User talk:TPR editor

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Generalrelative (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on E. O. Wilson. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

It's also against our behavioral guidelines to comment on what you imagine to be other editors' ideological motivations, as you did in this edit summary: [1]. Please knock it off. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be grateful if anyone would provide a reason (ideological or otherwise) for constantly excluding a link to a magazine article relevant to the topic by a respected academic. It seems like a determined effort to exclude an alternative viewpoint. I'm admittedly a naive newcomer here, but these practices seem incompatible with what I thought Wikipedia was all about. Can anyone recommend a next step in this process? Is there some way to pursue consensus --beyond short, cryptic objections--or secure third-party review? In any event, we might all save time if we tried to be more helpful to each other. TPR editor (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it may seem that way. Please do understand that there is a learning curve to editing Wikipedia, and we ordinarily advise folks to acquire experience in less controversial areas before wading into a designated contentious topic like WP:ARBR&I. In any case, we've been engaging with you and providing reasons on the article talk page. Please understand that the WP:ONUS to achieve consensus is on those seeking to include disputed content, so you'll need to actively persuade others if you want to include this stuff. That means taking our reasons seriously, and not pretending we haven't offered any. If you don't understand these reasons, please be sure to click through any and all policy links in the article talk, and if you still don't understand, just ask politely. A great place to seek advice is WP:TEAHOUSE by the way. Generalrelative (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, earlier you posted comments to Talk:E. O. Wilson. At the top of that talk page is a notice reminding editors to "Put new text under old text." Since your comment was at the top of a section, and that section had not had any other activity in almost two years, your comment was moved to a new section at the bottom of the page: Talk:E. O. Wilson#Rushton again (again). Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS, and when something is contested, consensus is usually formed on talk pages. Multiple editors have posted responses to your comments, so that is the best place to attempt to change consensus. Additionally, do not cast aspersions against other editors. Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith. Claiming that editors are "ideologically determined to discredit E.O. Wilson", as you did on another editor's talk page, only poisons the well for future discussion. Grayfell (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. One more thing that might be helpful to you regarding the whole "learning curve" thing is the essay WP:CLUE. Highly recommended reading for new editors. Generalrelative (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your more detailed reply. My immediate apologies for placing my comment at the top of a talk page. Ignorance, but no bad intent on my part involved.

Forgive me for taking your time, but I think you can see that I've been trying to respond to all stated concerns. I learned, for example, that citing a blog post from the editor of Skeptic Magazine was unacceptable. So, I found and cited a relevant article from the magazine itself. The author of that article (Bert Hölldobler, a prominent retired professor at Harvard University and member of the National Academy of Sciences) seems to be a credible source--and was specifically addressing the topic at hand. HIs language was reasoned and temperate.

Basically, I've continued to refine my single-sentence entry to make it as factual and neutral as possible. Readers from all perspectives on this controversial topic might welcome having access to the cited reference therein.

So, with newcomer humility, I'm genuinely puzzled. If we all share the goal of making sure different points of view are represented in Wikipedia, perhaps a more experienced colleague could suggest better wording in one sentence referencing the cited source. Or, if anyone has an objection to source author (Bert Hölldobler) perhaps those objections could be openly stated so we could know what they are.

My name is Gary Pavela (free to Google) and I have no need for anonymity in this process. Ultimately, we should be mutually helpful members of the same team. TPR editor (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. As the CLUE essay emphasizes, we expect new editors to be experiencing that steep learning curve. With regard to your final question, see my comment on article talk about WP's preference for WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY sources. Since Hölldobler co-authored a book with Wilson, he's really not in a position to offer an independent appraisal. An attributed statement by him may be WP:DUE for inclusion if it's mentioned in an independent, secondary source, but probably not otherwise. This is in addition to the related objections raised by Grayfell.

On a practical note: I would advise against beginning with an intention about what you think an article ought to say and then looking for sources to support that intention. In WP-speak, this is called WP:CHERRYPICKING, and it will almost never work when the content is disputed. Rather, survey what reliable, independent, secondary sources are saying about the topic, and then determine whether the current coverage is WP:DUE. In most cases, especially highly-watched biographies like Wilson's, the answer will be yes. In the case of Wilson's bio it might feel like you're running up against a brick wall but this is largely because these surveys have already been done and the current language hashed out over the course of laborious discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, but are you stating a general rule that no one who has co-authored a book with a person who is the subject of a Wikipedia article can be cited in the article itself?

Where can I find such a Wikipedia rule or guidance?

I have four co-authors for a book in press. We argue and question each other often. You might have noticed in the cited article that Hölldobler was critical as well as supportive of Wilson.

The "cherry-picking" critique can be sound, but does not seem to apply to editors who prepared the section about Wilson's presumed affinity for "racist" views. Quite a few cherries had to be picked to generate that weakly supported conclusion.

So, yes, I do seek views that offer a reasoned alternative to allegations of racism against an otherwise admired writer and scientist who can no longer defend himself. Please note in this regard that no one here or in any published source has provided even one example of "racist" views or expression in anything Wilson has said or written. I've looked in this regard and will stand stand corrected based on evidence.

I'm confident that any encyclopedia editor seeing a draft entry that conveyed seemingly distorted and unbalanced views on a subject would send it back for revision. The revision would probably require an effort to provide a broader and fairer perspective. That's not "cherry-picking." It's good editing. I predict that sooner or later, up the line, someone authoritative in Wikipedia will review the evidence here and reach a comparable conclusion. TPR editor (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you one last response for good measure:

Where can I find such a Wikipedia rule or guidance? I linked it for you above: WP:INDEPENDENT. It doesn't mean that a non-independent source can never be used, but typically only in conjunction with independent ones or else to provide trivial information. Only in exceptional circumstances would we consider such a source WP:DUE for secondary analysis, and this does not appear to be one.

Quite a few cherries had to be picked to generate that weakly supported conclusion. Nope. It's based on a survey of the reliable, secondary sources and presented according to due balance. If you disagree, feel free to raise the matter at a noticeboard.

Please note in this regard that no one here or in any published source has provided even one example of "racist" views or expression in anything Wilson has said or written. Which is why we do not call him a racist in Wikivoice.

I predict that sooner or later, up the line, someone authoritative in Wikipedia... There is no such authority here, and that's actually one of the first things you'll need to learn if you want to be part of this project. Wikipedia is a cluocracy, which means that no editor has more authority in a content dispute than any other. Cluocracy means that folks tend to give experienced editors the benefit of the doubt more often than not, but in the end it is the best argument that wins. (You can see an editor's edit counts by clicking on their contrib history like so if you want to see at a glance how experienced they are. When you see someone like Grayfell with nearly 80,000 edits and a clean block log, that's a good sign that they are probably pretty clueful.)

That said, you've only been reverted / disagreed with by 4 editors so far. If you'd like to bring this to a wider audience I'd suggest posting a neutral message at WP:NPOVN. Before doing so, though, I highly recommend reading over the noticeboard to see what a successful post looks like. I hope that's helpful. This will be my final reply to you until I see a substantial shift in the state of the conversation. Generalrelative (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's relevant language from the entry:

"Examinations of his letters after his death revealed that he had supported the psychologist J. Philippe Rushton, whose work on race and intelligence is widely regarded by the scientific community as deeply flawed and racist."

What does the unexplained word "supported" mean? How many readers will see that entry and conclude that Wilson was also "supportive" of racism? No responsible editor would let that inference stand without clarification.

In short, this is what I call a "Trumpism." Use provocative language to suggest an "obvious" conclusion, but deny any such intent later. The damage is done, especially when the person under attack can't defend themselves. Comparable examples of this strategy arose during the McCarthy era.

I understand "four editors" disagree. They also seem to be making a concerted, collective effort prevent any clarification or correction of the misleading language cited above.

Wikipedia may lack established lines of authority, but there are ways to call internal attention to this issue. I will do so. More importantly, in terms of donors and readership, the more these kinds of examples arise, the less credibility Wikipedia will have. I and others will document and call attention to them in multiple forums. TPR editor (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Please see my subsequent related response to Generalrelative.

Pardon my frustration, but I don't see any genuinely helpful advice about my revised, but still-disputed one-sentence post and reference in question.

My experience over the years has been on different editorial teams. If we question a colleague's language we might take a moment and suggest something better (especially if only one sentence is involved). If we dispute the quality of a reference we explain why. I think those kinds of professional--and more generous--approaches would save time for everyone in the end.

References to rules are valuable and I will study them with care. Short, practical suggestions are also appreciated, especially since we all share the same goal of providing the best possible information to readers. --Gary Pavela TPR editor (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a short, practical suggestion then (though it may not be the one you want to hear): stop trying to include disputed content in a designated contentious topic area until you are significantly more experienced at editing Wikipedia.

And just FYI: many of us are also academics who volunteer our precious free time to this project. We are not dumb and we are not out to get you. Believe it or not, we are engaging you because we are assuming good faith on your part and want you to succeed here (it would be a lot easier, and just as effective, to ignore you). We welcome WP:EXPERT editors like you so long as they can refrain from editing tendentiously. Generalrelative (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you're being dismissive, not substantive. If my proposed sentence contains misguided language, would you have a moment to suggest better wording?

One substantive reference just received related to citing one of Wilson's co-authors. If there's a relevant rule against doing so I'll certainly abide by it. Perhaps a better approach--recognizing readers have intelligence too--is to identify the source as a previous co-author and let them decide for themselves.

Meanwhile, I agree that your precious time is valuable. I'm not trying to impose upon it.

I'll keep trying as best I can to respond to reasonable and understandable suggestions from others. I'm almost starting to admire the remarkable creativity involved in this entire process.

I'm obviously and deliberately creating a record. There's a long road ahead. You're a capable person and undoubtedly see the same bias about Wilson's purported "racism" as I do. As previously stated above, I believe authorities at Wikipedia can eventually be convinced to offer a more thoughtful and balanced perspective. TPR editor (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my response above. And please do not presume that I agree with you on any level. Generalrelative (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I will make no such presumption. You're giving me too much evidence to the contrary. TPR editor (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]