This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 7 June 2010 (→Submitting evidence: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:47, 7 June 2010 by Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) (→Submitting evidence: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)- For Barnstars, see: User:David.Kane#Awards.
 Archives |
Draft stuff
I am going to draft some R&I related material here.
Progress on Race and Intelligence has been made as a result of mediation
I started on Misplaced Pages in June 2006 and first became involved with race and intelligence related controversies in
Progress on Race and Intelligence continues to be possible
True progress on Race and Intelligence and related articles seems to require a different sort of editing procedure. In this section, I want to describe three concrete examples of such progress and explain why I think that a good result of this arbitration would be to require that this method be used going forward.
Guidance is needed on applying WP:BLP to contentious claims made about living persons
I suspect that many complaints about my behavior will center around recent disputes about material related to Arthur Jensen, a living person. The original debate is here. Several similar debates have followed, summarized here. Throughout, my behavior has been guided by my understanding of WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The critical question, obviously, is just what "poorly sourced" means in this context. If a reliable source reports that person X says that Arthur Jensen wrote Extreme Claim A, do we just report that fact? Or should we demand to see evidence from Jensen's actual writings that he did, in fact, make Extreme Claim A? I would appreciate guidance from Arb Com on this situation. I argue that my interpretation has been made in good faith and, as evidence, cite the fact that uninvolved editors like Jimbo Wales and
Submitting evidence
I noticed your edit summary - no, evidence doesn't have to be submitted in one piece. It does need to stay under the word limit and avoid personalizing things, but you're welcome to work on it as you have time. As things get started, usually the drafting arbiter will give a timeline or let people know when a proposed decision is in the works so that they can be certain to have their evidence together by that time. Hope that helps. Shell 18:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)