Generalrelative
|
|
Pinned comments
editJust an afterthought: I can't help asking myself, why do people hate George Floyd so much that they get themselves blocked in order to besmirch his reputation ? Maybe the answer has been given by Dostoevsky in his The Brothers Karamazov, when he has the old Karamazov say: "I played such a foul trick on a certain man that I started to hate him." If the roots of old racism were economic interests, maybe today's racism is rooted in bad conscience. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I learned about her when I was reading The Boys on the Bus, where the (iirc) one and only mention of her is the author introducing some random thing she said with "Michelle [sic] Clark, a young, extremely beautiful black reporter from CBS's Chicago Bureau had said [...]" and then in a footnote he says "On December 8, 1972, she was killed in a plane crash at Chicago's Midway Airport". I was like, dang, what a way to memorialize someone: I thought she was hot, then she died. Astrophobe (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Editor experience invitation
editHi Generalrelative :) I'm looking to interview people here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invite, Clovermoss :) I'll give it some thought. Generalrelative (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#POV_claims regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RBut (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2024
edit 
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Jo Boaler
editHi Generalrelative. You recently implemented an edit request for Jo Boaler. I thanked you on Talk:Jo Boaler in the context of an additional edit request. I would appreciate if you could go have a look at that request, found here: Talk:Jo Boaler/Archive 1#2021 California Math Framework 2. Thanks in advance, MeanderingWalrus (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Heya, looks like STEMinfo got to this first. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red February 2024
edit
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Since I was writing a reply I couldn't publish...
editI'll inflict it on you anyway, here it is:
Never heard of either (guessing you meant to link American Renaissance (magazine)), but according to WP, they are not very similar to Quillette. Unz does say "blog" btw. Fwiw, I wouldn't add either, assuming they're not blacklisted so I could, so maybe our common sense does have some overlap after all. To me, those articles do look awful for this purpose. The Q is just, long, dull, and me-me-me-whiny. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- I understand how it might look that way at first glance, but this is why WP is not considered a reliable source. Magazines like American Renaissance just say the quiet part out loud, and editorial oversight at Quillette is clearly well-nigh nonexistent so long as the content fits the right ideological message (they are certainly not doing any fact checking). Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red March 2024
edit
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
My apologies
editAs advised by an admin, I took a step back from Heiner Rindermann and now realise that you were completely justified in reverting my edits, given that I had been canvassed by a banned user, and that my reaction was unduly confrontational. I'll try to be more collaborative. Nangaf (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for saying this! I was just thinking of how to compose a similar message to you. Looking back I could certainly have composed my initial comments on your talk page in a less confrontational manner. In my experience it's unfortunately all too easy for good-faith contributors to get our wires crossed and see one another as adversaries when we're actually after the same thing –– which is why I should have taken extra steps to convey AGF. Anyway, glad we're able to squash that dispute. Wikipedia can be frustrating sometimes, but it also has a way of bringing people who have the best interest of the encyclopedia together in the end. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Concerning Psychedelic therapy
editSorry to be bothering you again about an issue we discussed on FTN three years ago (here: [1]). At that time you and some other editors convinced me that I was wrong in thinking that the medical claims for psychedelic therapy should be treated skeptically and perhaps be classified as fringe. An article in today's NY Times made me return to that concern, although not to the extent of wanting to raise it again at FTN, since I'm not suggesting categorizing anything here as fringe. The article [2] focuses on the research at Johns Hopkins University that was led by Roland Griffiths. It describes some serious criticisms of the methodology, such as conflict of interest, confirmation bias, sample bias, placebo effects, and quasi-religious aspects. The article Psychedelic therapy, while acknowledging that the evidence of effectiveness is limited and calling for more research, does not mention criticisms of bias in the research that's been done. I could raise this on the article talk-page, but i wanted to consult with you first. If you have time to read the NY Times article, I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hey NightHeron, thanks for the link. I'll take a look and give it some thought. In the meantime, I saw this recent piece about psilocybin therapy in Oregon: [3]. Will circle back around when I have a bit more time. Generalrelative (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Generalrelative, for your message and the link to an interesting NPR article about the Oregon "experiment" with psilocybin. I was dimly aware of Oregon's experiment from the last section of the Psychedelic therapy article. The NPR article raises fascinating questions. I feel very much like an outsider here. The whole area is far from my own knowledge and experience, either professionally or personally. One question is whether the same standards that apply to experiments with human subjects in physiological medicine need to apply to psychological/psychiatric medicine. The NPR article mentions that issue with the Oregon experiment. I encountered a similar issue in an edit I made to the last subsection of Positive psychology on the US Army's Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, which, like Oregon's psilocybin project, has also been described as an experiment, in that case testing a proposed method to reduce the high rates of suicide, drug abuse, PTSD, and other adverse psychological consequences experienced by U.S. soldiers.
- Wikipedia in general takes a hard line against alt-med in the physiological area, but apparently less so in the psychological/psychiatric area.
- Anyway, when you have some time I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the NY Times article. NightHeron (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, I'd say your assessment is overall correct: Wikipedia tends to take a harder line against alt-med in physiological medicine than in psychology. But I'd say that's largely a function of following the best sources, which tend to do the same. Surely this epistemic caution is at least in part a response to the spectacular implosion of radical behaviorism in the mid-20th century. My view is that a realistic assessment of what we know about the workings of the human psyche –– that is, what we know systematically –– is relatively limited when compared to what we know about the workings of the body (though that too is limited, and there are a few psychological metrics with some degree of construct validity like IQ and the big 5 personality traits). So in the absence of certainty in the literature, our articles likewise reflect uncertainty.
Wrt the NYT piece, I was only able to read a short snippet because I don't have a subscription and my normal method for hopping the paywall isn't currently working. But responding to that: I'm not surprised that some scientists and medical practitioners may be put off by the "new-age" vibe of psilocybin treatment centers. But that in itself is not a data-based critique. Perhaps humans really are the kind of creatures for whom having an experience that can only be described as "transcendent" or "quasi-religious" is the best way to heal certain psychological maladies (with outward behavioral correlates)? If that does turn out to be the case, as more and more data comes in, I'd argue that the scientific attitude would be to shelve our preconceptions about what science-based medicine is supposed to look and feel like. But indeed, collecting that kind of data should be a paramount concern, alongside attempting to treat people who are in acute distress. Just my 2¢ obviously. I do appreciate you looping me in here! Generalrelative (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)- Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I realize that questions of appropriate treatment for psychiatric conditions are complex. The same is true about alt-med for physical conditions. I think that some of the editors who work on the alt-med articles are so oriented toward the U.S. and U.K. that they ignore the reality that much of the world's population has at best limited access to modern medicine and so tries to rely on prescientific and protoscientific approaches, some of which are much better than nothing and some of which are nonsense or worse. The Cuban health ministry, with limited access to standard pharmaceuticals because of the U.S. embargo, has a policy of coexisting with and not discouraging alt-med. From a WP:GLOBAL perspective, there's more going on than "lunatic charlatanism" in Jimmy Wales' famous formulation. Regarding treatment for psychiatric conditions, while recognizing the need to be openminded about approaches that seem to violate standard scientific norms, I think there are dangers as well that need to be acknowledged in unregulated (or very lightly regulated) treatments. For example, Marcia Angell has long been a critic of the over-prescription of psychotropic drugs to children in the U.S. Anyway, thanks again for your observations. NightHeron (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, I'd say your assessment is overall correct: Wikipedia tends to take a harder line against alt-med in physiological medicine than in psychology. But I'd say that's largely a function of following the best sources, which tend to do the same. Surely this epistemic caution is at least in part a response to the spectacular implosion of radical behaviorism in the mid-20th century. My view is that a realistic assessment of what we know about the workings of the human psyche –– that is, what we know systematically –– is relatively limited when compared to what we know about the workings of the body (though that too is limited, and there are a few psychological metrics with some degree of construct validity like IQ and the big 5 personality traits). So in the absence of certainty in the literature, our articles likewise reflect uncertainty.
Women in Red April 2024
edit
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red May 2024
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Time for another move request? Doug Weller talk 07:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Doug, I would support that. Not sure if it's too soon, but since the last one closed as "no consensus" maybe it's fine? I'd want to let someone else take the lead though, since I started the last one. Thanks for asking. Generalrelative (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't blame you. But as people are now helping with my article about a nearby archaeological site, I want to concentrate on that. See User talk:Doug Weller/Pinxton Castle. Any suggestions as to who might? Doug Weller talk 16:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or just go to FTN and ask there? Doug Weller talk 16:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah that looks like a great project. Yes, I agree FTN would be the right venue to see if there's interest. Generalrelative (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I know one editor who will object. They are a problem, see their talk page. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure who you mean, but in any case I've re-added the page to my watchlist. If someone decides to reopen a merge proposal I'll be sure to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I know one editor who will object. They are a problem, see their talk page. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ah that looks like a great project. Yes, I agree FTN would be the right venue to see if there's interest. Generalrelative (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or just go to FTN and ask there? Doug Weller talk 16:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't blame you. But as people are now helping with my article about a nearby archaeological site, I want to concentrate on that. See User talk:Doug Weller/Pinxton Castle. Any suggestions as to who might? Doug Weller talk 16:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2024
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Mussolini Rfc
editSo you can't contribute to an Rfc after being pinged numerous times but can insert yourself in a insignificant squabble between two editors? Interesting priorities you have. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a volunteer here. And the numerous pings were pretty annoying tbh. Generalrelative (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Social Darwinism Young Turks section
editMy claim is that the sources are one sided and do not contain any perspective on Young Turks' side. Have you read Kevorkian article? It is not supported with historical evidences and his claims do not match with the true numbers or incidents. Just because he is an author writing about this subject does not mean he is an expert and his arguments are based on truth. His claims must be examined but, as I have said, there is no read across chance since Turkish view is neglected. Furthermore, the section does not use a tentative language even though it claims that it explains a whole period and a whole generation. I believe that such a subject would require more than 6 sources and 1 paragraph. B0RI$00 (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi B0RI$00, I'd be happy to discuss this with you on the article talk page, where others can join the conversation. Generalrelative (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2024
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Helmuth Nyborg
editI see you have also disputed the IP editor 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751. I believe this is someone's meatpuppet or sockpuppet linked to OpenPsych but do not have enough evidence to go on. In response they are falsely accusing me of being a RationalWiki editor. If you have time you should review 2a02 whitewashing of Helmuth Nyborg's article and the talk page. 51.6.193.169 (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- See also this discussion. 51.6.193.169 (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi IP, I appreciate that your heart is in the right place, but it's important not to WP:CANVASS. You can't specifically ask me to get involved because you see that I've disagreed with that other IP elsewhere. I see that you've brought the matter to FTN, which is the appropriate thing to do. Best to leave it at that.
- There is, unfortunately, no end to meatpuppets and LTAs in this topic area. All that some people have is a self-deceptive belief in their own racial superiority, which they will cling to no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented. Indeed, the more evidence is presented, the more stridently they will defend it. If anything, my work on Wikipedia has made me feel more empathy for such people.
- Wrt the Nyborg article, I see that you already have some very experienced editors involved. And I do already have the article watchlisted. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Emiya1980 Account
editThis is is Emiya1980. Did you have me locked out of my account? I can't help but notice this comes right after our exchange earlier today.2600:1702:5A10:A070:7C84:5500:6FF1:68A5 (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Managed to get online. I apologize for the misunderstanding.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2024
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Userpage
editAren't all genders dubious by definition? Polygnotus (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps, though some people feel pretty adamant about theirs, and I respect that. You've got an epic user page image btw :0 Generalrelative (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Barnstar for you
edit
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your hard work! ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
We interacted with each other quite a bit a year ago. Although we haven't interacted much since then, I have been constantly thinking about it. I want to say to you that I am sorry for the way I behaved. I was really passionate about our overlapping topic of interest at the time, and I am sorry. I wasted your time and I wasted my time. Your work wasn't all for nothing though. As I was a newcomer at the time, you taught me the basics of NPOV and all that, and I really appreciate that. Thank you.
I am not that interested in the topic we often interacted together with anymore, so I've removed most of those articles from my watchlist. But if we do happen to cross paths again in the future, I hope we can do it a bit more like friends :) ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Panamitsu, I really appreciate this. One of my favorite things about being a Wikipedia editor is seeing folks reconcile and work together collaboratively after disagreeing strenuously about some topic they both care deeply about. It really is a beautiful aspect of the project. I've noticed you being a voice of reason in a number of conversations over the past several months, and have thought of saying something to the same effect. So thanks for providing the occasion. Generalrelative (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
September 2024 at Women in Red
edit
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Good faith revert
editI don't think the edit you reverted on Richard Lynn was actually done in good faith. The user's contribution history is pretty suggestive 2 of a tendentious/disruptive point of view (would say more but afraid of casting aspersions). I'm new to Wikipedia but familiar with this kind of behavior. Is there something that can be done about this? Applogies if this is not the right venue to ask. Crystalespeon (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- As a new editor, it's always fine to ask. Frankly we get a lot of disruptive accounts in the race & intelligence / gender & sexuality topic areas, but they tend not to get far or last long. Unless this user becomes an ongoing problem, or they cross a bright red line, I don't think there's anything that can or should be done. For general questions, WP:TEAHOUSE is always a good place to go, but I predict that others have similar advice: as a new user you should generally try concentrate on your own editing rather than other people's. Hope that's helpful! Generalrelative (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice, I'll try to focus on my own improvements to articles. It had been easy for me to worry that these kinds of users were going undetected and unsanctioned. Crystalespeon (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red October 2024
edit
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 08:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Heritability of IQ
editHi. I notice you have closed a section of discussion about whether Hunt was saying the "science is settled" that genes don't explain race differences in intelligence. Can I take it then that you think that that is what he was saying, and additionally that you think that your opinion means no further discussion should be allowed? Raffelate (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Raffelate. FYI, it was actually me who closed it originally. Biohistorian15 (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Then the same question to you. Your interpretation of Hunt is the "science is settled" and this is not to be discussed? Raffelate (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Re AN/I
editHello, I hope I am still welcome here. Answering to your comment:[4]
I actually appreciated your clarification. As I stated to Psychologist Guy on his talk page today, I think most content relating to human race should be semi-protected at this point. Do you think this is something worth pursuing via an RfC or a thread at WP:AN? Biohistorian15 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Biohistorian15, you are definitely welcome here. And yes, I do agree with this proposal. It seems like a long shot to me but I'd be happy to support it.
- I should say: I did think you were likely socking before –– long before that block happened –– and I was clearly wrong. For that I apologize. Given how much deception goes on in this topic area, I hope you will forgive my misdirected suspicion.
- We may disagree about quite a few things, but I respect that you are coming from a place of good faith and circumspection.
- Hope you've been having a nice weekend, Generalrelative (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi again, good to know. Thanks, I'll consider posting to AN about this.
- I'm not sure where the socking accusation really came from; maybe it was my sudden flurry of activity here. That whole affair really caught took me off guard tbh.
- In any case, since we're already at it: as a rightist, I'd like to formally apologize for the the existence of Mikemikev. While I disagree with the content of some of these articles myself, wasting peoples' time obviously won't do.
- Kind regards, Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, there are 4 or 5 literal Nazis who are constantly lurking around the topic area and wasting people's time. Mikemikev has a slightly different tone than the others, but is fundamentally the same. I think they imagine they're doing "psyops". Generalrelative (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you
editWhile the use of an IP and lack of edit history by the same caused suspicions, that discussion over at Talk:Ejaculation never registered as possible LTA to me. I’ll be more vigilant if there’s a next time. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Jtrevor99 Yeah you'd have to know the history, which is frankly long and boring. The way I see it, dealing with trolls is a chore, but it's the flip side of having an open, collaborative project that almost anyone can participate in. Happy editing, Generalrelative (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Might need an SPI? Doug Weller talk 11:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- That IP is definitely block-evading. My opinion is that an SPI shouldn't be necessary when it's this obvious and we're dealing with ARBR&I. Looks like a NOTHERE bag-and-tag situation to me, but it's your call. Generalrelative (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red November 2024
edit
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
edit
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)