Biohistorian15

revision as of 17:28, 19 September 2024

I get that the source is criticism of Lynn work. But they did an analysis of his data sets and found his conclusions to be faulty. I'm not certain if those were all his data sets (I say because the article talks about the data sets around black individuals) but the fact that a large group of experts have called for the main body of his work to be retracted which does effect part of what he adds to the article should be taken into account.

I think it might be more than simple criticism of him as a person and might be the grain of salt that has to be taken when an expert or researcher has obvious ulterior motives. Retraction of scientific work is a huge deal and rarely done even when experiments were faulty.

I don't believe in removing Lynn's work unless a full retraction for manipulation of data is issued but it's definitely something that needs context of some type in the article.

First source

Call for retraction of Lynn's work

I brought this here first because I don't want this becoming a 4 day discussion over 2 sentences that inadvertently devolves into how awful Lynn is as a person.

RCSCott91 (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@RCSCott91. I've seen this multiple times, you know. His work on completely unrelated topics was/is also undermined this way.

On the other hand, someone calling for the retraction of somebody else that so happens to do highly politicized research is definitely suspect.

Since you've demonstrated relevance here, nonetheless, do you think making it a note would work? (Cf. Template:Efn) Biohistorian15 (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, making it a Note would probably the most appropriate considering the call for retraction hasn't been acted on yet. It shows that there is disagreement acknowledged but doesn't disregard that the research was considered peer reviewed at the time of publication. RCSCott91 (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, sounds a lot better already. Thanks. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you wish to do the note or have me attempt it? I must warn I have never done one before, although I would probably study how a finished one looks in wiki and try to mimic it.

Also, We both just received a topic alert. Which feels a bit late for me because I've been editing that Jewish intelligence article for a month but they are strained on admins and stuff. RCSCott91 (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I just added it back in. It was due after all.

I wouldn't worry too much about that user warning/notice if I were you; these are common.

Realistically though, all this was wasted time because the same editors as usual will immediately jump in, revert me and cite ~5 additional criticisms on top... Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. Worst case, article talk page for consensus.

Honestly, until and if his work is retracted, this seems to be in line with WP:NPOV RCSCott91 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Biohistorian15 You should probably be aware that I disagree with Lynn's conclusions and beliefs but his findings seem on par with outcomes for persons of color in the USA. The residual effects of Jim Crow era only began to be fully addressed in the last decades and considering that his data doesn't correct for economic-social status, I'm under the impression that he was measuring the disparity in America, whether he intended it or not. RCSCott91 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, @RCSCott91, for some reason, your message did not seem to have resulted in a ping... Lynn and his colleagues - as far as I remember - were keenly aware of these possibilities and tried statistically correcting for them. Whether they were successful or not is another matter. But we should discuss such issues on the respective article's talk page when it becomes necessary. Biohistorian15 (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topics alert

You have recently made edits related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. This is a standard message to inform you that the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Disappointed

I am disappointed in this edit of yours at Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. After your previous attempt at this was reverted along with an invitation to discuss, you chose not to discuss, but simply to insist on your original edit by reinserting it. Disappointed; I didn't think this was your way. Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot. Come on, talk page discussions are just a lengthy matter for such minimal edits. I self-reverted now that you disagree.

I actually don't really like WP:BRD. I think people should more often have <3RR skirmishes with valid edit summaries without pointing just to talk.

Sorry if I inadvertently offended you. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't care; other hills and battles and all that. Put it back if you want. Mathglot (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot. I actually feel surprisingly bad now. It's not like I meant to offend you.

Should I ping you for a centralized discussion (e.g. at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism) regarding the possible inclusion of a few dozen such LGBTQ-related articles when I finally get to setting it up? Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, no offense taken. Please don't feel bad, that was not my intention. It's not personal, it's just an encyclopedia, and a pretty insignificant corner of it, at that. I don't doubt your good faith or desire to improve it; the reaction probably comes down to a difference in style; namely, what you pointed out as "more 3RR skirmishes", and I think there should be fewer 2RR and I don't even see the point after 1RR because it's not like one more revert on either side is likely to be persuasive. Sure, ping me if you raise it at WP Conservatism, which is probably the first stop on what I view as a larger issue, which goes beyond just conservatism or just one end of the political axis (because the same thing could be done on the left) into questions like whether such groupings which correlate some of the time but not all of the time may paint everyone with too broad a brush, and who gets to decide. Then again, it's not like a project banner needs some kind of verifiability or citation, so maybe it's overthinking it. All those questions occur to me, but I agree with you that WP:Conservatism is the logical starting place. And I apologize again if you felt bad; please don't, we are both on the same team, trying to improve this crazy-wonderful-sometimes contentious project. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing things up for me! Will ping you at some point. :)

Your right about style. Maybe my editing in very controversial content areas has made me a tad too aggressive. It's kind of the only way to mentally survive there. Especially talk page discussions are often strategically used by WP:OWN-violators as to waste dozens of their opponents hours over relatively minor edits. That obviously wasn't your intent though. Happy editing too! Biohistorian15 (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

By pure chance, this edit at another article TP just hit my watchlist. It might offer a nifty solution to cases like the one under discussion, and I would certainly have no objection to the same edit being performed in the headers of Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. (That said, the line above it is the same issue as here, though not the one I am pointing to.) What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)