Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Concerns about: Evolution of human intelligence

I'm concerned about the balance and focus of this article Evolution of human intelligence. It talks a lot about a few speculative theories of how race might be related to intelligence and little else. The sources used are mostly supporters of theories about race and intelligence:

• Mankind Quarterly
• Richard Lynn
• Linda S. Gottfredson
• Philippe Rushton

It seems like a very one sided article about a fascinating topic where the most prominent and well accepted research has little to do with theories of race. Could some one take a look at it and suggest how to revise it, or perhaps where to merge the material in this article? Most of this material was moved out of the article on Race and intelligence, and I agree that it fits better under Evolution of human intelligence... but now that article is unbalanced. futurebird 02:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a better place where I can post these concerns wher they may get some respone? futurebird 14:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this a case of systemic bias?

The article Royal Burial Ground focuses on a cemetary used by a royal family that is shared amongst 16 countries around the world; cited material supports that the family is shared between the United Kingdom and Canada, and is dubbed both the British Royal Family and the Canadian Royal Family, depending on context. However, in this case, the article's opening text concentrated solely on the family's relation to the United Kingdom. I have attempted to remedy this narrow POV; however, two particular editors insist that the UK should be the sole country associated with the mentioned royal family. To my mind, their actions support a systemically biased point of view, in complete denial of verifiable sources that proove how narrow this POV is.

Any input would be appreciated. --G2bambino 04:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Technocracy movement North American biased?

While asking this ill admit that I might be somewhat biased on the subject so would like opinions of others.

while being relatively new to the subject Technocracy movement, I think that there is no inclusion of movements outside of the US/Canada, I know one exists in Europe which any references have been removed, possibly for valid reasons at the time, and there may be others in other parts of the world.

I am refraining from editing myself as I know I will immediately be reverted and accused of having a conflict of interest by a particular editor

If anyone has an opinion on whether inclusion is valid or not, or if this should be discussed else where?

thx for any assistance (Firebladed (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Honorifics in naming of biographical articles re deities, clergy, prophets etc.

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Problem with "Honorifics for deities". It seems (at least to me) that MoS and related pages are tilting the playing field. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Argh! Bot moved to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_121. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Items to delete from the list because they are improved

I'm posting these here for comment.

Malawi (GA status), Mali (rated GA), Papua New Guinea (was GA & is now B class), Tanzania (has 2 ratings of B Class), Tanzania's city of Dar-es-Salaam (has 2 ratings of B Class), and Western Sahara (has 2 ratings of B Class) Cloveapple (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Burkina Faso (2 B Class ratings), Burundi (GA status), Cameroon (FA status), Central African Republic (1 B Class rating), Chad (FA status), Comoros (GA article status), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1 B Class rating), Côte d'Ivoire (B Class rating), Georgia (rated B Class/failed GA), Guinea-Bissau (B Class), Madagascar (2 B Class ratings) Cloveapple (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you can be bold and edit the page yourself...I've never seen this page before and I've been here five years...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm working up to semibold, maybe a nice italic. Eventually I'll hit bold. :-) I'm posting in talk before editing the actual page becase the Open Tasks page says "If a user feels that a country article has progressed to the level where it may be replaced by another, please seek consensus on the talk page." It's amazing how many projects there are. I'm sure I'll never see them all myself. Cloveapple (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed these countries from the list. Cloveapple (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for updating what needs to be updated years ago. I would not noticed that anyways, despite all these years of updating the list. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I just had fresh eyes. :-) Cloveapple (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That is good, because they are needed. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Poverty and the poor in industrialized countries

Despite mention at Wikipedia:Systemic bias, there's no clear place for articles on poverty in wealthy countries here. And there should be. Here are some examples:

• Chicago Housing Authority — Home to hundreds of thousands of people over decades. Stub.
• Great Depression in the United States does not consider its impact on the poor or unemployed
• African American ghettos, a section of ghetto
• Long-term_unemployment, a two-line section of Unemployment
• Sharecropping could probably use independent articles on the United States and Italy
• Rural poverty could be expanded with more regional attention
• Social and economic stratification in Appalachia

Right now, our class-bias open tasks are all called "labor-related," perhaps we could change that.--Carwil (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Include The Ward, Toronto as an example of an historic "impoverished" neighbourhood in an otherwise wealthy and industrialized G8 country. The First Nations are another example of a group subject to extreme Third-World-like poverty in an otherwise wealthy and industrialized G8 country as well. That otherwise wealthy and industrialized G8 country is Canada. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So what's a good heading? Lower class? Economic class doesn't quite seem like the right heading. (Unless you think the rich are under represented too.) I'm leaning towards "Poverty." Cloveapple (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Let's call it poverty. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 20:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Countries

What do you all consider when listing a country as "ignored by Wikipedia"? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 1 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)

I don't think there are any real rules. If there were a disagreement, I imagine we'd develop a consensus about that, but I don't think there's been one. If you're asking because you'd like to add one, I'd say go ahead. If you're asking because you dispute one, you should probably just address it here. Other than that, I trust most people's judgment in the matter. You might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Geography. --Dmcdevit 1 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)