Sombe19

November 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Myopia has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Myopia was changed by Sombe19 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.903099 on 2014-11-29T02:43:35+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sombe19, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sombe19! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

February 2015

Your recent editing history at Eugenics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Active discretionary sanctions at articles related to Race and intelligence

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · snunɐɯ· 18:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• You should understand that these sanctions means that severe sanctions can be placed on you for relatively small infractions - such as editwarring to insert non-neutral POV as you are currently doing on two different articles. If you keep this behavior up you are likely to get blocked.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The Snyderman and Rothman survey

Hello, Sombe9. I have been reading the discussion on the talk page of the race and intelligence article. I can't participate in that discussion because the talk page is semi-protected, but I have a suggestion for you.

Instead of basing your argument about the majority opinion of intelligence researchers on a source from the 1980s, a source it would be better to use is Rindermann 2013. As User:Maunus mentioned here, the principal problem with the Snyderman and Rothman survey is that it predates most of the recent debates about race and intelligence, but the 2013 survey does not have that problem.

In the 2013 survey, the question most relevant to the current article is the one on page 16:

"Sources of U.S. black-white differences in IQ

• 0% of differences due to genes: 17% of our experts
• 0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of our experts
• 50% of differences due to genes: 18% of our experts
• 60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of our experts
• 100% of differences due to genes: 5% of our experts"

These results were presented at the 2013 ISIR conference. This survey is a primary source, so the race and intelligence article probably should not cite it directly. But it is useful as a way to gauge what the views of experts in this area are, and it is much more current than Snyderman and Rothman. 103.47.145.143 (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! That was very helpful. Sombe19 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This material is coppypasted from Metapedia - hardly a reliable source for anything having todo with race. We have considered using Rinderman's data before but since it has not yet been published in a peer reviewed form it is not apt for inclusion. Furthermore it is a very narrow survey surveying only psychometricians - who are not experts on race, and among whom a particular view of intelligence is overreprsented. So no, this is not a useful source.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't copy this from Metapedia. I know about the survey because I follow research in this field, and the summary is copied out of the paper itself. The linked paper was presented ISIR, not Metapedia. If people at Metapedia are quoting it too, that does not surprise me, but I wasn't aware of that before you mentioned it.

Note that I said in my comment above: "This survey is a primary source, so the race and intelligence article probably should not cite it directly." However, Wikipedians can still use primary sources as a guide for judging the proportion of viewpoints in various fields.

You also are incorrect that the survey only looked at psychometricians. I think you are confusing this survey with the Snyderman and Rothman one. Rindermann surveyed a much broader sampling of researchers (and that is mentioned in the paper). He surveyed anyone who had published papers in the following journals:

• Intelligence

• Cognitive Psychology

• Biological Psychology (if article addressed intelligence or a related topic)

• Journal of Mathematical Psychology (i a i)

• Contemporary Educational Psychology (i a i)

• Journal of School-Psychology (i a i)

• New Ideas in Psychology (i a i)

• Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (i a i)

This is a far broader sampling of experts than "only psychometricians". It is basically any researchers who have published papers related to intelligence or cognitive psychology in major psychology journals.

That seems a reasonable set of criteria for inclusion in the survey. Nearly all of the technical arguments about race and intelligence - such as heritability of IQ within and between groups, causes of the Flynn Effect, or the evidence for and against Spearman's Hypothesis - involves concepts that require some background on intelligence or cognitive psychology. Psychology journals also are where at least 75% of the research on these topics gets published. 103.47.145.173 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, true he did also survey non+psychometrician psychologists - but not experts in the other half of the question, namely race. To be representative of actual experts in the question it should also include anthropologists, sociologists and education researchers. When it is published and referred to by other sources it can surely be included as a source on the views of the 228 psychologists surveyed. Meanwhile a sample of 228 psychologists cannot be taken to supersede the fact of what is actually published in mainstream journals - which is not in line with the numbers he gives. The progress of science is not determined by a vote, but by peer review.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that the list of journals above includes the Journal of School-Psychology. That suggests Rindermann's sample also included educationalists, as long as they had published at least one paper in that journal dealing with intelligence.

With respect to anthropologists and sociologists, how often those fields conduct actual research about race and intelligence? I don't mean papers that just criticize other people's conclusions, such as the Lieberman 2001 paper; I mean entirely new studies or meta-analyses. Even for data that opposes the hereditarian perspective (such as the Wicherts 2010 review), in virtually every case it was a psychologist who collected it. The only exception I can think of is James Flynn, and he's a political scientist, not an anthropologist or sociologist.

Please note that I'm not arguing papers such as Lieberman's aren't reliable. What I am saying is that race and intelligence is specifically an area of research in psychology (including educational psychology), the same way that speciation is an area of research in evolutionary biology. In both cases, people in other fields have written about it too, but they aren't the ones doing the actual research. 103.47.145.173 (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is an absurd statement. R&I is a topic about which only a minority of psychologists and sociologists are sufficiently ignorant of the relevant scientific findings regarding race to "conduct research". That does not mean that their claims about race and intelligence are more relevant than people who are expert in race, or those who are experts in intelligence but consider the field too pseudoscientific to be the topic of actual research.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI

I've mentioned you at ANI.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for tendentious editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked?

Can someone please explain why I have been indefinitely blocked?

It is not I who is guilty of tendentious editing. I have read the policy page on tendentious editing. Everything that I have added is fully referenced and cited. And as I have stated in the past, I believe that what I have added represents mainstream opinion and scholarly consensus. (See Mainstream Science on Intelligence and the Snyderman and Rothman study)

In the past I have suggested that Maunus and Volunteer Marek add in some of their own material to balance what I have added (see here: [1]). I am not an expert in their environmental determinist point of view. I have also been willing to come to a compromise (see here: [2]). These are not the hallmarks of a tendentious editor.

I instead believe Maunus and Volunteer Marek are guilty of tendentious editing for continually removing my fully referenced and cited additions. It is hard for me to believe that this effort to have me blocked isn't politically motivated.

Maunus has been promoting and dogmatizing his fringe (see the Snyderman and Rothman study) environmental determinist POV. How come I get blocked for "tendentious editing" but this type of behavior doesn't result in sanctions for Maunus and Volunteer Marek? Sombe19 (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You should probably pin Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) if you want them to explain the block.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Sombe19 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I emailed him and I pinged him and he's still not answering me. Sombe19 (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I have another administrator look into this, since Future Prefect at Sunrise isn't answering me? Sombe19 (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Follow the instructions in the block notice for how to request an unblock. Also you may want to note that generally "it was the other guys' fault" is not accepted by admins in considering such requests.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)