User talk:Slrubenstein/Jagz
Nick, you say no one has objcted to my proposal but Jagz has, repeatedly, like here. More important, Jagz refuses any informed reasonable discussion. In the many months he has been participating in this talk page he has pushed only one POV - a racist view that simply disregards any actual discussion of mainstream science. He has never responded constructively to my comments, or Alun's, or Ramdrake's, except to dismiss or insult us. Even now, he is trying to subvert any attempt at mediation by making ad hominem attacks against Tim Vickers - and Jagz does not even want to participate in any mediation!! That is because he is a troll; he sinmply wants to use this page to promote his racist views, and he does not want to see any constructive work done on the article. So we have a dispute and it needs resolving. He took the first step himself, by posting an RfC. The RfC didn't go his way so now he doesn't want to take any further steps to resolve any disputes. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Acknowledged, although this seems to be an objection without a corresponding argument. Lets just say nobody has given a substantial reason for NOT following your proposal. If Jagz would like to put forward a case or a proposal then we should consider it. Currently I don't believe that he has - although I may well have missed it given the current multi-threaded talk page.Nick Connolly (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the editors on this article have already proven my point by persecuting me for not rejecting the genetic view. Rejecting the view would be unscientific and if I did so I would consider myself a putz. --Jagz (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, Jagz, by the same token, you would need to consider seriously "creation science" and a whole bunch of disputable science to say the least. The proponents of "creation science" are dead serious about the fact that they are doing science, so why is it that anyone gives themselves the right not to take their science seriously? Because there is consensus that this isn't science worthy of the name. Similarly, race and intelligence theories (for the most part - such as Rushton's and Lynn's theories) aren't taken too seriously by a (majority) consensus of experts in the field. On that basis alone, we can label it as fringe science. I'd direct you, if you want an example of such consensus, to the Lieberman paper "How Caucasoids Got Such Large Crania and Why They Shrank", which I linked to in the last section below. That is but one example.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ramdrake, we are never going to see eye to eye so give your fingers a rest. --Jagz (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, then please understand that by reiterating your objections and by failing to address the objections of others to your position, you are just placing yourself out of the consensus. However, consensus must happen with or without you. Don't be surprised when it happens without you.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ramdrake, we are never going to see eye to eye so give your fingers a rest. --Jagz (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again, Jagz, by the same token, you would need to consider seriously "creation science" and a whole bunch of disputable science to say the least. The proponents of "creation science" are dead serious about the fact that they are doing science, so why is it that anyone gives themselves the right not to take their science seriously? Because there is consensus that this isn't science worthy of the name. Similarly, race and intelligence theories (for the most part - such as Rushton's and Lynn's theories) aren't taken too seriously by a (majority) consensus of experts in the field. On that basis alone, we can label it as fringe science. I'd direct you, if you want an example of such consensus, to the Lieberman paper "How Caucasoids Got Such Large Crania and Why They Shrank", which I linked to in the last section below. That is but one example.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the editors on this article have already proven my point by persecuting me for not rejecting the genetic view. Rejecting the view would be unscientific and if I did so I would consider myself a putz. --Jagz (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Acknowledged, although this seems to be an objection without a corresponding argument. Lets just say nobody has given a substantial reason for NOT following your proposal. If Jagz would like to put forward a case or a proposal then we should consider it. Currently I don't believe that he has - although I may well have missed it given the current multi-threaded talk page.Nick Connolly (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not off-topic, it is an anaolgy. A-N-A-L-O-G-Y. If you do not have a dictionary you can use Answers.com. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Lets try to keep discussion focused on how to move ahead on the content of the article.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have to consider creation science because it is not in the article. Genetics is however in the article and has been in there a long time. There are too many discoveries being made in genetics now to discard it. It's not like it was in the 1930s. --Jagz (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Jagz, you are not alone in the view that anyone publicly discussing race and intelligence risks attack (briefly discussed here: [1] elsewhere: "Gottfredson (1998, 2005) has correctly pointed out that findings of racial influences on intelligence are deeply disturbing to many social scientists who are then motivated to attack reports of differences." [2]) and that social forces align to reward those who are speak contrary to the subject. --Legalleft (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
SLR, It may help to clarify what mediation does and does not mean. For example, the role of the mediator. --Legalleft (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Mediation LeadSongDog (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Jagz, that genetics has been in the article a long time means nothing: there is no rule in Wikipedia that the longer something has been in the article the harder it should be to discard. This is just irrational. We discard things that violate our policies or are inaccurate or irrelevant. You write, "There are too many discoveries being made in genetics now to discard it. It's not like it was in the 1930s." Alund has provided a detailed explanation of how discoveries in genetics since the 1930s should lead us to deiscard the discussion of genetics, or most of it, from this article. Now please tell me what discovering in genetics since the 1930s you have in mind that you that you think requires us to devote a substantial portion of this article to genetics? You mention "many" discoveries in genetics. Please explain to me just one discover in genetics since the 1930s that shows a link between race and intelligence. Just one. It is time for you to put your money where your mouth is. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- My point was that there is no sound scientific reason to discard the genetic view, especially in light of the new genetic discoveries (in general) that are being made. Whether it should or should not be in the article will, I believe, be addressed by mediation. It is something that was put into the article by someone else and was allowed to remain for an extended period of time. I can't see creation science ever making it into the article for any length of time so I'm not going to discuss it, even as an analogy. Let's save this discussion for mediation. --Jagz (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Jagz, the way this works is that if there is a specific discovery in genetics that supports the genetic view, it should go in. So far, there haven't been any. Therefore, your argument doesn't apply. We can certainly wait for mediation, but everyone here has been asking you for specific points to support your position, and so far, everything you have supplied are generalizations such as the one above. Somehow, I suspect the mediator may also come to the same conclusion. This sounds like, as you've been told more than once already, that you want to ask the other parent again. What would really be helpful would be for you to bring up specific points to try to support your position.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- To clairfy, "the mediator assists two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement on a matter of common interest." (emph added) While I agree that the mediator will likely "ask you for specific points to support your position" - it is in the service of helping the mediator help us arrive at a mutually agreeable point to move forward. Not because the mediator is some type of final judge of the validity or value of content or approach. (except "Where the position of one disputant is clearly unreasonable, fringe, or based on a strong point of view, the mediator is not required to subvert the integrity of the encyclopedia in order to reach a resolution.") TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Jagz, the way this works is that if there is a specific discovery in genetics that supports the genetic view, it should go in. So far, there haven't been any. Therefore, your argument doesn't apply. We can certainly wait for mediation, but everyone here has been asking you for specific points to support your position, and so far, everything you have supplied are generalizations such as the one above. Somehow, I suspect the mediator may also come to the same conclusion. This sounds like, as you've been told more than once already, that you want to ask the other parent again. What would really be helpful would be for you to bring up specific points to try to support your position.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No Jagz, you wrote "There are too many discoveries being made in genetics now to discard it. It's not like it was in the 1930s." Obviously you are claiming to know of "many" discoveries in genetics. I am trying to go easy on you. I am asking you to provide just one. Were you just bullshitting us? You said there have been "many discoveries" that should be discussed in this article. Tell us about just one. Just one. Surely you can do that, can't you? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No Jaqgz, I am not going to ask Legalleft because I am not responding to what he wrote, i am responding to what you wrote. You wrote, "There are too many discoveries being made in genetics now to discard it. It's not like it was in the 1930s." What exactly are you referring to? You said you know something, now tell us what you know. Or, if you really do not know, stop BSing and just leave this page. That is right, if you really do not know anything about the topic, you should not be involved in improving the article on the topic. Oh, do you know something? Well, you said you know of many discoveries in genetis since the 1930s about the link between race and IQ. So please, tell us, tell us about just one of these discoveries. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)