleted content and The Economist (subsription only, but good coverage). User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources So far, alarmingly, I found that content shuffled off to Corruption in Venezuela was orphaned (and I've not yet determined if any of that content went missing). I still need at least another day to see where content went, if it's gone, and to add new sources (New York Times, BBC, LA Times, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, other mainstream sources). I'm not saying that all of this content needs to be added back, but I think there's plenty of sources to justify the POV tag already. Once I finish and cleanup, I'll post this over to the Chavez talk page, but it's still a work in progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll be traveling for a week, with limited internet access. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep up on it, no worries. have a good trip! and remember to bring back presents for all of us.

--Ludwigs2 17:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask for a check

I don't wish to edit-war. Can you check Legality of the Iraq War, and tell me whether there's a good-faith NPOV dispute? Thanks. THF (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the one section you pointed out that was clearly synthesis. I don't think that that one section required that the entire article be tagged, and you haven't suggested any changes or provided any sources that show what you're seeing in terms of other problems. can you point out (on the article talk page) particular places where or particular reasons why the article (or pieces thereof) fail neutrality or contain OR? Just tagging the article without a clear and specific rationale is probably not a good approach. --Ludwigs2 17:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That paragraph was the worst of it; the main issue is NPOV in that it fails to accurately state the United States' case for war, despite the existence of readily-available references on the subject. Sources are overwhelmingly slanted to the left. THF (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Ludwigs removal improves the article. This is why specific, well placed tags help - tagging the whole article didn't help point out this paragraph. Please boldly add, or propose on talk, a paragraph using that reference, and any others, to address the balance issues. I hope Ludwigs doesn't mind my posting here, and we should probably continue on the article talk. Verbal chat 20:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

no, not a problem. please use my talk page whenever you like. and yes, let's take up the discussion on the article's talk. I need to read over the War and Decision page before I can make real sense of any potential POV issue. --Ludwigs2 20:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Goatse

As you can see on the mediation page, I strongly suggested that you not engage in removing the image without consensus. It appears that two minutes after I commented, you did just that. I'm going to AGF that you didn't see my note of caution, and ask that you please self-revert. You are beginning an edit war with other parties to this mediation, and that will not be tolerated from either side. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry, you're right. I didn't see your message. but no worries, I have no intention of creating an edit war: I'm merely trying to force them to be responsive in mediation. sooner or later they will figure out that I can be just as pushy and unreasoning as them if I choose, and then they might start participating properly. I'll read what you said over on the mediation page and make a statement there (probably a much stronger one; pure showmanship), but be advised that I won't allow this conversation to die away into mere silence. If they cannot defend the mage's inclusion using reason (which I'm pretty sure they can't) I will see the image go. --Ludwigs2 18:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Interim page state

Ludwig, I think your input is needed here. Aprock seems to be rejecting your suggestion that we can come up with an interim page state before mediation is concluded.

During the two days since I proposed this, nobody other than him has expressed an opinion about it. I think two days is a reasonable amount of time to wait for something like this, but Aprock also seems to think it’s unacceptable to take action when there are so few comments about it. How long do you think it’s necessary to wait before implementing an interim page state? If the criteria for dong this is a certain number of comments rather than a certain amount of time, taking action about it may never be possible at all. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

the interim page state thing (to my mind) is not truly important - I suggested that originally so that we could set that issue aside while we worked on the bigger issue of agreeing on the final page. let me go look and see what's happening there. --Ludwigs2 06:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll be heading out for vacation tomorrow morning for a week, so I'll ask for a little more leeway than two days to respond to various issues including this one. A.Prock 08:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

no problem, and no hurry. --Ludwigs2 08:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point, Aprock’s argument seems to be that it would violate the terms of the mediation for us to make major changes to the page while mediation is in progress, which is something that would apply to any interim page state that’s different from the current page. Since you’re the one who suggested that we come up with an interim page state (which would presumably be different from the current page), it appears to be your suggestion about this in general that he has a problem with now. Assuming you still think coming up with an interim page state is something that it would be reasonable to do, can you explain there why you don’t consider your suggestion to be a violation of the terms of the mediation? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

eh, enough. I've archived the discussion and made the decision unilaterally to maintain the status quo. let's move on to more intersting and important issues. --Ludwigs2 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Leftover {{3O}} templates at Talk:Midland Metro

Hey, Ludwig, I was patrolling the {{3O}} template list and noticed that you had taken a 3O request at Talk:Midland Metro, but the template still appears on the page (in two different places). I'd ordinarily just remove the templates, since you've taken the request, but it looks like the opinion might still be pending. Would you mind if I removed the templates from the page? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ah, sorry - they apparently placed two banners, and I missed one when I removed it. I've been waiting for people on the page to get back to me, but I think what happened is that one of the disputants got blocked and lost heart, so the 3O issue died. I'll remove the extra template now - they can respond to me or place a new template if the issue is still ongoing. --Ludwigs2 18:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

SIRE resolution

Ludwigs, I appreciate your resolution concerning the AAPA statement and race. There is still the sticky topic of SIRE, which is important but, as Alun points out, not about "race" as a biological thing. I am asking you to post the following as a resolution concerning SIRE which together with the AAPA resolved will I think put this muddle to bed:

So we might as well agree to disagree on the question of biological/genetic races and instead focus on SIRE, which is what much of the data is based on. All we would need to mention is that the concept of race from a biological/genetic perspective remains a controversial issue, and simply redirect to the appropriate articles, Race (classification of human beings), race and genetics, human genetic variation and human genetic clustering for further information. However, we do need to mention that some of the critics of research into RI have argued that race is primarily a social construct, and that the failure to create an objective criteria for the definition of human races that can be used consistently, compromises RI research.

The APA uses ethnicity in relation to SIRE i.e where peope self identify "race" the psychologists call it ethnicity. Why? I believe it is because race is a popular but contentious term and no biologist uses ethnicity so it is a way to focus on something non-biological. Anyway, Muntuwandi's proposal seems to conform best with the APA position, and is consistent with the AAPA statement, but by proposing sets of links also tells us what to do when genetics is mentioned in the article. I think that makes it very useful. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Errr... I'm hesitant to simply close things unless I'm sure there's a consensus. I closed that last discussion a bit abruptly because I thought we had consensus and I didn't want it to fall apart with spurious disputes, but... If you can clarify on the mediation page that that's the appropriate resolution, and give other people a chance to agree to it, I'll close the debate. --Ludwigs2 22:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev keeps asking me questions that seem to me wil have the effect of prolonging argument when we should be trying to close arguments. I really do not want to keep going in circles with him. I think you actually once pointed out - wisely - that this isnot the place to debae race and intelligence. We just need to agree on a framework that resolves the maindisputes so we can go back to editing the article. I just provided a smuch of a response to Mikemikev as I feel justified, and I also as you requested make explicit my wish to use Muntuwandi's proposal as a resoltion so we can move on to other elements of the conflict (I think in the section below you will see Aryaman stating his agreement with Muntuwandi's earlier statements). Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PS I made some suggestions about the points Wobble found so contentious. FYI I did not do this with the intention of stirring the pot further. I was trying to be constructive by turning objections into proposals for alternatives, but if you do not find them costructive, well, just forget about it, I am not going to argue them. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gah! and thanks

Not that word again :( In the thread with Jack M. you used the word Prissy... Bishonen called me this before and it got me really upset :( Now I know that from the thrust of your argument it wasn't your intention to upset, annoy or anything of this nature, but would you consider rephrasing? I totally understand if you don't, and I'm only saying something because I know that you will listen to concerns... certainly I'm mindful of the fact that you were one of the only people to have defended me on that AN thread, and for that I will always be in your debt.

Anyway, I really mean this from the bottom of my heart. The fact that you were willing to take an unpopular position in the midst of a lynch mob of editors on AN is brave and shows a lot of integrity. Personally, I was happy to see a friendly face amongst the baying mob :-) I won't forget that you tried to help, and I want to thank you for doing what you did. It certainly wasn't easy, given the general atmosphere that was there at the time. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry about the 'P' word. I'll remove it now (bad choice of wording, no question). With respect to the other, my pleasure, and don't think twice about it. What's been happening to you recently is a good example of what I mean when I talk about collective tantrums; there's a few editors involved in that conversation who need good, quick, NCIS-style head-slaps (if not actual trips out to the woodshed). Besides, I came to the conclusion a good long time ago that being outspoken, thoughtful, and fair-minded on Wikipedia would eventually get me banned from editing, and that's very freeing. It leaves me with no excuse not to say what I mean.

refactoring now. --Ludwigs2 16:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

AAPA statement

I just read your reply to Mikmikev and want to thank you for being both firm and reasonable. You wrote what I would have written were I not so angry, too angry to contibute constructively at this moment.

While I wait for y feelings to cool down I can take this time to thank you, in general, for takingon this mediation - one that clearly put off several other mediators who might have considered it a thankless morass, and with good reason to think so. I think it is inevitable that a fair mediator will doone or later have done something that eachparty to the mediation thinks is a bone-headed move, and I am no exceptio. But the fact is you have been quite fair throughout and focussed on being constructive. I really apreciate that and want to thank you for keeping things moving forward while encouraging parties to the mdiation to express conflicting viws as long as they are done in a constructive way. I know it is not an easy job and I sure do appreciate your taking it on. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I read what Catain Occam wrote above. he is right that discussions about the meaning or definition of race can become a trap that will wate a lot of time, even for an Ent! I think one of the values of the AAPA and ASA statements on race, one of which focuses on the biological, the other of which focuses on the sociological, but in ways that are compatibel, is that if we accept them we can move on. Both of those statementes were written by expert researches AND professional educators, and they are pretty carefully worded to communicate to the general public what scientists think. By using them as points of reference (and I linked both to the mediation talk page) no one involved in the mediation need to try to define race or reconcile th views of people in the life sciences and in the social sciences. (Note: Varya is especially taken with the APA statement. I am not mentioning it now only because of recent events. I think it too is a useul point of reference and I do not see any clash with the APA or ASA statements. Nothing I have written should be interrpetted to mean I wish to replace the APA statement with the AAPA and ASA statements as starting points for our discussions. I respect the APA statement and mean only to ass the ASA and APA statements. These statements combined actually cover a lot of turf and explain a LOT of things very clearly! They are useful!! Slrubenstein | Talk

Wikipedia:Trading card game

The Wikipedia:Trading card game project needs your help in choosing the rules, which is essential for developing everything else of the game. Please consider !voting for a set of rules here. You may voice your opinion about a particular set here. Also, if you have a new idea on what the rules could be, you are encouraged to propose a new set of rules (instructions can be found at the !voting page). Thank you, ♠TomasBat 02:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: You are receiving this message because you signed your name at the project's list of members.

You might be interested

You didn't get told about this by the nominator, though he did tell those who supported my ban, but the ban thread has been restarted. See [[WP:AN#Proposed topic/interaction ban of User:Tbsdy lives. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I left an 'oppose' message. I'll wade in with a bit stronger language if I think it's needed. My advice to you (if I can be so bold) is that whenever this stuff starts to get to you, sit back, take a few deep even breaths, and try to exhale some of the badness; come back at it later. trust me, I have an issue with dysthymia myself. if you over-commit yourself trying to defend against every attack, you're going to wear yourself out, and then take a nose-dive. we don't want that to happen. so far there seems to be no consensus, and I can't see one emerging from the current debate, so rest up while you can. --Ludwigs2 05:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

For the infobox. I hope that fixes things. --Moni3 (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

unarchiving

Well, in good faith I read the most recent discussion, including Captain Occam's response to my post. I do not see peoplee reaching a consensus, in fact, I see Captain occam's replies as indicating that he is very far from Muntuwandi and Wobble. I read their most recent posts as largely elaborating on policy (concerning the care one must use in using sources, the need to provide complete context, and the importance not to misrpepresent sources). Occam's reply is that he continues to want to put into the article research that is very preliminary, the meaning of which even the scientists conducting thr research thmselves are not sure of the meaning. Muntuwandi and Wobble are sying: there are some works published in science journals that we cannot reasonably turn to for conclusions, and based on my knowledge of scientific publishing, they are right - scientists often publish accounts o experiments and the outcomes just hoping someone else will try to reproduce the experiment. Such an article can't be relied on for its conclusions, that is not why it is published. Muntuwandi's suggestion we rely on literature review essays to fin out what mainstream scince is makes perfect sense. Occam simply ignores the point.

Some time ago you made the very useful distincion between correlation and causality. No one disputes a correlation, but there is no evidence yet for causality. The APA statement never claims that the differences among ethnic groups (which it prefers to use rather than the word race, but it is refering to th social construct that is at issue here, whether one calls it SIRE or ethnic identity) is caused by a gene. Correlation, yes. Cause... no. Yet Captain Occam will not agree to use the word "correlation," even though we all agree on that much.

Sorry, I do not see any such agreement. I removd th hat and edited what I wrote a bit, so one can see hw I m responding to what CO wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe thi IS getting overwrought. Please just read over what I wrote. if you still think I am moving us in a tangent, feel free to archive it again and I won't complain, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to remember what my suggested phrasing is that you had such a problem with, it’s the phrase “there is currently no established genetic link between race and intelligence”. If your opposition to the idea of a genetic contribution to the IQ difference is so strong that you consider it unacceptable to use the word “link” rather than “correlation” in the phrase “there is currently no established genetic link”, I really don’t know what to say. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: look I don't want to get bossy here, but let me point out that you just poured out 300+ words because you're fussing over the difference between 'link' and 'correlation'. I don't have a problem with fussing like this in general, but if we keep getting sucked into these fussy little arguments on every single damned point we are never going to revise the article. There comes a point where you just have to say it's good enough and let the details go - you can come back to them later, after the article is revised, if it's needed. now, maybe we are not at the point yet, and I'll let the argument continue if you really think this needs to be hashed out, but my sense is that you are spinning your wheels trying to get traction on a point that you may not even care about once the article is back in shape.

Up to you - if you think it needs to be settled, then let's go back at it, otherwise please re-archive the section.

Occam: incidentally, this applies to you, too, as well as others on the page. as my grandfather used to say, it feels like you're all trying to tile the roof before you've set up the walls, and it's no wonder that the conversation keeps collapsing. you're all going to need to give a bit on the details if tou want to get this to move along. --Ludwigs2 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I still believe Captain Occam's reply to Muntuwandi and Wobble was unfairly dismissive of teir actual concerns and missed the point. That said, I also misread Captain Occam. I have struck itout and aplogized; feel free to archive as you see wish.

The one thing I would ask you not to archive is the one part I did not strike out. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sociological Race vs Genes

Ludwig, I'm not satisfied that that issue was resolved. mikemikev (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll undo now, then. can you tell me what your dissatisfaction is?

Thanks. Slrubenstein was refusing to reference documents he wants to base the article on. He has done so now, so I will check them and see if I agree. Sorry for the confusion. mikemikev (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludgwig, Do you understand now why I wanted to make sure this dispute about sociological vs. genetic race was resolved before I posted my proposal about article structure? Just as has tended to happen on the article discussion page, making any kind of concrete proposal about changes to the article has only served to re-start this dispute, which in turn has prevented the discussion about changes to the article from coming to any kind of conclusion.

From what I’m able to tell, everyone is just spinning their wheels now, rather than making any actual progress towards resolving the mediation. Everything that mikemikev, Slrubenstein, Alun, and Muntuwandi are currently arguing about has already been resolved as much as is necessary for the purpose of writing the article, particularly during the now-resolved WP:FRINGE discussion, where we even decided on a way for the article to summarize the various viewpoints about this topic:

For disciplines such as biology and anthropology, the concept of "race" is now considered too imprecise to be of any practical value in advancing our current state of knowledge, as the means and methodologies of those disciplines have long since overcome the constraints which made the concept meaningful in the first place. For example, though "race" can be used in a meaningful way when discussing the distribution of particular medical disorders and the success of certain treatments, the fact that we are able to create personal genetic profiles makes doing so largely superfluous. In the social sciences, as well as in criminology, race remains a useful concept provided it is understood as a primarily social construct, though one which may have important biological implications, both for population groups as well as for individuals. In the study of race and intelligence, those biological implications become of central importance.

Now that we already know how to describe this issue in the article, there’s not any practical purpose for us to keep arguing over the details about the meaning of “race” that are currently being argued about. The only thing that doing so is accomplishing is to prevent us from making any progress towards resolving the issues that we actually need to resolve, such as the page structure. In order for the mediation to continue progressing, I think you ought to do something about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

lol - how come every time I talk to you I end up feeling like treebeard talking to the hobbits. you are so very hasty!

I agree with you that we are almost in a position to start writing; I disagree that people are spinning their wheels. mikemike is being a bit of a problem child at the moment, but I am working on resolving that. Alun misunderstood something I said and got offended, but I think he will accept my apology and move forward with it. I anticipate that inside of a week we will shift gears on the page and begin working on the structure in earnest. can you wait that long? --Ludwigs2 17:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as it’s just a week, sure. You should keep in mind, though, that on the article discussion page these arguments over the meaning of “race” would often continue for a month or longer. If it ends up looking like the same thing is likely to happen here, I still think you might need to do something about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It’s been a week now, and I do think that at this point we’re probably ready to start working on the article itself. Do you agree?

If you do, someone will probably need to figure out how to get Varoon Arya involved in the mediation process again. After DJ let us know that he wouldn’t have enough time to revise the article himself, VA was our top choice for who should do this, so it’s going to be pretty difficult for us to proceed much further without him. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wittgenstein having a field day breaking the law and cows coming home from left field

Hi, Ludwigs2. Re this:

Where is this coming from?

It's coming from your expression of opinion that 'breaking the law' is "an odd and annoying turn of phrase", and "nonsensical shorthand" for the older and longer phrase you prefer. You have described this as your "own personal pet peeve". That’s where it's coming from. I'm just challenging it.

I also challenge your requirement that people now adopt the expressions 'breaking the peace' and 'violating the law'. Once again, it ain't gonna happen.

But what's with the Wittgenstein references? The introduction of his name to the discussion was "straight out of left field". Why is <whatever his view on such matters was> at all relevant to why certain idioms are the way they are? Is he some sort of Higher Authority on how people should express themselves? No, I haven't read him, and have no intention of doing so.

I'd like to see some humour in your posts, in which case I'd happily respond in kind. But what I see is inconsistency:

You have trouble with 'breaking the law', yet you've used 'have a field day' twice now, despite being told that another editor finds it just as annoying and irrelevant to philosophers as you seem to find 'breaking the law'.

You have an insistence on exactitude, but you yourself often fail to commence sentences with the capital letter that all style guides require. What's the deal there?

You say I'm playing "odd language games", but your own utterances on this subject are mystifying. I'm not at all interested in any kind of fight, but I will discuss matters till the cows come home.

Please don't take me to task for using that expression when I tell you I have never owned any cows and have no idea what time they're expected home. For all I know, they're more than fully occupied engaging in contralaterograminal hyperviridiance, and have no interest in coming home.

Cheers. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack - this whole thing is just joking around. yes it's a pet peeve; no, I'm not on some great eternal mission to purify the English language. Don't have a cow, man!!!

with respect to Wittgenstein: If you read the Philosophical Investigations you'll see that W loves these kinds of language puzzles. for him, language is purely functional, and a problem he consistently worries about is how language gets tangled up in dysfunctional forms. he would have been interested by the way in which a concept (a functional linguistic unit) can get transformed into a language structure that ostensibly denies the original concept. He would have seen it as a tension between divergent language games (language games being uses to which language is put). for instance (I don't remember his exact examples, but this is the idea), when you want someone to close a window for you, there are a number of language games you can engage in (1. 'Please close the window', 2. 'gee, aren't you cold?', 3. 'wow, I can't feel my toes', ...) each of these tries to get the same resultant action - closing the window - through different gambits, and each runs the dual risks that (a) the other person will misinterpret the gambit and respond with a different linguistic 'move' or 'game', and/or (b) the speaker will forget the original desired action and the meaning will get lost in the linguistic gambit. all very cool stuff, if you ask me.

I don't mean anything by saying that you're playing 'odd language games' - a bit jargon-ish of me, sorry - just that I didn't understand what 'thing' you were after in the conversation, and I was beginning to interpret it as a language game I didn't want to play. If that makes any sense... --Ludwigs2 01:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It's often difficult in written online forums to gauge the exact nuance intended (on the internet, nobody can see you snickering while you type), so in the absence of body language and verbal cues, I tend to play a straight bat and let the chips fall where they may. When I hear the name Wittgenstein, I tend to think of his brother Paul, who finished up only half the man he used to be. This is one of my modest contributions, if you're at all interested in the musical side of the family. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Shhh

I know I wasn't being very subtle but don't make it toooooo obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

lol - sorry. subtlety isn't my strong point.

--Ludwigs2 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Taijitu

Forget it. It won't work. ~~You are by now close to outright vandalism.~~ Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

On a second look, I have to retract my remark. Your edits were not vandalism, just stupid and unsubstantiated as usually. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired of this argument, frankly. you have added nothing which satisfies notability requirements, and wp:undue weight applies here. I've been being generous about this, but that's gotten me nothing except abuse from you, so to hell with it. --Ludwigs2 03:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Pyrron

Just hoping (fingers crossed) that that dispute got resolved. Is it? Regards, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

resolved? I don't know - Pyrrhon spent a week or so (a few weeks back) following me around wikipedia and causing minor trouble, but I haven't heard from him since. There's been no action on Dignity of any sort, and he's steadfastly refused to talk to me since the beginning of the whole debacle, so I can't tell whether he has had a change of heart about me or whether I have just (temporarily) fallen off his radar. I don't suppose we'll know until I try to edit the article again, and I am loathe to do so without a darned good cause.

sorry, I don't have a better answer for you than that. --Ludwigs2 06:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Template

Thanks for letting me know about Template:Inbrief. It looks useful. I can never remember how to write the side-by-side thing, so I'm forever having to hunt down where I last saw it. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. feel free to fix it up, or (if you don't do templates) let me know what you think would improve it and I'll edit it in. --Ludwigs2 23:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolution to genetics discussion

Can you make this any clearer that it’s referring specifically to genetic research? The phrase “there is currently no established link/correlation between race and intelligence” sounds like it’s saying there’s no consensus that the IQ difference exists at all, which isn’t the opinion of anyone involved in the mediation process. Consensus definitely supported the idea of making it clear that this was referring only to genetic research; we just weren’t agreed on the best way to say this. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest? I'm a little too tired to deal with it tonight, but if you give me an idea I'll give it a stab tomorrow. --Ludwigs2 05:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My own suggestion (which I’ve made before) is that this part of the sentence should say “The article will discuss the sources that show there is currently no established genetic link/correlation between race and intelligence”. Muntuwandi thought this sentence should make it clear that most of the research being conducted in this area is about the relationship between IQ and specific genes, and not directly related to race, but he at least agreed with me that the sentence should be specific that it’s talking about genetic research and nothing else. So changing this sentence to say “genetic link/correlation” would probably be somewhat closer to what he had in mind also. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that word genetic is very important. There is an established link/correlation between race and intelligence, which no one disputes. mikemikev (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, it’s been around two days now. Weren’t you going to do something to try and deal with this yesterday?

I’d also like it if you could answer the question I asked you earlier, in the “Sociological Race vs Genes” section. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't been feeling all that well the last few days. I'll take a look in now. --Ludwigs2 23:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

CO - I can't figure out what question you're referring to. can you clarify? --Ludwigs2 05:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I’m referring to my last comment here. I asked you there whether you thought we were ready to start working on the article structure, now that it had been 8 days (now it’s 11 days) since you said we’d be ready for that “inside of a week”.

As I said there, I think we’re ready for this, as soon you’ve taken care of Mikemikev’s and my concern about making it clear that the resolution to the genetics discussion is referring only to genetic research. The one other thing we’ll need for this is to get Varoon Arya involved in the mediation again, since he’s who we’d decided should be the person to revise the article if DJ doesn’t have enough time to do it himself. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig, aren’t you going to address or deal with any of this? You’ve replied to TechnoFaye’s new comment and archived a portion of it, so I know you’re not losing interest in this mediation the way some of our past mediators have. But continuing to make progress towards revising the article will require more than just dealing with off-topic rants like this; we’ll also need to deal with the rest of the main issues that we’re actually here to resolve. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I deal with things as I can, and as I understand them. Faye's outburst was fairly straightforward, but I've had a bit harder time addressing this because I want to do it correctly, and my mind is distracted. I'll resolve it tomorrow though, ok? --Ludwigs2 08:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, thanks.

There’s one other thing which we more or less worked our during that discussion, but when it was mostly resolved we got sidetracked by Muntuwandi’s complaints about the research involving specific genes, so you ended up not including the earlier consensus in your summary of the discussion’s outcome. I think it would be beneficial if you could include this conclusion in the mediation outcome also.

This is based on the version of the summary that you came up with on February 9th, but I’ve made Slrubenstein’s suggested revisions to it, which he proposed in response to the objections that Alun raised to the Feb. 9th version. I’m not sure whether or not Alun would be satisfied with Slrubenstein’s proposed compromise between what Alun wanted and what everyone else agreed on, but even if he isn’t, everyone else seemed to be. Changing more than this seems like it would be catering too strongly to a single editor’s demands that go against the consensus.

All current research on race in relation to IQ scores is based in SIRE information

Some research shows that race (defined by SIRE) correlates highly with certain genetic markers (markers which are obviously inherited, but which are chosen to specifically to reflect race)

Research suggests that 40-70% of the variation in IQ scores within the same population owes to genetic factiors. A few specific genes have been identified as likely candidates, but none has been conclusively shown to do so.

There is no definitive research (as yet) that speaks to whether the genes that affect intelligence in individuals are part of the cluster of genes mentioned above.

Do you think this is worth including? We spent a long time working out these details, and they might end up being important when we begin editing the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Venezuela Invitation

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Venezuela? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. Please see our list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with input box

Hey, Ludwigs: You seem to know about this kind of thing. Is there a way to create a input box whose result will flow into a template? Specifically, I'd like to put an input box on a subpage of my user page into which I can type the name of a user and have it produce the result of {{User toolbox|Username}}. (I can, of course, just set that template up on a page with the second field blank and when I want to use it just edit and preview the page, but gee, that wouldn't be elegant. ) — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

well, the input box functionality in wikipedia is fairly limited. if you read the mediawiki bit on it you'll see that you can make searches, open pages to edit them, and etc, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of control over the process. If this is just for your personal use, however, I might be able to whip up something with javascript (you'd have to add it to your 'whatever.js' file. If that's what you want let me think on it a bit.

Thanks, but I wouldn't want you to go to the trouble for something so insignificant. I do appreciate the reply, though, very much. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

yin and yang

{{wb}} Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely and I do appreciate the advice.

Thanks! {{wb}}Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

{{wb}} Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Please ask permission to remove other users comments. I do not give permission for you to remove my comments. Verbal chat 21:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove your comments - I archived a section that was badly formed and likely yo cause a lot of fruitless, contentious debate. I have no problem with having an RfC on the question, but if we are going to have an RfC, let's have an RfC on the question that is being disputed, not on a question that no one disputes, but which will cause a lot of confused and ultimately futile bickering. I mean, read the discussion - it's all off-topic. --Ludwigs2 00:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please check, you did indeed remove a comment. I'm sure it was an accident though. Verbal chat 07:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake if I did - I had no intention of doing so. apologies for any offense. --Ludwigs2 08:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

AAPA statement

Ludwig, I hope it's not inappropriate to raise this here. Slrubenstein has ignored my request to justify the use of the AAPA statement for a long time. He keeps going on about it, for example [2]. VA has also expressed concern with this statement [3]. Do you think you can ask him to explain, or failing that, close the issue? mikemikev (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

R&I > Rename?

Hi, Ludwigs. It seems that, in the course of another discussion, several editors have expressed their willingness to rename the article to "Race and IQ". I proposed this title a while ago, but apparently the time for it was not ripe. With the recent nods of approval from Aprock and Slrubenstein, it seems things have changed. Somewhere in the archive of the mediation page (I'm not sure where it went) we had several other editors agreeing to this name as well. Perhaps you could put up a quick straw-poll to see if there is agreement on this now? It may seem like a minor detail, but I think it will end up having a significant effect on the article. Besides, it would be extremely refreshing to have something - anything - upon which all the involved editors could agree, if nothing else than to simply inject some sorely needed collegiality into the atmosphere. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Tuesday.

I just wanted to remind you that today is the day that we decided we would need to start revising the Race and intelligence article, because David.Kane said that he would be available today, and that after this week he wouldn’t be available. I think we need to get started on this now, because otherwise we’re going to miss the window of time during which the editor we’ve chosen to revise the article will have the ability to do so. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Occam - I will try to do that, but I really need you to stop pushing so much. when you push the way you do everyone gets on their high horse and it tangles things up. please consider the fact that we need to relax our way into an agreement, not fight out way into one, if we want to reach something stable. --Ludwigs2 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but you need to remember what this mediation case was like before you took on the role of mediator, and how much a lot of us care about preventing that situation from arising again. Before you came along, the way this tended to go is that the mediator would say that he was going to perform a particular action at a particular time, and everyone would plan on that, but when that time came the mediator would be nowhere to be found. This happened both under Reubzz’s mediation and under Xavexgoem’s. It caused the first approximately two months of the mediation to be completely wasted, and it may have also contributed to how several of the users who were involved in the mediation early on ended up eventually dropping out of it.

More than any specific outcome of the mediation, I care about avoiding letting this happen again. And after seeing it happen twice in this mediation case, under two different mediators, I’m probably never going to completely stop worrying about the possibility of it happening under you also. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

hey, you guys are a handful - it's a bit wearing. {{=)|)) I'm still with it, but please allow me to have moments of rest when I need them. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so now it’s Wednesday. I’m not sure how much longer David.Kane will be available, but it certainly won’t be more than another four days, and he may need that much time to discuss his revisions with the rest of us. Your taking breaks is fine in general, but when we only have a small window of time for something that we’ve been working towards for the past month, now isn’t the right time for it.

If I sound anxious about this, it’s because I am. I don’t think we’ll be able to agree on anyone other than David.Kane to revise the article, at least not as long as DJ and Varoon Arya aren’t available for it, so missing our opportunity for David.Kane to do this might mean losing the ability to revise the article at all. At the very least, it’ll undo all of the progress we’ve made towards working out a specific plan for how to revise it. Isn’t this important enough to be worth the effort it requires from you? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion about revisions to the outline - let's see what response it gets tomorrow morning. --Ludwigs2 09:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from Bryan Pesta

Ludwig,

I just thought I should let you know that I think Mr. Pesta's comment here was intended to be directed at you. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about how that ended up where it currently is - I'll take a look at it, though. --Ludwigs2 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, his comments over the past few days are the first time he's ever edited Wikipedia. I suspect that he just wasn't aware that feedback for another user is meant to go on their talk page, rather that his own. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking for Neutral Editor

The neutral editor who was working on the entry on Aesthetic Realism (IP 71) has dropped out of sight and has not returned any inquiries as to his whereabouts. The editing can become quite contentious and it is vital we have a neutral editor to oversee the current rewrite which is in progress. There is quite a bit of material to post for comment, but we are a standstill beccause of IP 71's disappearance. Would you be willing to step in as a neutral mediator to get us on track again. The delay is causing really bad feeling. I posted a comment noting that you had been thought about. LoreMariano (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave a note over there. --Ludwigs2 18:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. can you suggest on the talk page that they all open informal mediation at the Mediation Cabal, and let them know that I'm willing to offer my services as a mediator? it would work better all around if there was some formal structure to the discussion. --Ludwigs2 18:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, great. I'll do it now. LoreMariano (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Normal distributions

the mean of the new distribution should just be f(x,y)

That is nonsense. Why would you write such a thing? Obviously the mean of XY is not usually equal to the product of the separate means of X and Y. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

First, Michael, it's not nonsense, I'm just not as technically versed as you are. that was the OP's terminology, not mine, and I was trying to work with it. Put in English, what I was trying to say is that if you have a function f(X₁,X₂) that operates on two independent normal random variables, then the mean of that function will be the function applied to the means of the variables f(µ₁, µ₂). this is clearly true for addition and subtraction, and (as I indicated on the page) I am unsure whether it is true for other functions.

Second, I haven't posted to the thread since, because I was satisfied that your explanation was better than mine. I don't mind you telling me I'm wrong when I obviously am, but you will get off my back about it now because I am not interested in listening to you vent. Shit happens, it gets fixed; get over it. You are stepping over the line here from answering a question to making a personal comment, and I am just not interested in it. understood?

Thank you for giving a decent answer to the OPs question, and may we continue to enjoy the wikipedia experience in peace.

--Ludwigs2 17:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AR: Moving forward

This is just to let you know that in an effort to move editing along on the Aesthetic Realism article, I am going to post the completed Poetry section on the talk page (the mainpage is locked) for comment. Hopefully this will lead to cooperation on the rest of the article. If not, we will have to appeal to WP:30, but I think it is worth a try. I know you are an interested party. Trouver (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC) PS: Love your message on top! We need to laugh around here.

The WP:FRINGE discussion

I only just noticed this discussion, but there’s something I thought I should point out to you about it: I think I know what the confusion there was resulting from. What the earlier WP:FRINGE debate resolved was that the hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe, and you mentioned that in your comment on the discussion that I linked to, but your resolution to the debate we had over this topic didn’t clearly state this. What you said in your resolution was "Research into race and intelligence is not 'fringe'", and Aprock and Slrubenstein were interpreting this to mean that the entire topic of race and intelligence isn’t fringe, but the hereditarian hypothesis still is.

Since (as you said in your comment there) we’ve resolved that the hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe, I think you should edit your resolution to the debate about this in order to state this specifically. As long as the only conclusion you state there is that “Research into race and intelligence is not ‘fringe’”, there’s a danger that users will continue to misinterpret this conclusion the way happened in this case. Could you please edit the resolution of that debate to state specifically what was resolved in it? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. In fact, I think someone should make a master list of (one-sentence) "mediation decisions made so far" or "resolved matters of fact" which we can point to should another editor wander in (or a current editor hasn't kept up). I'm going to TRY to do it today, but I just want to "heads up" you two moderator-types in case you think it's a bad idea. Also, does such a list exist already?

Oh, and ludwig: yes, I agree with the message you left me. Also, some of that occurred to me already but I spent so much time on the thing (about 4 hours) that I just couldn't do the final phase, which Arthur Clarke said (in his suggestions for writers) is to "ruthlessly slice out and throw away, without exception, every single paragraph, sentence, and word you possibly can and still make your point". [not an exact quote]. My heuristic, which I always try to remember, is "If it's long, nobody will read your shit."

Also, I really don't feel good about the propriety of my content wherein I describe my nubbin-rubbin' BDSM fantasies about the professor, even though it's just two sentences. While I do try to inject humor intermittently to wake the reader up, that violates another heuristic, "Nobody wants to read your personal shit". Just FYI.

After your(?) comments to me once before, I already established a "watchdog monitor" in my head which generates an interrupt when it detects me getting too excited and negative on Wikipedia, and it HAS stopped me from writing some injudicious stuff here. Now, I just added another condition so it warns me if I'm getting too excited-positive too. TechnoFaye Kane 14:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where Occam gets the idea that I think research into genetics and intelligence w.r.t race is fringe. On the other hand, I have suggested that the mediation results be summarized to help avoid these understandings. A.Prock (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

When you make a point of distinguishing between “research” and “conclusions”, in order to point out that the resolution of the discussion only said that the research on this topic isn’t fringe, it certainly appears that you’re implying that the (hereditarian) conclusions are fringe. If you weren’t saying that, I don’t think I understand what you were saying in that discussion.

You don’t need to explain it, though, since it’s not important at this point. The important point is that since the debate about this topic determined that both research about race and intelligence and the hereditarian hypothesis are not fringe (and Ludwig has acknowledged this), then his summary of the debate’s resolution should make it clear that this applies to the hereditarian hypothesis also, and not just research into this topic in general. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

well, first off, 'fringe' only really applies to research (very broadly stated). Ideas themselves are never fringe: the term applies when an idea appears in the literature in a very minor way (with only a small cohort presenting research that most other scholars don't notice). You can't equate being fringe with being refuted - refuted ideas that continue to be presented are pseudoscience, not fringe. fringe ideas may be valid or invalid, they simply don't have any (current) acceptance. I'll go ahead and tweak the wording a bit to make that clearer.

I'll also make a summary of our established points to date later today (unless one of you does it first). I've been meaning to anyway, but I have a brain like a seive.

And faye - don't worry about getting enthusiastic. Brian should (and I think does) take it as a compliment, and if he is a little uncomfortable about it... C'est la vie - no question that he'll get over it fairly quickly. it's an innocent thing that's not something you should worry about. --Ludwigs2 16:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

“I'll also make a summary of our established points to date later today (unless one of you does it first).”

Since it’s now been four days and you still haven’t done this yet, TechnoFaye seems to be making an attempt at it himself. I’m not sure whether or not you’ll approve of the way he’s handling it, but you probably should have expected something like this if you were going to say what I quoted and then not make the summary yourself. Something I think you should keep in mind is that this summary is something we need, and TechnoFaye appears to be the only person who’s volunteering to write it, so you probably ought to work with him to help improve his own attempt if you still aren’t willing to do it yourself. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)