Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:38, 10 April 2008

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11.

Quebec

Just to be clear; didn't contest his right to remove things from his page; just warning him about edit warring ahead of time--soulscanner (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

Just wondering if you knew of an uninvolved editor who could take a look at the argument going on on the Quebec page and weigh in? Possibly a total outsider (most editors active on the page are either Quebecers or Canadians) might have a more neutral viewpoint. What bugs me most, looking at the history going back several months, is that we build a consensus around the sentence about national recognition, then some editor who disagrees comes along, ignores the previous consensus and the consensus needs to be rebuilt all over again. If you feel like you want to take a look at it personnally, I'd be very grateful. And sorry for being so silent lately, but I was in the hospital for over two weeks. Fortunately, I'm much better now.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to do such a thing. I am totally impartial regarding the nationhood or otherwise of Quebeckers. Alun (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll

Hi there. Following discussion and for practical reasons, is it possible to remove your vote against René Levesque at Talk:French people/Vote? Thanks - Wikigi | talk to me | 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Weekly Episode 42

Hey there. Just this note that Misplaced Pages Weekly Episode 42 is out.

You can download the episode or listen to the streaming audio at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/03/03/episode-42-the-question-of-muhammad-the-wikiand-everything/, and you can hear past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/ too.

For Misplaced Pages Weekly — WODUP (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal

It sounds fine to me. It certainly seems as though our friend Epf is mixing up definitions. However, what scares me most is his seeming ability to argue with people who say they disagree with him that they really agree with him. Coming back to your proposal, should I just comment on it, or leave it to the members of the group?--Ramdrake (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pink Fairies - Never Neverland.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Pink Fairies - Never Neverland.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

English people and French people

• Hi Alun. I really do not have time to be on here lately or finish our discussion we were having. I hope it is still OK between us and I didn't mean for things to get out of hand. I have a strong belief that misunderstanding and miscommunication is the main factor behind most issues and disagreements anywhere, this being yet another between us. I do admit sometimes I have a difficult time letting things go, especially when I have more important things to be focusing on rather than Wiki. Anyways, I just felt I should note that both the nation and ethnic group aspects to English people need more citations (in terms of that article, the concepts are distinct unless there are ethnic nationalists on that page, lol, I don't know), and French people really needs citations and almost the entire article is OR and POV right now. Anyways, take care. Epf (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

talk:Race and intelligence

this, you have to respond to. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"The concept of 'equality' is declared a lie by every evidence of Nature. It is a search for the lowest common denominator, and its pursuit will destroy every superior race, nation, or culture. In order for a plow horse to run as fast as a race horse you would first have to cripple the race horse; conversely, in order for a race horse to pull as much as a plow horse, you would first have to cripple the plow horse. In either case, the pursuit of equality is the destruction of excellence."

An interesting quote. Thought it may be relevant. --Confederate till Death (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Who ever said people were equal in all things? I never have. Individual variation is apparent to anyone with eyes. The question is not one of "all people are equal in all respects". That is a misrepresentation of the debate. The question is "do races", however constructed, have any biological validity. The evidence of human biological variation (whether measured by physical attributes or genetic ones) indicates that the answer is "no". Is there variation, yes, is this variation distributed into a few well defined "races", the answer is no. This is the crux, misrepresenting the facts is what racist bigots do well, portraying scientific reality is something racist bigots are uninterested in doing. Alun (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have time, would you like to comment here? Thanks for your attention! :)--Ramdrake (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Heritability of IQ

Alun, there seems to be consensus about developing this article (my proposal #2) along lines I and you, separately, have voiced. This is a fielkd in which you have far more expertese and fluency than I. I have copied our discussion on Race & Intelligence to the talk page for this article. Would you be willing to take the lead in rewriting the article so that it complies with our policies and plays its role as a content fork, to linnk to any article on "race" and "IQ," so that all discussion about genetics is in this article and properly contexualized rather than in some inappropriate hybrid? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jagz' strategy is to get us bogged down on talk pages so no substantive work gets done. That is why I think your working on this article to the point where it can replace any discussion of this topic in the Racwe and IQ article is the way to win. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Confederate

In this case, please, just ignore him. This is one case where the "give 'em enough rope" will actually work. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Confederate continued

With all due respect (and I mean that) I think your comment to Confederate till death was unconstructive. Any response to him is feeding a troll. There was an RfC on the neutrality of the article and the overwhelming response was that the article violates NPOV. I made a four-part proposal that one person liked so much, he gave me a branstar. My proposal was not meant to be the last word but a starting point for substantive and productive discussion about how to move forward. I beg you to reread the discussion and look at how effectively Jagz and Confederate till death have utterly derailed my or any attempt to move forward. Look carefully at their comments and you will see disruptive editing that does not address the problems raised by the RfC nore adds to any proposed solution - just disruptive editing. The sad thing is, people keep replying to them, and more and more empty, meaningless talk accumulates - yes, I am including your comments which, though well-informed and reasonable, in this context (replying to a troll) just contribute to their aim to disrupt any productive work. And at this rate in a week or two enough of the talk page will have to be archived, that the RfC and my proposal will disappear, and we will just be left with a debate the terms of which are dictated by Jagz and Confederate till death. They will never stop - the question is, will the people of good faith, like you, who respond to them, who feed them, stop? I do not mean to offend you, I know you act in good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like Confederate has been blocked. I must confess that I dealt with his comments by not reading them - looking back I'm not sure how wise that was. However, I think this just illustrates the need for a stable article on this topic. Brighter minds than ours have already debunked this nonesense - the article is a place to let that debunking be documented.Nick Connolly (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right both of you. I should just have ignored it. I'm currently going through some of the essays in "Race and IQ", especially those discussing hetitability, I think these are most applicable to the "Heritability of IQ" article. I must admit that I'm finding some of it is quite heavy going, but I'm surprised that this book hasn't been cited more in this set of articles, it seems to be a standard text but completely ignored by Misplaced Pages editors. Alun (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey I liked your addition of the "Clustering analysis from Rosenberg" in the Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia article. I have no idea how you do that and was wondering if you possibility could add it to the genetics section of the Kalash. There is already mention of it and the graph would be a great addition. Thanks again for the great work!! Cosmos416 22:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

French people/Vote

I was thinking should we get the page Talk:French people/Vote deleted. What do you think? I'm not sure of the normal procedures here, except that I have some idea that such sub-pages are usually only used on a temporary basis. I think the thing to do is to archive the discussion and then get this page deleted, would that make sense? Alun (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The actual page could become useful if someone was to switch the picture again in the future. Might be good to keep it as it is. Regards - Wikigi | talk to me | 17:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

mediation

can you write up a veru concise statement of the key issue(s) that need to be mediated, here? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge DNA Sculpture

The words highlighted below were recently deleted from the REF article and I have now reinstated them:

"The wording on the DNA sculpture (which was donated by James Watson) outside Clare College's Thirkill Court, Cambridge, England is:

On the base:

"These strands unravel during cell reproduction. Genes are encoded in the sequence of bases."

"The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins."

On the helices:

"The structure of DNA was discovered in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson while Watson lived here at Clare."

"The molecule of DNA has two helical strands that are linked by base pairs Adenine - Thymine or Guanine - Cytosine."

The aluminium sculpture stands fifteen feet high. It took a pair of technicians 1 fortnight (2 weeks) to build it. For the artist responsible it was an opportunity to create a monument that brings together the themes of science and nature; Charles Jencks, Sculptor said "It embraces the trees, you can sit on it and the ground grows up and it twists out of the ground. So it's truly interacting with living things like the turf, and that idea was behind it and I think it does celebrate life and DNA".

The same wording is in place for Crick, Watson, and Wilkins and I can see no good reason why they should not appear in the Rosalind Franklin article; I suggest that it is important to know know that Watson personally donated the sculpture to Clare College, while for posterity alone the description of the sculpture itself is useful. Why someone apparently thinks that RF'S memory needs to be posthumously protected by deleting these words is beyond me! What do you think? Artistically I am NOT a great fan of the sculpture itself but I do like the carefully-chosen wording; anyone walking along the Backs can see it near the entrance to Thurkill Court.

regards, Martin 91.110.150.12 (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a biographical article, a brief mention of the sculpture may be appropriate in the postmous recognition section, but the edit was overly long and too detailed. This article is not about the discovery of the structure of DNA, it is about REF. I know you are a good editor, but essentially your interest is in the discovery of the structure of DNA, and you filter all of your edits to the REF article through this lense, I feel that often you loose perspective and forget that this article is about REF and not the structure of DNA. Alun (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Me "a good editor" wonders will never cease!

I don't have a problem with large scale abbreviation to:

The wording on the new DNA sculpture outside Clare College's Thirkill Court includes the words: "The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins"

But the whole point of JDW having donated the sculpture himself has been lost at the moment.

Personally my theory for the whole DNA issue is that it had a lot more to do with Bragg and Randall as 'puppet masters' for: Bragg - Crick and Watson, Randall - Franklin and Wilkins?

By 'puppet master', I mean that these two laboratory directors controlled their staff and in Bragg's case gave the go ahead for Cambridge to get the recognition of discovering the structure of DNA. Randall I suspect was most aggrieved at the Cavendish Laboratory's success, especially as Wilkins (his deputy director) was effectively aiding and abetting them by talking to Watson and Crick. Hopefully someone will write Randall's biography one of these days!!

Martin 13:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation - Race and Intelligence

Hello, you have been named as an interested party in a request for mediation on the Race and Intellegence Article. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Race_and_intelligence_2 Please stop by and indicate whether or not you wish to participate in this process. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence 2. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

University Challenge (BBC TV)

Guess who was a question on University Challenge tonight with a description of her achievements?

Yes, Rosalind Franklin!

23:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Words reinstated

"The sculpture was donated to Clare College by James Watson of Watson and Francis Crick."

NITRAMREKCAP 91.110.202.69 (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alun, so why did you delete them? Surely you don't "own" the article? Anyone can edit it!

regards,

Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.192.94 (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

R&I article

Instead of adding a tag to the article, why don't you just go ahead and add the other POV. You did nothing to help the article. --Jagz (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)