330:
306:
273:
75:
531:
386:
439:
418:
264:
1344:(ec) This means that it's okay to mention relevant views of Lynn so long as we make clear that they are rejected by mainstream science -- just as a creationist source could be mentioned in an article about evolution, provided that it's made clear that the creationist POV is rejected by modern science. Of course, neither white supremacy nor creationism is "universally rejected".
32:
213:
159:
449:
1437:
Richard Lynn has credibility regarding the views of
Richard Lynn. Other people have credibility regarding whether Lynn's ideas were viewed as complete crackpottery, plausible enough to motivate further research, worrying enough to justify action even in the absence of certainty, or conclusive. We can
1631:
IIRC, I looked at chapters 13–15 because their titles seemed relevant to the question of dysgenics. One point, directly related to the text quoted in our footnote, immediately made sense to me: looking only at the highest decile and the lowest decile means you're throwing away information about the
1257:
GR's next sentence says "so long as we make clear that they are rejected by mainstream science, as is required by the WP:FRINGE guideline", which your edit does not do. The white supremacist theories of Lynn and his ilk, based on faulty data and faulty reasoning, are rejected by mainstream science.
633:
in their revert of my revert, that this is disallowed. But even if it is, why not just replace the citations with ellipses? The quote is clearly helpful to the reader. Further, Biohistorian15's suggestion that I put it in my own words makes no sense since this quote is within a reference, and we do
910:
We should also take care to not imply that several narrow claims automatically add up to the broad claim. The three examples in the article (draftee fatalities and health; fertility and intelligence; neonatal care and genetic disorders) relate to different traits and are far from the only factors
943:
In any case, I would find "dysgenic hypothesis" objectionable. If e.g. tall people are likely to be drafted, this entails a
Darwinian selection against this trait. The real question would be if there are additional variables that may counter-act this kind of dysgenics (relative to some frame).
1194:
did not reach an agreement, let alone a consensus of multiple editors, but rather ended abruptly when you gratuitously insulted GR. If you think you'll be able to get a consensus for the edit that I reverted, a policy-compliant way to accomplish that would be to ask about the Lynn source at
1608:, (which I thought was a well-observed phenomenon in genetics, though I could be wrong) it would be nice to add this explanation to the sentence sourced to Niesser, because I'm the type of person who thinks the encyclopedia is better if people understand WHY some phenomenon is true. ---
1681:. The Niesser-edited volume may actually serve as both – each chapter is essentially a paper by a different author (a primary source), while its inclusion in the book and its summary in the opening supports both notability and interpretation (a secondary source).
1312:
In all seriousness: it annoys me that the same handful of editors constantly go from contentious talk page to talk page doing little more than stating "I (dis)agree with X" in complicated, sometimes even borderline Wiki-lawyering ways to shift consensus in their
981:
After reading Kevin Bird's recent paper, I'm thinking "Dysgenic pressure" or "Dysgenic predictions" would be a better title than "Dysgenics". Any comments before I start a move discussion? (Including a preference between the two suggestions.)
1632:
shape of the graph – and most people are somewhere in the middle! (To add my own synthesis: consider an imaginary country where poor people are having kids and gaining just enough in welfare benefits to stay afloat, rich parents are hiring
1060:
if you're curious). If we have actual population geneticists in good professional standing making arguments about dysgenic fertility, we can potentially include those in this article, assuming we do so in a manner that is consistent with
958:
I would like to correct my previous statement: extensive
Wikihounding has made it unlikely that I'll engage with this topic to the extent I originally wanted at this time (or ever). So, just ignore that half of the comments above.
1759:
1097:
This is the most basic common-sense judgement imaginable. We can describe Lynn's views, as we already do in this article, so long as we make clear that they are rejected by mainstream science, as is required by the
1001:
I am not sure if it is notable enough yet, but multiple papers indicate that there may be differing rates of dysgenic fertility between racial groupings. I do not consider this claim to be racist at all; in fact,
277:
1764:
1141:"If you really think you have a chance of using his work in any other way" is btw. just another example of the extremely adversarial language you have been using in every single interaction we've had so far.
1652:
There was a lot more in
Niesser that I didn't understand on first read, which is why I didn't summarize it for the article. Maybe I'll go back sometime, but right now I'm extremely busy trying to shepherd
1749:
1120:
I still don't get it. Do I have to describe him as some kind of demonic force multiple times over in one article. How about e.g. pointing to the (supposedly) flawed data you brought up in a note one time.
1294:
How is he not universally rejected? If you think that doesn't apply to him because there are some fringe groups that still accept his work, okay, but GR was referring to "serious scholars" specifically.
1423:
A bad analogy. Shockley won a Nobel Prize for work that had nothing whatsoever to do with his racist views. Richard Lynn's notability comes entirely from his efforts to promote race pseudoscience.
376:
1636:, and middle-class couples feel that the escalating costs of housing and childcare will force them to reduce their quality-of-life if they choose to have more children. You'll have some kind of
749:
to specify their reasons for disagreeing with the transclusion. One sensible solution might be to add sources relating these phenomena more directly to dysgenics in the respective sections...?
1530:"Mainstream science" on this topic means genetics. The opinions of scientists with no expertise in the field, any more than Shockley had expertise on questions of race, are irrelevant here.
233:
1226:
My edit actually made the Lynn paragraph more NPOV/narrow; I will reconsider such a move in the future if it immediately results in large, potentially well-sourced passages being removed.
1223:
I did not insult anybody, but rather indicated that he had (more or less) insulted me multiple times over; and I will continue stating this fact whenever they do so in future interactions.
717:
Note that the matter appears to have been settled over at MOS: in cases like this we simply omit the inline citations and add a note to the ref saying "Citations in original omitted."
1774:
370:
929:
Feel free to make it more ambiguous, but I will supplement the article with some 50 sources to the opposite effect in the next days or weeks, so the effort may be moot in the end.
1190:. The justification in your edit summary, that "Absolutely unacceptable, we virtually had a conversation about Lynn yesterday", makes no sense. That conversation between you and
1502:"False balance" - as of now the article states dysgenics does not occur. It even cites a passage stating this is so "counterintuitively" without any further clarification.
1123:
If you want to include a whole paragraph on what left-wing academics think of him, I will (reasonably) have to dig up favorable reviews too (e.g. W.D. Hamilton's one, cf.:
870:
I'm not aware of an overall genetic-based decline being established for any trait of interest, and indeed the rest of the article does not treat the implied claim as true.
1316:
Imagine I went to every single talk page relating to race, sex differences, gender etc. and made broad statements there that related little to the actual conversation...
1794:
395:
316:
1602:
It turns out, counterintuitively, that differential birth rates (for groups scoring high and low on a trait) do not necessarily produce changes in the population mean
1769:
1038:
One crass example: Lynn's eponymous book states this in multiple places e.g.; now, while he is arguably a racist, does this necessarily poison such a paragraph?
346:
1804:
1754:
505:
495:
52:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
1409:
Zero credibility as a scholar of what? I seriously doubt that
Shockley has to be removed from all articles about early computing because he was a racist.
681:
Why would the procedure be different in this case? It might well be true, but I have never seen incomplete APA-style citations being used like this on WP
1484:
problem. To quote GR, any mention of Lynn's views on this topic needs to "make clear that they are rejected by mainstream science, as is required by the
1438:
write this article in a way that gives Lynn's ideas a fair shake while also accurately describing their place within scientific and political thought.
649:
I have rewritten dozens of paragraphs I originally wanted to use blockquote on over at the eugenics article for this exact reason. Please do the same.
1784:
1744:
400:
243:
1057:
1809:
1799:
86:
1729:
337:
311:
1789:
1779:
39:
1734:
471:
179:
1233:
attempt at finding a consensus here to make Lynn an unreliable/blacklisted source more generally, I think we're really entering thin ice.
1739:
1466:
Sounds reasonable. How about we replace "controversial" by "highly controversial" and add a note with the pdf
Generalrelative provided?
1391:
The consensus on racial pseudoscience certainly applies to
Richard Lynn, who for many years presided over the white supremacist journal
199:
101:
1575:
96:
801:
it were to satisfy these guidelines very well, would you object to an additional transclusion from "fertility and intelligence"?
462:
423:
95:
at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
1604:." I don't have access to the source, but IF the source talks about the reason for population means not changing has to do with
1625:
92:
55:
43:
1654:
1079:
Sure, sure. Is there some kind of WP-internal ruling on Lynn though? If someone writes a book called "dysgenics" they should
700:
1186:
Please do NOT edit-war. Your reverting of my removal of your favorable coverage of
Richard Lynn's POV on dysgenics violated
903:
Proponents of the hypothesis argue that certain societal trends may affect the selection pressures on heritable traits: ...
1516:
This statement is false. I can name you multiple nobelists that have admitted dysgenics is a danger relatively recently.
286:
1605:
1102:
guideline. If you really think you have a chance of using his work in any other way, feel free to bring the matter to
607:
185:
165:
74:
1280:) scientific credentials and disagree with this blanket statement. Any concrete suggestions beyond "controversial"?
1056:
simply because it came to the attention of the journal that it relied in part on his deeply flawed data (background
1361:
How about we set up a designated controversies/criticism section once I provided the edits I've been "promising".
1457:
1160:
1111:
1070:
1029:
820:
785:
722:
708:
672:
639:
630:
219:
1674:"I'm the type of person who thinks the encyclopedia is better if people understand WHY some phenomenon is true."
1258:
This was discussed extensively on
Knowledge in 2020 and again in 2021, resulting in a consensus of editors that
764:
Indeed, specifying sources relating the transcluded text to eugenics would be necessary for inclusion, per e.g.
586:
1708:
1521:
1507:
1471:
1414:
1366:
1321:
1285:
1244:
1146:
1132:
1088:
1043:
1014:
964:
949:
934:
806:
754:
690:
654:
574:
569:
564:
557:
552:
547:
173:
794:
Ok, I will re-write the respective sections as to reflect this intuition indeed shared by various researchers.
263:
1124:
193:
61:
1052:
Yes, because Lynn is universally considered to be an unreliable source by serious scholars. Note e.g. that
1579:
1481:
1380:
1309:
I see. So, I assume that refers to people with "critical" pre- and "studies" suffixed to their paycheck?
1300:
292:
1358:
However, dysgenics is not the same as race science simpliciter. As such, this ruling should not apply.
815:
The proof will be in the pudding. Any additions to this article that comply with P&G are welcome.
625:
has twice now removed a quote within a reference on the grounds that it contains incomplete citations.
1696:
1585:
1571:
1535:
1493:
1453:
1428:
1400:
1349:
1267:
1208:
1191:
1156:
1107:
1066:
1025:
816:
781:
746:
718:
704:
668:
635:
1695:
True. I added a "clarification needed" tag that was then immediately removed multiple times over by
212:
1704:
1686:
1665:
1615:
1517:
1503:
1467:
1443:
1410:
1362:
1317:
1281:
1240:
1183:
1142:
1128:
1084:
1039:
1010:
987:
960:
945:
930:
916:
848:
802:
750:
686:
650:
622:
169:
1375:
I don't see why the ruling for Flynn somehow doesn't apply here? It's still about human genetics.
470:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
345:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
592:
189:
1600:
The Niesser source says: "There is no convincing evidence that any dysgenic trend exists. . . .
1053:
907:
These could be combined, with each term bolded and defined at a different point in the article.
158:
1024:
My only concern right now is that you haven't cited these papers yet. We can talk once you do.
1392:
892:
Another possibility is (B) distancing the broad claim using a term that suggests uncertainty:
454:
342:
49:
1220:
Generalrelative called including the book "the most basic common-sense judgement imaginable."
1645:
1485:
1376:
1296:
1259:
1099:
863:
588:
530:
1531:
1489:
1424:
1396:
1345:
1263:
1204:
773:
765:
329:
305:
17:
1682:
1678:
1661:
1610:
1439:
1062:
983:
912:
385:
1723:
1200:
1196:
1103:
777:
1574:(Sear and Townsend 2023) that might be included in article. I also added one quote.
900:
states that humans populations are undergoing a decrease in prevalence of traits...
1187:
1006:, this could well be an issue for anti-racists to address more than anybody else.
1640:-shaped curve but you'll be trying to reason based on the slope between the ends.)
1276:
So what does this mean for the article? It is not "universally rejected"; I have (
866:: the tendency to believe that a phenomenon is real if it has been given a name.
438:
417:
1648:, much of which is about throwing away information about the shape of a graph.
873:
One possible solution is to lead with the adjective form and narrower claims:
467:
444:
222:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
64:
when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
1125:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1469-1809.2000.6440363.x
1679:
I advocate for including primary sources in addition to secondary sources
1155:
This is no longer a constructive conversation. Take it to a noticeboard.
1633:
699:
Since this appears to be a MOS question, I've started a thread over at
590:
884:
For example, a war that kills millions of drafted soldiers might be
1712:
1690:
1669:
1618:
1589:
1539:
1525:
1511:
1497:
1475:
1461:
1447:
1432:
1418:
1404:
1384:
1370:
1353:
1325:
1304:
1289:
1271:
1248:
1212:
1164:
1150:
1136:
1115:
1092:
1074:
1047:
1033:
1018:
991:
968:
953:
938:
920:
824:
810:
789:
758:
726:
712:
694:
676:
658:
643:
1760:
Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
926:
First of all, you're using pretty stylish talk quotes, not bad.
634:
not offer paraphrasing within references, only direct quotes.
593:
524:
257:
207:
153:
26:
384:
1628:, and you may be able to as well. It's in the APA section.
1765:
Start-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
1750:
Knowledge vital articles in Biology and health sciences
769:
667:
a blockquote. Have you not even looked at the article?
626:
131:
1624:
I was able to access the book a few weeks ago using
466:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
341:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
105:
of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
881:if it causes a decrease in prevalence of traits...
375:This article has not yet received a rating on the
1083:be a possible primary source in that discussion.
663:It seems like you may not even realize that this
1703:understand Niesser's argument either though...
1655:a move discussion related to recent IT outages
1775:Unknown-importance Molecular Biology articles
1644:Coincidentally, I just did a major revamp of
894:
875:
838:
601:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
835:Choice of main term; narrow vs broad claims
261:
1583:
1229:Btw. if any of you two immediately use my
1054:this paper recently needed to be retracted
843:is the decrease in prevalence of traits...
629:It's unclear to me, even after they cited
412:
300:
110:
69:
997:Discussion to pre-empt inevitable dispute
1395:. He has zero credibility as a scholar.
851:, that an overall decline is occurring:
1795:All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
414:
355:Knowledge:WikiProject Molecular Biology
302:
1770:Start-Class Molecular Biology articles
772:looked to me to be indiscriminate and
611:when more than 4 sections are present.
358:Template:WikiProject Molecular Biology
877:A policy or practice is described as
7:
1596:More explanation for last paragraph?
631:Knowledge:Manual of Style#Quotations
460:This article is within the scope of
335:This article is within the scope of
291:It is of interest to the following
1805:Low-importance psychology articles
1755:Start-Class level-5 vital articles
1566:New source: Sear and Townsend 2023
25:
605:may be automatically archived by
1785:Low-importance Genetics articles
1745:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
847:This opening seems to imply, in
529:
480:Knowledge:WikiProject Psychology
447:
437:
416:
328:
304:
271:
262:
211:
157:
73:
30:
1810:WikiProject Psychology articles
1800:Start-Class psychology articles
500:This article has been rated as
483:Template:WikiProject Psychology
218:This article was nominated for
54:Content must be written from a
38:The subject of this article is
1730:Knowledge controversial topics
855:By using the definite article
701:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style
91:nominee, but did not meet the
87:Natural sciences good articles
1:
1790:WikiProject Genetics articles
1780:Start-Class Genetics articles
474:and see a list of open tasks.
393:This article is supported by
349:and see a list of open tasks.
338:WikiProject Molecular Biology
1735:Former good article nominees
1646:Gini_coefficient#Limitations
1009:Please state your concerns.
741:Disputed content (June 2024)
1606:regression towards the mean
992:22:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
911:influencing the gene pool.
48:When updating the article,
1826:
1740:Start-Class vital articles
1262:applies to those sources.
780:angle is also concerning.
506:project's importance scale
361:Molecular Biology articles
99:. Editors may also seek a
1713:09:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
1691:04:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
1670:04:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
1619:03:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
969:09:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
825:18:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
811:18:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
790:18:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
759:17:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
713:18:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
695:17:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
677:17:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
659:17:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
644:17:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
499:
432:
392:
374:
323:
299:
113:
109:
50:be bold, but not reckless
1590:13:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
1540:10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
1526:09:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
1512:09:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
1498:09:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
1476:08:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
1462:20:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1448:20:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1433:16:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1419:16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1405:16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1385:14:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1371:13:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1354:12:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1326:13:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1305:12:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1290:12:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1272:12:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1249:12:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1213:11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
1165:19:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1151:18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1137:18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1116:18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1093:18:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1075:17:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1048:16:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1034:16:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1019:16:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
954:19:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
939:16:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
921:07:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
727:20:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
18:Talk:Dysgenics (biology)
396:the Genetics task force
905:
890:
845:
608:Lowercase sigmabot III
463:WikiProject Psychology
389:
242:, 6 January 2016, see
232:, 9 October 2020, see
182:) on 9 October 2020.
42:and content may be in
1626:The Knowledge Library
388:
278:level-5 vital article
166:proposed for deletion
93:good article criteria
56:neutral point of view
1697:user:Generalrelative
770:the edit in question
139:Good article nominee
898:dysgenic hypothesis
886:dysgenic for health
486:psychology articles
1452:^ Precisely this.
390:
287:content assessment
114:Article milestones
1677:YES. This is why
1592:
1393:Mankind Quarterly
615:
614:
580:
579:
520:
519:
516:
515:
512:
511:
455:Psychology portal
411:
410:
407:
406:
352:Molecular Biology
343:Molecular Biology
312:Molecular Biology
256:
255:
252:
251:
206:
205:
152:
151:
148:
147:
68:
67:
16:(Redirected from
1817:
1649:
1639:
1613:
864:reification bias
610:
594:
544:
543:
533:
525:
488:
487:
484:
481:
478:
457:
452:
451:
450:
441:
434:
433:
428:
420:
413:
377:importance scale
363:
362:
359:
356:
353:
332:
325:
324:
319:
308:
301:
284:
275:
274:
267:
266:
258:
224:
223:
215:
208:
161:
154:
134:
132:December 7, 2008
111:
77:
70:
34:
33:
27:
21:
1825:
1824:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1720:
1719:
1643:
1637:
1611:
1598:
1568:
1454:Generalrelative
1192:Generalrelative
1157:Generalrelative
1108:Generalrelative
1067:Generalrelative
1026:Generalrelative
999:
979:
837:
817:Generalrelative
782:Generalrelative
747:Generalrelative
743:
719:Generalrelative
705:Generalrelative
669:Generalrelative
636:Generalrelative
620:
606:
595:
589:
538:
485:
482:
479:
476:
475:
453:
448:
446:
426:
360:
357:
354:
351:
350:
314:
285:on Knowledge's
282:
272:
202:) on 2020-10-09
130:
31:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1823:
1821:
1813:
1812:
1807:
1802:
1797:
1792:
1787:
1782:
1777:
1772:
1767:
1762:
1757:
1752:
1747:
1742:
1737:
1732:
1722:
1721:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1705:Biohistorian15
1675:
1672:
1658:
1650:
1641:
1629:
1597:
1594:
1588:comment added
1567:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1518:Biohistorian15
1504:Biohistorian15
1480:Still has the
1468:Biohistorian15
1464:
1435:
1411:Biohistorian15
1389:
1388:
1387:
1363:Biohistorian15
1359:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1318:Biohistorian15
1314:
1310:
1282:Biohistorian15
1252:
1251:
1241:Biohistorian15
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1224:
1221:
1184:Biohistorian15
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1143:Biohistorian15
1139:
1129:Biohistorian15
1121:
1085:Biohistorian15
1040:Biohistorian15
1011:Biohistorian15
998:
995:
978:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
961:Biohistorian15
946:Biohistorian15
941:
931:Biohistorian15
927:
868:
867:
860:
836:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
803:Biohistorian15
797:One question:
795:
768:. Simply put,
751:Biohistorian15
742:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
687:Biohistorian15
651:Biohistorian15
623:Biohistorian15
619:
616:
613:
612:
600:
597:
596:
591:
587:
585:
582:
581:
578:
577:
572:
567:
561:
560:
555:
550:
540:
539:
534:
528:
522:
518:
517:
514:
513:
510:
509:
502:Low-importance
498:
492:
491:
489:
472:the discussion
459:
458:
442:
430:
429:
427:Low‑importance
421:
409:
408:
405:
404:
401:Low-importance
391:
381:
380:
373:
367:
366:
364:
347:the discussion
333:
321:
320:
309:
297:
296:
290:
268:
254:
253:
250:
249:
248:
247:
237:
216:
204:
203:
183:
170:WhatIsAPoggers
164:This page was
162:
150:
149:
146:
145:
142:
135:
127:
126:
123:
120:
116:
115:
107:
106:
78:
66:
65:
35:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1822:
1811:
1808:
1806:
1803:
1801:
1798:
1796:
1793:
1791:
1788:
1786:
1783:
1781:
1778:
1776:
1773:
1771:
1768:
1766:
1763:
1761:
1758:
1756:
1753:
1751:
1748:
1746:
1743:
1741:
1738:
1736:
1733:
1731:
1728:
1727:
1725:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1673:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1656:
1651:
1647:
1642:
1635:
1630:
1627:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1617:
1616:
1614:
1607:
1603:
1595:
1593:
1591:
1587:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1572:decent source
1565:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1482:FALSE BALANCE
1479:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1436:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1239:
1232:
1228:
1227:
1225:
1222:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1007:
1005:
1004:theoretically
996:
994:
993:
989:
985:
977:Neutral title
976:
970:
966:
962:
957:
956:
955:
951:
947:
942:
940:
936:
932:
928:
925:
924:
923:
922:
918:
914:
908:
904:
901:
899:
893:
889:
887:
882:
880:
874:
871:
865:
861:
858:
854:
853:
852:
850:
844:
842:
834:
826:
822:
818:
814:
813:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
793:
792:
791:
787:
783:
779:
776:, though the
775:
771:
767:
763:
762:
761:
760:
756:
752:
748:
740:
728:
724:
720:
716:
715:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
661:
660:
656:
652:
648:
647:
646:
645:
641:
637:
632:
628:
627:
624:
617:
609:
604:
599:
598:
584:
583:
576:
573:
571:
568:
566:
563:
562:
559:
556:
554:
551:
549:
546:
545:
542:
541:
537:
532:
527:
526:
523:
507:
503:
497:
494:
493:
490:
473:
469:
465:
464:
456:
445:
443:
440:
436:
435:
431:
425:
422:
419:
415:
402:
399:(assessed as
398:
397:
387:
383:
382:
378:
372:
369:
368:
365:
348:
344:
340:
339:
334:
331:
327:
326:
322:
318:
313:
310:
307:
303:
298:
294:
288:
280:
279:
269:
265:
260:
259:
245:
241:
238:
235:
231:
228:
227:
226:
225:
221:
217:
214:
210:
209:
201:
198:
195:
191:
190:JavaHurricane
187:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
156:
155:
143:
141:
140:
136:
133:
129:
128:
124:
121:
118:
117:
112:
108:
104:
103:
98:
94:
90:
89:
88:
82:
79:
76:
72:
71:
63:
59:
57:
51:
47:
45:
41:
40:controversial
36:
29:
28:
19:
1700:
1609:
1601:
1599:
1584:— Preceding
1576:51.6.193.169
1569:
1488:guideline".
1277:
1230:
1181:
1080:
1008:
1003:
1000:
980:
909:
906:
902:
897:
895:
891:
885:
883:
878:
876:
872:
869:
862:By invoking
856:
849:WP:WIKIVOICE
846:
840:
839:
798:
744:
682:
664:
621:
602:
535:
521:
501:
461:
394:
336:
293:WikiProjects
276:
239:
229:
196:
176:
138:
137:
102:reassessment
100:
85:
84:
80:
53:
37:
1377:Harryhenry1
1297:Harryhenry1
283:Start-class
97:renominated
1724:Categories
1699:. I don't
1570:There's a
1532:NightHeron
1490:NightHeron
1425:NightHeron
1397:NightHeron
1346:NightHeron
1264:NightHeron
1205:NightHeron
1081:certainly
683:whatsoever
477:Psychology
468:Psychology
424:Psychology
244:discussion
234:discussion
144:Not listed
1683:Jruderman
1662:Jruderman
1612:Avatar317
1486:WP:FRINGE
1440:Jruderman
1260:WP:FRINGE
1100:WP:FRINGE
984:Jruderman
913:Jruderman
841:Dysgenics
799:assuming
745:I invite
618:Ref quote
575:Archive 6
570:Archive 5
565:Archive 4
558:Archive 3
553:Archive 2
548:Archive 1
281:is rated
186:contested
81:Dysgenics
62:citations
1634:au pairs
879:dysgenic
774:WP:UNDUE
766:WP:SYNTH
603:200 days
536:Archives
317:Genetics
220:deletion
200:contribs
180:contribs
60:Include
1701:really
1586:undated
1063:WP:NPOV
888:if ...
504:on the
184:It was
122:Process
44:dispute
1313:favor.
1231:honest
1201:WP:FTN
1197:WP:RSN
1104:WP:RSN
778:WP:NOR
289:scale.
125:Result
83:was a
1188:WP:EW
859:, and
665:isn't
270:This
1709:talk
1687:talk
1666:talk
1580:talk
1536:talk
1522:talk
1508:talk
1494:talk
1472:talk
1458:talk
1444:talk
1429:talk
1415:talk
1401:talk
1381:talk
1367:talk
1350:talk
1322:talk
1301:talk
1286:talk
1278:some
1268:talk
1245:talk
1209:talk
1161:talk
1147:talk
1133:talk
1112:talk
1089:talk
1071:talk
1058:here
1044:talk
1030:talk
1015:talk
988:talk
965:talk
950:talk
935:talk
917:talk
896:The
821:talk
807:talk
786:talk
755:talk
723:talk
709:talk
691:talk
673:talk
655:talk
640:talk
240:keep
230:Keep
194:talk
174:talk
119:Date
1582:)
1199:or
857:the
496:Low
371:???
188:by
168:by
1726::
1711:)
1689:)
1668:)
1660:—
1538:)
1524:)
1510:)
1496:)
1474:)
1460:)
1446:)
1431:)
1417:)
1403:)
1383:)
1369:)
1352:)
1324:)
1303:)
1288:)
1270:)
1247:)
1211:)
1203:.
1163:)
1149:)
1135:)
1127:)
1114:)
1106:.
1091:)
1073:)
1065:.
1046:)
1032:)
1017:)
990:)
967:)
952:)
937:)
919:)
823:)
809:)
788:)
757:)
725:)
711:)
703:.
693:)
685:.
675:)
657:)
642:)
403:).
315::
1707:(
1685:(
1664:(
1657:.
1638:J
1578:(
1534:(
1520:(
1506:(
1492:(
1470:(
1456:(
1442:(
1427:(
1413:(
1399:(
1379:(
1365:(
1348:(
1320:(
1299:(
1284:(
1266:(
1243:(
1207:(
1182:@
1159:(
1145:(
1131:(
1110:(
1087:(
1069:(
1042:(
1028:(
1013:(
986:(
963:(
948:(
933:(
915:(
819:(
805:(
784:(
753:(
721:(
707:(
689:(
671:(
653:(
638:(
508:.
379:.
295::
246:.
236:.
197:·
192:(
177:·
172:(
58:.
46:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
