User talk:Futurebird

Archive: 1

"WHITE FLIGHT" RACIST ARTICLE

Why do you continue to perpetuate the racist phrase "white flight" in the white flight article? The point of the article is demean "white" humans as oppressors. The issue concerns "rich" people, not "white" people. Please stop being racist.

It's not called "affluent flight" in any of the sources...

Why pin this all on "white" people...whatever that means?

Thanks to you too.

I am looking forward to contribute here, I've been watching Race and Intelligence for so long now that I feel obligated to read more about it and help out with the entry.. Thanks x2. --Apathy 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA request

See: User talk:Futurebird/AMA request:Race and intelligence

Mole people

The Mole People article specifically refers to people who have taken shelter in abandoned subway shafts and other underground spaces in New York City. There has been a book and a documentary on the subject. What has happened to the Mole People article is that it has come to encompass every thing, real or not, that uses the word "Mole" in its description of an individual or even "humanoid" form, or a collective of people that live in a more defined way, such as your "Bridge People." When I read that, it sounded like people who live under bridges, which we have in NYC as well. Mole People refers to communities, some that are estimated to number into the thousands, who live sometimes 10 stories underground. I also didn't see a citation for "Bridge People" - is it really such a phenomenon as Mole People? --DavidShankBone 22:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I culled the article for the same reasons. I personally find it a little offensive to compare science-fiction sub-humanoids who live in the center of the Earth with homeless people who have taken refuge in underground spaces, and have made efforts at organized community. --DavidShankBone 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense to me. But what about the myth and legened aspect of it? Some of the films you removed are about NYC-- and they show how the homeless who lived in these places were seen by others at the time. It's ugly, yes, but I think we should consider adding some of it back-- I'll write something up and put it on the talk page. And I agree it is offensive. But we don't want to cover up the hate the mole and fear the mole people have had to face.futurebird 22:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can put back what you think I took out that didn't merit removal. I tried to take things off that seemed unrelated. My theory was that just because a fiction character lived underground, it didn't merit inclusion into a society of homeless. It may be that a separate article is needed. Another idea would be to add a separate section on similar phenomena in urban centers. That would be a good place for Bridge People, if there exists independent verification. Jennifer Toth's book on the Mole People, and the documentary Dark Days casts some doubt on the urban legend aspect, but it would be worth investigating. I have a Lexis-Nexis account and will see if I can dig up a few stories to improve the article, a subject I think many non-Mole People find fascinating. --DavidShankBone 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a source you can site, but I've known a few people who lived in this way underground. I have no idea about 'bridge people' though I know people who live under bridges. (?) I take Jennifer Toth's book and Dark Days in good faith. The photos on the article Freedom Tunnel are mostly mine, it's mostly on my photo journies that I meet folks. There is NO REASON to say it's an urban legened except for the fact that there is this one guy with a personal grudge against Jennifer Toth ... (don't know what to make of that!)futurebird 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really like your photographs, I looked at them. Very nice! You have a better camera than I do. Did you ever look at that photo essay book called The Tunnel? I own that - your photographs reminded me of it. It's surprising that it is not included. I printed out about 8 articles, mostly from the nineties, off of Lexis from the Times. I'll make some revisions in the coming days to reflect some of the information. I'm a big fan of Reference sections. --DavidShankBone 22:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka: External Links

Hi, Can you please update the url of http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/*.HTM to http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/*.htm . Thanks. zbd 10:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you make this change yourself? I'm not even watching that page. futurebird 10:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Nat Turner's slave rebellion

No problem. Always happy to revert vandalism.--Dycedarg ж 04:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Days

Hi ya! Not a problem for adding the box, i've been adding it to several documentries lately. It seems a bit fickle to add images to wikipedia, but things such as film posters or dvd covers are reletively copyright free as they only enhance the product (like a film, or television program) in question easily. So feel free to upload images like DVD covers or better yet, the films poster as i've uploaded them before with no copyright problems. Film screenshots are alright as well if you use them appropriately within the article.

I'll actually try to find the poster for Dark Days and upload itself. I'm just a bit swamped with other things at the moment. :) Andrzejbanas 15:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

race and intelligence outline

I saw your proposed outline on DC's talk page, and it looks good aside from one part:

1.3 Origin of the idea of intelligence as a function of race

Race and intelligence research doesn't view intelligence as a function of race, and even hereditarians admit this. It was mainly the racism of previous centuries that held this view. Race and intelligence research looks at statistcal patterns within race groups. I don't support the hereditarians at all, but I think you should modify this part of your outline, so as not to misconstrue the current hereditarian view.--Urthogie 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that intelligence was viewed as a function of race in the historical contex-- I'll strike out the modern one. and ask for better wording. Thanks for the feedback!--futurebird 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfront

Here you have the Stormfront comment I talked about. Just one tip. Can you see the ice hokey pictures, well Lukas, before contributing under Thulean, plays ice hockey. A good coincidence. Veritas et Severitas 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/wikipedia-white-people-page-keeps-340624.html?t=340624

Veritas et Severitas 01:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That explains a lot! Thanks!futurebird 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I remember one day I looked at that page and they had changed all of the images to blonde people. It was creepy. futurebird 01:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for income graph

Hi, futurebird The data for the Image:Race_Income.png taken from here (personal income stats) and here (household income). Regards, Signature^brendel 06:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, quite frankly I don't know why the picture is in a template. I need to figure the syntax out myself but as it is 11:00 pm here in California that will have to wait until tomorrow (sorry). Maybe you'll beat me to it- if not I'm going to take another look at it tomorrow. Happy editing! Signature^brendel 07:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

race

I understand your concern. All I can ask is for you trust me that no one is going to let anything racist (that violates our policies) into the article. however, the article as it stands does already HAS race problems and believe me these will not be edited and worked on and the article will not improve unless the conflict between Jere and Rikurzhen is mediated. I firmly believe that will happen only if we single out a couple of specific issues and work on them systematically one at a time without constantly bringing up dozens of different points. And that is what is happening now, as it happened last week, last month, and last year. Different people airing their views and raising several different points at once. And the result will be this: the article will continue to have a race-privileging slant, as it has for a long time. I am willing to mediate their conflict to move us beyond this state, but it won't work unless people are willing to give it a chance. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been very cooperative and civil. I really think - and admit I can well be wrong - that the problem with the article has to do with a dynamic on the talk page that one way or the other makes it impossible to (1) prioritize issues (what I tried to do in the mediation section on the talk page, and also the long discussion section, now archived, was lead JK and WHD to get to the heart, the core, underlying points of contention) and (2) deal with them one at a time. When you have many people all firing shotguns pretty soon you can't see anything for all the smoke. My idea is to try to clear the smoke. I hope my interests and intentions are clear to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your most recent post. I believe if we can stick to one issue at a time AND be vigilant about compliance with NPOV, we will overcome! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: http://www.understandingrace.org/ Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

On my part, just wanted to say "thank you" for heeding the call to order. I can't say how much it is appreciated. We'll have our turn, don't worry.:)--Ramdrake 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also wanted to say that I've read your case with the AMA and found myself sympathizing (and agreeing) with much of it. Although you may not have seen me much on those talk pages, I used to be a regular editor on the R&I pages, with views often opposed to WRN and a few other editors who seem to have left since. I appreciate your cooperativeness, and would like to stress that everyone involved here is trying to be as open about everyone else's view as they can. However, that's not always sufficient to resolve issues. My only advice would be to stick in there (unlike I did) and make your points as clearly and as succintly as possible; this page has long suffered from a deadly mix of babeltalk and long-windedness. I believe SLR is on the right track with his approach.--Ramdrake 14:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Nice to make your acquaintance. You're a very talented artist. I love the pictures of the city. I lived in Manhattan from 1994-2001 and worked on Wall St. for JP Morgan. It was a great job, and hence my interest in the 1929 Crash article. I'm still a market analyst but living in the Atlanta area now. Take care Robertknyc 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the support. I think I'm going to have a break from editing. I think I was under more pressure from wikipedia than I realised. The stress builds up gradually when one is in constant conflict, and I didn't realise I was ready to blow. I really appreciate your note, and if I come back I'll drop you a note. Cheers. Alun 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my page

Hi Futurebird, thank for your very kind message on my page. Sorry for taking so long to reply. I'm a little wary of entering the debate on R&I - I think your proposal is good and well thought out. I would say if there is a standard format for Category:Race and intelligence controversy or one that closely alligns to the majority of teh other articles you should think about moving towards that - if there's not you should propose that such a model is created.
BTW I just added Sex and Intelligence as the WP:GS collaboration for February (only the 2 of us voted - so I seconded your choice). I hope I can be of some us to that article over the next few weeks. Below is the template to show the monthly collab

The current Project Gender Studies Collaboration is to be decided.
Please help improve the article any way you can.

Good luck with your proposals for R&I : ) --Cailil 21:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get down

I believe that the article in question is a neologism. I firmly believe it should be deleted, or perhaps transferred to Wikiticionary.--Thomas.macmillan 00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in on the AfD (you are correct, of course) and your additions to the article stub. The AfD is a typical response of those who know nothing of African culture. They did the same thing with "cool" in its various permutations as an article on the African phenomenon. deeceevoice 10:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreaciate your condescending response on my talk page. If you can't be civil, then do not bother communicating.--Thomas.macmillan 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading comments on Deecevoice's talk page, you may also want to consider assuming good faith.--Thomas.macmillan 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, I'm trying to be civil. I'm certain you didn't mean for it to seem the way that it did, but since we now have the research on the table do you think you could simply admit being wrong about this AfD? Can you see that it's a little hurtful when you call something that is quite old a “neologism” and then get angry at me for pointing out the error? Especially when there has been a persistent problem with the under representation of Black culture not only on this site but in most of western culture. Calling elements of black cultural heritage “novel” was one of the tactics used to deny black people their heritage and identity in the past. This is why deeceevoice and I are both giving you such a hard time about this AfD. I'm not suggesting that you've done this on purpose-- most people would make that mistake, in fact in the past I have made it, some of these things are still quite new to me and I’m learning about them now. I hope you choose to join me in doing that. And if I came across as condescend that wasn't my intention and I'm sorry.futurebird 17:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your level-headedness and conciliatory tone, futurebird, but no need to bend over backwards to apologize to this guy. The fact is he initiated the AfD without contributing a single thing to the article, without writing a single, solitary letter on the article talk page. (Even now, it's completely blank.) Such precipitous action without making any effort whatsoever to discuss with editors the nature, scope and intent of an article runs counter to accepted Wiki procedure and smacks of intellectual arrogance, if not outright bad faith. This guy just flat-out made the wrong move. He should have asked questions first -- because, as the AfD discussion clearly indicates, he doesn't know the subject matter. deeceevoice 06:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I almost forgot why I came here in the first place. It's about get down and your contribution about Gahu dance. That counterclockwise "dance" the author is referring to is what's known as a "ring shout" in the African-American community. We do it here. In the South. The old folks. In church. It's a spiritual thang. And it's done throughout black Africa. I've been meaning to do an article on it and have made reference to it in African American culture here[1]. You'll note it appears in red, which (you probably know by now) means there isn't yet an article on it. It's a major phenomenon in African culture and the African diaspora. (Didja ever see any old footage of Thelonius Monk at the piano? Every once in a while, he would jump up outta his seat and start shuffling/dancing around -- guess what -- counterclockwise. The "moments of the sun." That cat was spiritual -- and as African in his soul as they/we come. (winking) Peace. deeceevoice 06:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race & Intelligence

While I am strongly opposed to the blatantly racist and outrageous scientific claims in that article, I currently don't have enough time to argue over something as large as this. Feel free to call on me if there's a vote, but I unfortunately cannot participate in the discussion. :( +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email for the study, and unfortunately I'm sailing this weekend...but I'm willing to help get started on anything you want to try when I get back. Thanks again for your help! --JereKrischel 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

ThanksMuntuwandi 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk pages

I think you deleted content from the race-intelligence talk page. You cannot do that. You can remove a comment you yourself made - but never delete other people's comments. If I follow your edits correctly, please restore what you deleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was wrong, although I believe it was an innocent mistake. Archiving is always in order of discussion - in other words, we archive old talk before new talk. You did not archive the oldest talk, you removed talk from the middle of the discussion. That is improper archiving. I have made a point that the article is too long but the reason i did not archive any more than I have already (and I archived material from before the current start of discussion) it is because I think the block of talk currently on the page is all part of the most current discussion and under consideration and relevant. Please restore what you removed to the place you took it from. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have a hard time understanding what is missing from the page. It should be very easy. What is missing is what YOU removed from the page. Do NOT call what you did "archiving." Archiving is sequential, you archive OLD talk. You "archived" material from february 2. That is NOT old talk! That is current talk. It is your responsibility to restore what you deleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm restoring it now. I was under the impression that we needed to remove things that were cluttering the page, and because I started that section I thought it would be okay to archive it. Now that you have shown me what was missing I'm happy to put it back. futurebird 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your intention was good. But as a rule, always archive older material before more recent material. Personally, I think my attempt to mediate on Jan 30 is still relevant. Therefore, nothing after Jan 30 ought to be archived ... yet. The next thing to be archived should be the oldest talk i.e. my Jan 30 attempt to mediate. We should archive that only when everyone agrees that that attempt has failed and my comments are no longer relevant. I think they are still worth a try and I know Ramdrake and RIK feel the same way. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Get Down AfD

No problem. I like to cut out what doesn't deserve to be here, but that article clearly does. Best to you, Icemuon 18:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black supremacy

There's an anonymous editor who persists in reverting the article back to an earlie version replete with misquotes, mischaracterizations of quotes and suspicious language that has footnotes, but no direct quotes. I've been removing all of it, including the footnoted language, because it's inaccurate and, like the misquoted and distorted information, likely flat-out false. And he's reverted my edits with edit notes that claim he's reverting "vandalism" -- which is certainly against Wiki policy. You might want to look in on it. I don't want to violate the 3RR dealing with this creep. deeceevoice 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get Down

You're really welcome! It's nice to see you fightin' the good fight out here on Wikipedia. I'm a high school history teacher, so I definitely can relate as a teacher as well. =) Elefuntboy 19:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and Intelligence

I recruited my daughter to comment on the article for a fresh perspective from a high schooler (she was reluctant). I have noted lots of discussion of issues in the Talk but then an impasse. The graphic did need a better caption to explain so a first time reader will have a better feel for the article. I commend your efforts to neutralize the article and try to form some consensus. I think your idea to work out a new format is an excellent idea. I would recommend trying to recruit novices and non-experts after all the editors have their say and see what a general audience thinks. It might help with contentious issues as it is not about an expertise and being correct but writing a useful encyclopedia article. I often struggle with being concise and precise when it comes to editing Wikipedia. Experts are needed to really produce accurate precise articles, but novices also help creating accessible and concise articles. Slrubenstein is an excellent editor and it is my experience he is fair and follows NPOV so I believe he can really help. Good luck!GetAgrippa 03:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]