User talk:Dimmlerthegreat

June 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Replication crisis, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. StereoFolic (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this email. I'd like to know how I exactly added original research. The issue of severe overrepresentation of a group of people within a field and the consequences of such overrepresentation has been documented extensively, and the case that the overrepresentation of the far left within the social sciences is no different. I've referenced a source which confirmed that roughly 17.6% of professors within the social sciences self identify as marxist, while 22% self-identify as 'radical left'. I've also referenced another source about the dangers of political correctness (which, as we know, is spearheaded by progressives and leftists generally speaking) on science. Here is another source which recognizes that the social sciences are politically biased.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/rabble-rouser/202112/recognizing-politically-biased-social-science

Another about specific leftist overrepresentation in the social sciences:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-social-science-politically-biased/

It would therefore not be preposterous to assume that a non-insignificant percentage of studies which cannot be replicated are due to politically charged reasons.

I hope you will consider this. Dimmlerthegreat Dimmlerthegreat (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It would therefore not be preposterous to assume that a non-insignificant percentage of studies which cannot be replicated are due to politically charged reasons. - this statement, which you admit is an assumption, does not follow from the established facts. You're taking sources describing different things and combining them to draw a new connection not made in any of the sources. This is known as WP:SYNTH and not allowed. If there are reliable sources which themselves draw that connection, we can include them in the article, so long as it is done so with due weight and in a manner that clearly distinguishes fact from opinion and speculation. StereoFolic (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Okay, that makes sense. Would you consider this a valid source, then?

https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/has-liberal-bias-psychology-contributed-replication-crisis

It finds no evidence that a liberal or conservative slant reduces the reliability of a study, but it does find modest evidence when considering an ideological slant. And since marxists are generally ideologues, this would mean that they directly contribute to the replication crisis, right? Dimmlerthegreat (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a step in the right direction and possibly worth including, but the inference you make here - "since marxists are generally ideologues, this would mean that they directly contribute to the replication crisis, right" is again synthesis: you bring in another assumption and make an inference that is not necessarily sound even if the assumption is. If we include that source in the article it will be important to carefully note that it is describing a single study, with far from conclusive results. As such it shouldn't be given very much weight per WP:DUE. We also need to be careful because the study described hadn't yet been peer reviewed at the time that article was written, so the paper's results could have changed during peer review. It does look like it made the cut, but I don't know if anything changed in the process. https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/BAKN9Y7VDQCIAB2AIFSS/full StereoFolic (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thank you! Dimmlerthegreat (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding onto this, your similar interpretation at Transgender healthcare (Special:Diff/1229475272) in which you use an unrelated source to dismiss an entire body of research as ideologically slanted and thus unreliable is another example of improper synthesis.

Most of your edits so far seem to be inserting your own POV on various subjects (Race and intelligence, Transgender health care and purported political biases in scientific research). Understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a place to right great wrongs. We only care what reliable sources have to say.

As you find your footing writing in the encyclopedic style, without inserting your own commentary or informal language like iffy or the quest for (see MOS:EDITORIALIZING), consider contributing to less inflammatory topics which interest you. There are lots of articles out there which need improving.

Good luck! –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe it was at all uncalled for to add the caveat that ideologically slanted research (such as transgenderism) can cause a higher percentage of these studies to be unreplicatable. StereoFolic's criticism was based on my inference that '17.6% of social scientists being marxist, therefore the political slant in social science contributes to the replication crisis', which wasn't quite supported by an objective source.

However, the source I mentioned specifically talks about ideologically slanted research papers, therefore it's a valid thing to remind people of, which is that the inherent controversy regarding gender-affirming healthcare does contribute to the replication crisis. Dimmlerthegreat (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Also I have a question. I found this study on the well-being of transgender people in Norway, where the attempted suicide rate for transgender people is 21.4%, while the attempted suicide rate in America (2023) is 42%.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6993484/

I believe it's interesting to show much tolerance in the environment plays a role in the mental wellbeing of transgender people. Is there a place in the wiki for this particular info or do you think that this would be a synthesis? Dimmlerthegreat (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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.

Funcrunch (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)