User talk:Andrewa/Archive 23
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
Controversial Issue and Consensus
Hello Andrewa,
I'm a relatively new editor and would like your advice. I felt you might be a good fit to help given the inclusion of the picture on the top of your page.
I am trying to edit a page that has very controversial connotations, and have felt I've been met with the "contradiction" response, refutation with little/no evidence provided. I'm well read on the subject, but may be making community mistakes as per the rules (at least so I keep being told). I understand the conclusion is not tolerated in society, especially politically, but it is documented in many sources; thus, there is a discrepancy between the laypeople and experts in the field. It is instinctively rejected without analysis of the literature, which caused problems when the discussion went to fringe theories. I want to make sure I follow the correct plan of action, but am continuously having my edits reverted without any response in the talk page. Even my edit that simply reverts the changes by a user who was banned a day after their comments keeps getting reverted. These reverts are primarily by one user, but also by other random users who have never edited the page before, which I find odd. Would you please help me find the right path forward, or at least how to navigate what is acceptable and unacceptable?
The topic is sex differences in intelligence. The conclusion under question is the developmental theory or mean difference in IQ, and the controversial tangent is the male variability hypothesis.
I have a good amount of citations and sources supporting the claim but am met with non-engagement, and no counter citations. I am not saying that the developmental theory/male mean advantage in iq is true, but it is well documented/sourced, appears in many encyclopedias/texts on the subject, and never has been proven false, so should be included, but, however, it is being cast as fringe by contributors here. Additionally, the variability hypothesis has been generally held as the scientific consensus by experts, but the article is incorrectly positioning it as only a possible option and painting the evidence as equally strong on both sides. The page further has statements that are almost entirely unsupported by the citations provided, but my edits addressing this have been reverted and no direct quotes have been given to contend with my claim. My lack of understanding of the rules makes me unable to determine what the correct steps are for addressing the constant reverts and non-engagement in the talk page. I have pulled the following quotes from the 2020 cambridge handbook of the international psychology of women, written by Diane Halpern, a very prominent psychologist in the field and former APA president, to illustrate the validity of my claims. On Mean difference: (each block is a distinct quote pulled from the text)
"Even some critics of Lynn’s (and Irwing’s) studies concede that there are differences in IQ favoring men (d = 0.15, about 2.25 IQ; Blinkhorn, 2005). But other measures of intelligence provide a different conclusion. There are no differences in childhood; on the contrary, girls are usually more advanced. Regarding student achievement in school as measured by grades given by teachers or student assessment tests, girls outperform boys (see Chapter 24 on education in this volume; Stoet & Geary, 2015; Voyer & Voyer, 2014)."
On variance:
I am aware this is controversial, but the sources clearly include these points in the discourse. However, it seems the rules are to align with the beliefs of contributors rather than the experts, but they won't seem to engage adequately. How should I proceed? Thank you for your consideration. |
AndRueM (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Andrewa! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
Nomination of Dessert pizza for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dessert pizza until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished."Johnny be good" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Johnny be good has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 2 § Johnny be good until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Six years! |
---|
DYK for Banner in the Sky
On 15 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Banner in the Sky, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Banner in the Sky inspired a Canadian dentist to climb the Matterhorn? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Banner in the Sky. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Banner in the Sky), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up! It is encouraging to know how well the team has worked. Andrewa (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Greek sockpuppet
@Andrewa Good evening administrator, I noticed that the profile "D.S. Lioness" is identical to the profile "ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη" as the interests are similar, as are the initials of the name, the (first) name and also the ideology (Marxist) are identical between the two profiles. It should be noted that the "ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη" profile on the Greek Wikipedia has already been blocked indefinitely.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.S. Lioness/Archive · BILL1 (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)