Done. Please see above.

 

Unless you require bigger reading glasses, and are too lazy to do a little research, you should have found this information. As it really makes a mockery of your comments and your intelligence level..

Various links below with copied/pasted relevant sections..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been publishedby a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. [under discussion]
To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material.[1] For how to write citations, see Citing sources.
This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.
Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
This guideline discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, which states:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
​

In the event of a contradiction between this page and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policy takes priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Other policies relevant to sourcing are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

Citations, frequently called references, are an important part of any Wikipedia article, serving to identify the reliable sources on which the information in the article is based. In most cases, citations for specific pieces of information contained in an article are given in the form of footnotes, though they can also appear within the body of an article.
Wikipedia's Verifiability policy describes when sources should be cited, and what kind of sources are considered reliable. It requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. However, editors are strongly advised to provide citations for all information added to Wikipedia; any detail risks being unexpectedly challenged or even eventually removed.
This page contains information on how to place and format citations. Each article should use the same citation method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it. While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_create_hoaxes

Do not create hoaxes

Please do not attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it. This has been done before, with varying results. Most hoaxes are marked for deletion within a few hours after they are created. Some hoaxes are created simply to experiment with or test the system.
It has been tried, tested, and confirmed—it is indeed possible to insert hoaxes into Wikipedia, just as it is possible to insert profanity. That goes along with the territory of being a free encyclopedia anyone can edit. A hoax is simply a more obscure, less obvious form of vandalism. Hoaxes in Wikipedia are considered vandalism, and persistent perpetrators of hoaxes are subject to blocking and banning.
If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and then to check to see how long they have been in place and, if possible, correct them.
Verifiability

Wikipedia requires material to be verifiable to a reliable published source. If challenged, the burden is on the original author to prove the claims in the article. Thus, it is futile to try to continue a hoax once it is under scrutiny of Wikipedia editors if the general population does not already believe it external to Wikipedia. Moreover, if a hoaxer has already successfully tricked the public, then they need not create an article themselves; someone else will do it.

 

Are you trolling? You've got to be. No-one is this stupid. I said 'Google Books', not 'Google'. Are you blind, man?! Google Book is an online archive of scans of books. Textbooks. History books. Art books. Virtually anything you could every fucking desire is there either in part or in full. It's not some spurious website written by a crank in his shed, it's a resource of goddamned published books. Are you getting this yet, or have you gone completely senile? This is the difference. One resource is books, the other is something written by a collaborative effort from a disparate group of people with likely conflicting motives and widely varied levels of intelligence, literacy, knowledge, and scholarly habits.

Wow! Who would have thought it! Wikipedia asks you not to lie! Wikipedia asks you to cite references! Jesus, Mary and Joseph, why the fuck would they do that?!

My God, man, you are driving me insane. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Thus, the text on its pages is not trustworthy.

This is why - and I'll state this as plainly as I can - IT IS NOT AN ADMISSIBLE REFERENCE RESOURCE IN UNIVERSITIES.

Have you got this yet, Christ.

 

Just because a college professor who wants to impress his friends, especially his black friends, says that the findings of The Bell Curve are fraudulently mistaken does not mean that they are. The Bell Curve explains facts that are not in serious dispute, facts that I have posted here again and again.

 

Did she earn her "position of high responsibility" or was it give to her because of an affirmative action policy?

Even if she earned it, that is perfectly consistent with The Bell Curve. As I have pointed out before, Charles Murray does not say that every black person is less intelligent than every white person. Just as some whites become professional basketball players, some blacks have genius level IQs.

 

You're basing your opinion on an award, which, mind you, has always been hotly political. And this seems wise?

I suppose next you'll offer as a "proof" that white people are better musicians than blacks, the fact that they've won more grammies.

The word is: Arbitrary.

 

Cmon DL. Explain to me how the Bell Curve Thingy would explain Japanese and German behavior in WWII. And please don't waste time calling it an "anomaly". A few million people doing the same thing and holding the same beliefs over a decade is NOT an "anomaly"

And the Tuskagee Airmen "experiment" is much more statistically significant in this argument than the few studied twins raised separately and is much more defensible than arguments citing IQ tests or SAT scores.

Cmon man, grab this thing by the throat and THINK about it.Change my mind.

 

Now, everyone lay off and back off; I'm not kissing anyone's butt here, but this is an excellent post.

 

I cannot change the minds of those who enjoy believing delusions.

 

Same here DL, we cannot help you either.
If you have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the findings of the Bell Curve are true, they why do so many people think your delusional?
Also why have you not published a book on your findings, all that you have done is proved this in your own head, = Delusions of granduar.

 

So there is a difference between Google books and BBC Publications, or ANY other publications website...Who cares as from WHERE you find the quoted reliable source of information, ALL that matters is the information is consistent and the source is VERIFIABLE....


NEXT POINT...

HAVE YOU tried to EDIT a Wikipedia page YET...
IF NOT, here is some information to guide you in your quest...

WHO F-ING cares whether ANY quoted link, or source of information IS NOT up to university standard. After all this is ONLY a PORN forum, and the education standards of the members varies greatly....

Step away from your computer and GET a LIFE, or is it that YOU cannot turn OFF your computer because your life-support system would also fail...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning that anyone can edit any unprotected page and improve articles immediately for all readers. You do not need to register to do this. Anyone who has edited is known as a "Wikipedian" and, no matter how trivial the edit may seem, can be proud that he or she has helped make Wikipedia what it is. All of these edits add up!
However, some pages are protected from editing. These pages have a View source tab instead of an Edit tab. You can still edit these pages indirectly, by submitting an "edit request" - an editor with the ability to edit the protected page will respond to your request. You can submit a request by clicking on the View source tab on that page and using the "Submit an edit request" link at the bottom right.


If you add information to a page, please provide references, as unreferenced statements are subject to removal.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy



Administrators are able to protect a page to restrict editing or moving of that page, and remove such protection. Protection can be indefinite, or expire after a specified time.

• Full protection prevents editing by everyone except administrators. Fully protected media files cannot be overwritten by new uploads.
• Semi-protection prevents editing by unregistered contributors and contributors with accounts which are not autoconfirmed.
• Creation protection prevents a page (normally a previously deleted one) from being recreated (also known as "salting").
• Move protection protects the page solely from moves.
• Upload protection protects the file from reupload, does not protect the file page from editing.
• Pending-changes protection means edits are not visible to readers who are not logged in, until the edits are checked by a reviewer

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

That's it? That's your answer?

I'm trying to engage you in a meaningful dialog
Trying to understand your point of view
Asking legitimate questions to challenge your point of view

And all you got is "I cannot change the minds of those who enjoy believing delusions"?

Really?

That sounds like you can't answer the questions and realize just how wrong the bell curve thingy is

Cmon. You got more than that.

 

Nope. He doesn't.

But I'll answer your question. History has shown quite clearly that the authoritarian leaders of any country are capable of perpetrating horrendous atrocities...and they're also capable, during wartime, of convincing their people that their enemy is subhuman and unworthy of consideration.

It certainly has nothing to do with The Bell Curve or what DL seems to think is "oriental exceptionalism".

 

Quite...

 

You mean THIS website...READ THE NAME..

http://books.google.com/

As you, or any fool, can see Google books is powered by GOOGLE...

 

Chris, you're an idiot. The excuse that this is 'just a porn forum' has never stopped you in your efforts to decry baller, consistently and indefatiguably, to the point of bringing up pointless and months-old whinings about the modern motor car - to the point of challenging someone here, in all seriousness, to a fight! And you think I'm sad?!

The location of a discussion does not matter. It is important to be rigourous and to have reliable sources. As I have said before, the collaborative editable nature of Wiki makes it inherently unreliable. This is something even Distant Lover - who I notice you have disparagingly taken to calling 'doggo' as if you think this makes you sound cooler or more authoritative - understands. One might go so far as to say he understands the necessity of valid references more than most here.

If I had refuted all Stumbler's points with Wiki links, he would have been very quick - and rightly so - to tell me that it was likely the work had been penned by the Christian Apologists he is fond of mentioning. There is a grain of truth in what he says, certainly, and there is no possible way to know for certain. Much of the content of Wiki is not adequately referenced - I've seen blog posts in there, for Heaven's sake! - and the advantage that actual printed books have is that one can search for reviews, one can consider the author and their background, one can consider the publisher and its other titles - the list goes on and on.

None of these things can be done on Wikipedia. It is simply safer to go to the source itself.

 

It's been a while since I studied semantics, it's true, but I am fairly certain that 'powered by Google' is not equivalent to 'Google'. Furthermore, the point is meaningless. You accused me simply 'finding stuff on Google', with all the connotations that should carry to anyone with the slightest interest in furthering their knowledge. Those connotations, by the way, are along the lines of "...and anyone can find anything on Google!"

The fact is: I referenced books. Stumbler, for one tiny section, used Wiki, and I told him the post was irrelevant to the subject and that furthermore Wiki is not reliable. You have chosen to get on your high horse and pontificate in YOUR unbelievably IRRITATING FASHION as though this somehow makes your POINT more believable or indeed more ACCURATE.

 

The point of my debate is that YOU dismiss any Wiki link as unreliable, without even thinking first of where they got the information from...

The comment that this is only a porn forum is because some of us DO NOT debate or refer to sources that are only credible to universities. To my way of thinking it does NOT matter WHERE you get the information from, only that the information is ACCURATE..

If Wiki posts information and I check the source and I find that the source is credible, reliable and the information is accurate, after cross-checking with other sources, THEN as far as I am concerned the Wiki information is GOOD...

Personally I don't give a rats arse what you think, regarding the difference of opinion between Distant Lover and me. As been said before, the differing opinions are due to his obsession with not accepting that The Bell Curve theories HAVE NOT been proven. True there are lots of statistics that lend weight to their theories but, THERE IS NO definative answer either way as to why the theories are there..
For every statistic that shows blacks under-performing compared to whites, there are examples of blacks who have out-perfomed whites..Also the idea that intelligence is solely hereditary, and NOT influenced by social, economical or geographical living standards, has yet to be proved..

Surprising that Kimi posted a different link which still confirmed that Henry Ford DID NOT invent the modern automobile, as posted on a Wiki page and a ModelTford webpage.

Read the comments above...If the credible source of information can be found on BOTH Google Books and Wikipedia, then WHY denounce the Wiki page as UNRELIABLE...
Just because it does NOT meet with your standards, DOES NOT mean it is UNRELIABLE..

My point of view is just as valid as yours, regardless of what you think. The ability to accept each others points of view, regardless of how irritating they may be, is how you become a more mature person...

It is obvious that, as far as you are concerned, ANY Wiki link is unreliable and not credible. Even though the same source of the information can be found on other webpages. You denounce Wikipedia as being unreliable and uncredible, without first reading through all of it's policy guidelines and safety checks.
What makes it even more interesting is that while you are busy denouncing Wikipedia links, and saying that Distant Lover understands the necessity of valid references more than most, Distant Lover himself has used Wiki links and posted them..

 

Those who say that there is no proof of The Bell Curve theories sound like those who say there is no proof of the greenhouse effect, and even those who say that there is no proof of a link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

I have discussed research with twins. I have also provided charts that demonstrate that blacks that have affluent, well educated parents tend to perform less well on the SAT than whites who have poor and poorly educated parents. I have explained this in terms of a genetic phenomena known as reversion to the mean.

So, what would you accept as proof of The Bell Curve theories? I am asking that question to anyone who wants to answer.

I would accept two things as proof that The Bell Curve is mistaken. First, someone would need to devise a method of significantly and permanently increasing a person's intelligence as measured both by mental aptitude tests and performance on intellectually demanding tasks. Second, there would have to exist somewhere in the world a significant population of blacks - lets say several million at least, preferably more - who perform and behave as well as whites. The population would have to be fairly randomly selected.

The example of the Tuskagee Airmen is insufficient because they were one unit chosen from the most capable blacks in the United States Army. I have not found any evidence that they performed as well as or better than similar unites composed of whites. One might as well select the best white high school basket ball players in a state and have them play against basket ball teams in black public schools.

An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy is a 1944 study of race relations authored by Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal and funded by The Carnegie Foundation. This book argued that black under performance academically was due to racial discrimination. While that discrimination existed that was a plausible argument. Over four decades since the civil rights legislation was signed it is not.

 

Bullshit Distant Lover the ones saying The Bell Curve has no scientific basis is the vast majority of social scientists, psychologists, and the geneticists.

I've posted and proven their data base is not even on intelligent tests. I've shown where other scientists have done the same data sets and proven them wrong. I've posted the study that proves even the economic predictions are wrong. And The Bell Curve did not even go through peer review before it was published and it sure as fuck did not survive peer review after it was published.

That proves the scientific consensus and proves you are the irrational "denier" or "Seeker" here.

You can play your bullshit games all you want but that's what they are. Bullshit.

By the way I've come to suspect that you are actually the one creating socks so you can put up "nigger" threads just to keep this going.

PS Where is that shit stirring phony non-fucking El Casanova or are you him too?