Talk:List of international rankings: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:45, 9 July 2011

Lists Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.

Countries List‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles

List

This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Notes

Why doesn't this article consist of more countries and their international rankings? Whatever, happen to Canada, the UK, Iceland, Norway, France, Germany, and etc... Is there a lack of available data for this information? Why are these specific countries chosen for this article?

Because the articles haven't been created yet. The Evil Spartan 14:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:International rankings. International rankings of France

211.110.55.63 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of IQ and the Wealth of Nations

See [1]. Please explain. Has been cited by numerous independent researchers and thus notable.Miradre (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting that book is WP:UNDUE. No one uses it outside of a narrow group of researchers. aprock (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it has been cited and used by numerous researchers as can be seen in the article about the book. For the purpose of Wikipedia another criteria is notability which it certainly fulfills.Miradre (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is only used by researchers. Including it here is WP:UNDUE. aprock (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it has been cited in numerous newspapers and even caused a political scandal in Finland.Miradre (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the context of research. Come up with a reliable secondary source indicating that this books should be used as a list of international rankings by the international community. Otherwise, this is undue. aprock (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The political scandal was not limited to research. For the purpose of WP notability is not limited to research. Something mentioned in many newspaper stories is notable. Also, again, I point the numerous researchers who have written many papers using and commenting on the book. It makes it notable also for research. I can cite dozens of studies showing it has been used by scientific community for further research using its rankings.Miradre (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one considers this to be a list of international rankings. A few researchers using the data for further research, and a political scandal here or there, does not change that fact. At this point the conversation appears to be over. Failure to produce secondary sources which indicate that this is a "list of international rankings" that is considered outside of research indicates inclusion is undue. aprock (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you wanted a secondary source. Here is one, a peer-reviewed literature review in a journal published by the American Psychological Association: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miradre (talk • contribs)

Again that reference is WP:UNDUE, since it is a controversial primary source. Please stop spamming neutral wikipedia articles with contentious material related to WP:ARBR&I. That is highly disruptive editing. Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a primary source anymore than the other rankings. May I remind you that you have voluntary promised to permanently stay out of these articles as a condition for your topic ban by the Arbcom being lifted.Miradre (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it is, since all the material is contentious and totally irrelevant here. I have no topic ban in force and certainly this neutral and anodyne list article has nothing whasoever to do with any ArbCom cases in which I have been a participant.

On the other hand you are currently editing under an extremely short leash in view of the severity of previous reports at WP:AE. If you are in any doubt, please feel free to seek clarification from arbitrators directly. But edits which spam articles in this WP:UNDUE way are absolutely unacceptable. Please stop this now. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who just brought up WP:ARBR&1. May I remind you of this: [3]. Miradre (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ranking that it is controversial does not exclude from Wikipedia. It has been used in numerous peer-reviewed studies establishing its notability and relevance.Miradre (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly feel that I should not be editing this article for any reason whatsoever, then report me at WP:ANI or at WP:AE, or request clarification from ArbCom directly. My understanding about Risker is that she is recused from all matters related to WP:ARBR&I. She has written this on wikipedia on multiple occasions. Perhaps you should confer with your friends SightWatcher, Boothello or TrevelynL85A2, if you feel that I am somehow mistaken about this. However, as I see it. your spamming of articles like this with irrelevant and WP:UNDUE material is completely unacceptable tendentious editing, which should please stop now. As I have said, if you truly think that I am editing in a problematic way, then please go ahead and make a report either directly to arbitrators (a request for clarification or amendment) or on a public noticeboard. However, before doing so, please read WP:BOOMERANG. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there continuing problems such as those that lead you to be topic banned from the area I must of course reluctantly take actions. But I hope that this will not be necessary.Miradre (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You evidently did not read WP:BOOMERANG. Please do so now. Otherwise please explain in simple terms, why this article has anything whatsoever to do with race and intelligence broadly interpreted. Take your time if necessary—there is no rush. The material you wish to add is contentious and WP:UNDUE: you have now been made quite aware of why that is so. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was you yourself who brought up WP:ARBR&I just a few replies above. That a material is controversial is of course not a justification for excluding it from Wikipedia. The data has been used in numerous peer-reviewed studies establishing relevance and notability in the academic community. If you do not want to have it under the title "Demographics" we can use "IQ" instead.Miradre (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, since from what I understand English is not your native language (isn't it Swedish?), you might not have undersood my question properly. So please allow me to repeat it: please explain in simple terms, why this article has anything to do with race and intelligence broadly interpreted. You made that claim and, unless you justify yourself, your comments here are unjustified personal attacks and harrassment. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 :::::::::::::::You evidently did not read [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. Please do so now. Otherwise please explain in simple terms, why this article has anything whatsoever to do with race and intelligence broadly interpreted. Take your time if necessary—there is no rush. The material you wish to add is contentious and [[WP:UNDUE]]: you have now been made quite aware of why that is so. Thanks, [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 08:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 ::::::::::::::::It was you yourself who brought up WP:ARBR&I just a few replies above. That a material is controversial is of course not a justification for excluding it from Wikipedia. The data has been used in numerous peer-reviewed studies establishing relevance and notability in the academic community. If you do not want to have it under the title "Demographics" we can use "IQ" instead.[[User:Miradre|Miradre]] ([[User talk:Miradre|talk]]) 08:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
+{{od}} Perhaps, since from what I understand English is not your native language (isn't it Swedish?), you might not have undersood my question properly. So please allow me to repeat it: '''please explain in simple terms, why this article has anything to do with race and intelligence broadly interpreted'''. You made that claim and, unless you justify yourself, your comments here are unjustified personal attacks and harrassment. Thanks, [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 08:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)