Nomoskedasticity (talk | contribs) |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject Conservatism}}, {{WikiProject Politics}}. |
||
(165 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{talkheader}} |
||
{{Race and intelligence talk page notice}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=y|class=B|vital=yes|living=y|listas=Murray, Charles|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Low|s&a-work-group=y|s&a-priority=Low}} |
|||
|class=C |
|||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|IA=yes|IA-importance=low}} |
|||
|listas=Murray, Charles |
|||
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}} |
|||
|needs-photo=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high|American=yes|American-importance=mid|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=mid}} |
||
}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Libertarianism|class=c|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{Annual readership}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Conservatism}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
| algo = old(90d) |
|||
| archive = Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist)/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
| counter = 1 |
|||
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|||
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
| minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Image requested|in=the United States}} |
|||
{{Race and intelligence talk page notice}} |
|||
=="Burning" a cross== |
|||
According to the source cited in the biography on Murray burning a cross as a teenager, this is what transpired: |
|||
"...they nailed some scrap wood into a cross, adorned it with fireworks and set it ablaze on a hill beside the police station, with marshmallows scattered as a calling card." |
|||
Is it really fair to describe what transpired as "burning a cross", with all the racist connotations, when it could be more specifically described as "destroying a cross with firecrackers"? Regardless of the man's racial views later in life, whatever they may be, it's pretty clear, at least from the cited source, that the action bore little resemblance to the KKK ritual. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/116.212.152.217|116.212.152.217]] ([[User talk:116.212.152.217|talk]]) 18:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Views on SAT == |
|||
Today, I added a sentence regarding Murray's views on the SAT as per a recently published NYTimes editorial. --Elakhna 14:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 == |
|||
Whenever someone writes an article on ''Coming Apart'', http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/opinion/sunday/when-poverty-was-white.html will prove invaluable. [[Special:Contributions/68.191.166.52|68.191.166.52]] ([[User talk:68.191.166.52|talk]]) 02:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Pro/Con links == |
|||
Some of the links for pro side are not really good, it includes blog posts. Perhaps there should be inclusion of academic sources who agree with Charles Murray. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.14.29.128|74.14.29.128]] ([[User talk:74.14.29.128|talk]]) 21:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Flynn book blurb quote == |
|||
I think the quote is essentially about the book, not Murray, and belongs [[What is Intelligence|there]], not here. But if I'm alone in that opinion, I won't push the point. [[User:Barte|Barte]] ([[User talk:Barte|talk]]) 04:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: To me, I thought it was also a statement of Murray's state of knowledge (about unspecified issues, alas) before and after reading the book, and thus a '''sourced''' biographical statement about Murray himself by Murray as well. I'm still looking for sourced statements about Murray's views on a variety of issues that are more recent in time than that. A lot has happened in the scholarly world since the publication of '''The Bell Curve'''. Thanks for your reply. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 12:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::A worthy goal. I haven't read Murray extensively, but from my limited sample, his later books are a better source of his post-Bell Curve opinions, including some reflection on that book. The problem with quoting a book blurb is that the format is inherently brief (whereas Murray as a writer is expansive) and the context is lacking: a reader here must know what ''What is Intelligence'' is about to understand what Murray was endorsing. [[User:Barte|Barte]] ([[User talk:Barte|talk]]) 13:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Azusa Pacific University controversy? == |
|||
Charles Murray was disallowed from making a speech at [[Azusa Pacific University]] (which was "postponed") because of Charles Murray's allegedly controversial writings. He defends himself [http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/charles-murray-an-open-letter-to-the-students-of-azusa-pacific-university/ here]. Is this relevant enough to be included? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wajajad|Wajajad]] ([[User talk:Wajajad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wajajad|contribs]]) 19:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: Don't forget to sign your talk page posts. Does any other source think that this is an important issue? Is the occurrence of the event even reported anywhere else? -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 19:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Many news sites have indeed reported on this issue. A quick google search brings much up, any idea which site in particular would be good to cite?[[User:Wajajad|Wajajad]] ([[User talk:Wajajad|talk]]) 20:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::[http://claremontindependent.com/george-will-uninvited-from-scripps-college/ This one] from a local paper would work. [[User:Barte|Barte]] ([[User talk:Barte|talk]]) 21:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::Looks good. I will soon make the edit.[[User:Wajajad|Wajajad]] ([[User talk:Wajajad|talk]]) 00:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Ooops--sorry, the above link was about George Will. [https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2014/04/23/charles-murray-questions-azusa-pacific this one] might work re: Murray. [[User:Barte|Barte]] ([[User talk:Barte|talk]]) 00:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Picture of him == |
|||
We should find one.[[User:ParanoidLemmings|ParanoidLemmings]] ([[User talk:ParanoidLemmings|talk]]) 09:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== "His views on race and intelligence are now considered discredited by mainstream science" ... == |
|||
The Goldlocks' Effect: Sen suggest that unfreedom diminishes our overall value. Perhaps as important is how 'unfreedom' effects 'Goldlocks and the Three Bears' and the author's three key greatness attributes, 1) trial and error, 2) simplicity, and 3) innovation. Murray's Law is the perpetually declining value of 'give a man a fish' programs is correct and that the ultimate harm is done to its recipients, but the ultimate harm is the disruption of freedom that kills the desire, the passion, the component of human nature to succeed which is what Goldi teaches us. Try and try again. Make decisions simple and be willing to go to step one. And finally, when all else doesn't work, even the age-old criminal intent of breaking and entering can work, even if only temporarily. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tlewellen12|Tlewellen12]] ([[User talk:Tlewellen12|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tlewellen12|contribs]]) 01:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
This sentence is supported by articles from "The Guardian", "Vox", and a paper with only one listed citation. These sources are politically highly partisan and simply cannot be taken seriously. We all know race and intelligence is a political football - the race and intelligence page on Wikipedia is locked. There are a small number of right-wing extremists who would like to use the genetic component of intelligence for racism(although that would be quite hard since racial rankings of IQ place whites in the middle of the pack), but this is countered by a much larger group of authoritarian identity politics following left-wingers who want to pretend genetics and intelligence don't influence society. |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
When I have listened to academics discussing the current state of race and intelligence the conclusion they have reached is that the jury is still out. Certainly research by Robert Plomin implies a strong genetic component of IQ and that will reflect your biological parents. |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
Anyway casually dismissing Murray on the basis rants from highly partisan sources completely undermines Wikipedia as a reliable and trustworthy source of information. The sentence should be either removed or should simply state that some people still consider race and intelligence a controversial subject with no definitive conclusion at this time. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:51.9.123.82|51.9.123.82]] ([[User talk:51.9.123.82#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/51.9.123.82|contribs]]) </span> |
|||
I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Charles Murray (political scientist)]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=748924655 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101113633/http://www.american.com:80/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/abolish-the-sat to http://american.com/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/abolish-the-sat |
|||
:Please refer to [[Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_103#RfC_on_racial_hereditarianism]] and [[WP:FRINGE]]. We are required to identify fringe beliefs as such. This will not be relitigated here. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 11:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). |
|||
== Contested edits == |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|||
If IP 2601:805:8180:2d70:212a:16da:315a:3912 would like to make controversial changes to this page, they will need to persuade others first, since almost everything that is currently written here is the result of a preexisting consensus process. In particular, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Murray_%28political_scientist%29&type=revision&diff=1123804907&oldid=1123802333 this edit] contradicts the strong consensus of Wikipedia editors which found that the ''scientific'' consensus is that racial disparities in average performance on IQ tests are not caused by genetic differences. See this RfC: [[Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 103#RfC on racial hereditarianism]]. All Wikipedia pages which deal with this topic must conform to the finding of that RfC, and any [[WP:FRINGE]] views which contradict it need to be described from a mainstream point of view. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 20:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 06:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:There have recently been edits by {{u|Rayner111}} and {{u|Nrunje}} attempting to change this wording once again. My understanding is that the present wording is required by the [[WP:FRINGE]] guideline, and any attempts to introduce ambiguity to the statement run afoul of [[Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_103#RfC_on_racial_hereditarianism|the prevailing consensus]]. I invite these editors to make their case here if they would like to see the language changed. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 00:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== White Nationalist label seems inappropriate to quote neutrally. == |
|||
== More contested edits == |
|||
This article neutrally quotes Southern Poverty Law Center as describing Murray as a "White Nationalist". That label is probably incorrect and seems absurd on the surface. Murray co-authored ''The Bell Curve'' with Richard Hernnstein, a Jew, and works at the American Enterprise Institute, a neoconservative think tank with some Jewish faculty. Most White Nationalists are Anti-Jewish, so the company Murray keeps would not fit in with his being a White Nationalist, and I've also never heard Murray advocate a white ethnic state, which would be the ordinary definition of a white nationalist, he's never said anything closely resembling the political platform of Kevin MacDonald. Unless significant, mainstream reliable sources describe him as a white nationalist I don't think the SPLC quote should be presented as if correct. [[User:RandomScholar30|RandomScholar30]] ([[User talk:RandomScholar30|talk]]) 07:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I invite {{u|ShirtNShoesPls}} to discuss [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Murray_%28political_scientist%29&diff=1190065040&oldid=1190054782 their preferred text] here rather than [[WP:EW|edit warring]]. Happy to be persuaded, but at first glance the suggested language appears [[WP:UNDUE]]. And contrary to the assertion in your edit summary, the current version of the lead does not fail to mention his promotion of discredited ideas about race and intelligence. With particular regard to including allegations of white supremacy in the lead, [[Talk:Charles_Murray_(political_scientist)#RfC_about_SPLC_identifying_Murray_as_a_White_Nationalist|see the above RfC]]. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 19:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== RfC about SPLC identifying Murray as a White Nationalist == |
|||
:Some parts of that edit go too far, but I do think that we should describe his views on race and intelligence in the first sentence; it's by far the thing that he's most notable for. Mentioning it only in the very last sentence feels extremely strange. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Good point. I'd be open to a rewrite that does a better job highlighting what Murray is best known for so long as it comports with [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:TONE]]. In my view, the suggested edit reads like a [[WP:STRAWSOCK]] type of argument. I'm not accusing ShirtNShoesPls of this, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Tristan_albatross we have seen this tactic in the R&I topic area] and those accounts made similar types of edits. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 21:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::I think second sentence tends to read better if it's a sentence that is long (as this one will be). It's only my personal preference, but putting fringe disclaimers in the first sentence always feels a bit RationalWiki for me (I enjoy a bit of RationalWiki, but still). [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 21:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::On topics like [[race and intelligence] or creationism we don't need to "balance" the two perspectives. [[WP: NPOV]] doesn't prevent us from taking stances if there's overwhelming evidence for one side of the dispute. [[User:ShirtNShoesPls|ShirtNShoesPls]] ([[User talk:ShirtNShoesPls|talk]]) 21:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Who are you arguing against here, ShirtNShoesPls? [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 22:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm not trying to "balance" two perspectives? What is the other perspective here? I'm saying things often read better with a short first sentence and a clarifying second sentence. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 00:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:If there are RS calling Murray's work pseudoscientific, let's get them into the body of the article. BODYFOLLOWSLEAD is not the way to go. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 21:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
==RFC: Should Charles Murray's positions on race and intelligence be described as pseudoscientific in the lead?== |
|||
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=D37DA3F}} |
|||
{{archive top|I'm summarily closing and delisting this RfC. RfCs use up a lot of volunteer time which is Wikipedia's limiting resource, so RfC is an "expensive" process, if you follow me. You're welcome to use RfC if talk page consensus fails, but please, do try to reach talk page consensus first.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 16:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)|PREMATURE}} |
|||
Question: Should the SPLC's identification of Murray as a White Nationalist be included in the article? |
|||
Should Charles Murray's insistence that the intelligence gaps between "races" is partially or mostly attributable to genetics be mentioned in his lead? And should this page state that his beliefs on the matter are considered pseudoscientific by members of the scientific community? |
|||
Background: The following was removed from this article: |
|||
: '''Background:''' The information has recently been removed from several of the articles surrounding Murray, along with other "racialist" thinkers such as [[Richard Lynn]], due to a recent Quillette article that claims that the notion is a smearjob against him and other "hereditarian" thinkers. Others state that this presents a false balance. [[User:ShirtNShoesPls|ShirtNShoesPls]] ([[User talk:ShirtNShoesPls|talk]]) 17:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:The [[Southern Poverty Law Center]] identifies Murray as a [[White nationalism|White Nationalist]] who uses "racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women and the poor."<ref>{{cite web|title=Charles Murray|url=https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray|website=Southern Poverty Law Center|publisher=Southern Poverty Law Center|accessdate=23 January 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Weigel|first1=David|title=Charles Murray, Public Menace|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/04/02/charles_murray_public_menace.html|website=Slate.com|publisher=Slate|accessdate=23 January 2017}}</ref> |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
[[User:Gouncbeatduke|Gouncbeatduke]] ([[User talk:Gouncbeatduke|talk]]) 17:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Close as premature''': [[Talk:Charles_Murray_(political_scientist)#More_contested_edits|The discussion above]] appears (to me) to fall well short of [[WP:RFCBEFORE]]. ShirtNShoesPls has not actually engaged at all with other editors. They've simply made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACharles_Murray_%28political_scientist%29&diff=1190085685&oldid=1190085656 a single declarative statement] that ignores the substance of what others are saying. And now they've repeated that pattern above in their "Background" comment. In actual fact, the R&I topic area has been subjected to wave after wave of brain-dead meatpuppetry for years. It is nothing new, and has nothing to do with the OP's preferred text being reverted. Their phrasing {{tq|The information has recently been removed}} is frankly misleading. They tried to institute a rather radical change in tone and I reverted it as [[WP:UNDUE]]. They have made zero effort to address that concern. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 18:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
=== Survey === |
|||
*'''Include''', subject to points raised by MShabazz below, namely that it must be present in the body. The SPLC stuff is attributed and therefore legitimate given its authority. Detail, the present heading in the article is "white supremacy", that would be better rephrased since the SPLC criticisms go far beyond WSup. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 19:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include'''. I fully agree with Pincrete and Malik Shabazz. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 23:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Exclude''': SPLC is primary (and non-authoritative.) The Slate piece is a blog – not RS for standard claims, '''definitely''' not RS for "white nationalist" BLP claims. An outcome of include ''Include'' would go straight to [[WP:BLPN]]. [[User:James J. Lambden|James J. Lambden]] ([[User talk:James J. Lambden|talk]]) 01:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Include''' both in lede and in body. Despite James' comment above, the SPLC obviously ''is'' an authority on these matters, their opinion on stuff like this is notable and regularly reported on in major news outlets, academic books and papers, etc. If it's attributed to them I see no problem. [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 23:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Include, but not in lead'''. The SPLC is notable, whether or not it is universally viewed as authoritative, so should be in the article. However, with only secondary reference a blog hosted by a POV publication (Slate), it shouldn't be in the lead. [[User:NPalgan2|NPalgan2]] ([[User talk:NPalgan2|talk]]) 23:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:: The same view is noted by other sources as well: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/greg-abbott-charles-murray_n_5071689.html][https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/opinion/blow-paul-ryan-culture-and-poverty.html?_r=0]. Just sayin' [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 05:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::: HuffPo and a Charles Blow POV piece. If we're going to cite them, we should also note [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/398318/ben-carson-added-southern-poverty-law-centers-extremist-files-ian-tuttle] and [https://spectator.org/58864_we-are-all-charles-murray/] [[User:NPalgan2|NPalgan2]] ([[User talk:NPalgan2|talk]]) 05:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' -- in lead and body. This is normal stuff, appropriate for inclusion with attribution. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 09:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Close as premature''' the discussion above doesn't really justify going to a RFC yet per [[WP:RFCBEFORE]]. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 14:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
=== Threaded discussion === |
|||
* '''Note''': I posted a request for closure at [[WP:ANRFC]] due to the calls above for an early close. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 14:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*I don't know whether it's an appropriate description of Murray, but I agree with part of the edit summary of the editor who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Murray_(political_scientist)&diff=763846295&oldid=763358200 removed it] that it doesn't belong at the end of the [[WP:lead|lead]] unless there's a discussion of his views and why the SPLC considers him a white nationalist elsewhere in the article. — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{archive bottom}} |
|||
::I'll try moving it to the "Research and views" section, and I'll remove it completely if the RfC results indicates it should be removed. [[User:Gouncbeatduke|Gouncbeatduke]] ([[User talk:Gouncbeatduke|talk]]) 21:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:: I didn't realize the text was present in the article when I commented. I've submitted a request [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Charles_Murray_.28political_scientist.29|to the BLP Noticeboard]]. [[User:James J. Lambden|James J. Lambden]] ([[User talk:James J. Lambden|talk]]) 22:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 00:55, 9 January 2024
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"His views on race and intelligence are now considered discredited by mainstream science" ...
This sentence is supported by articles from "The Guardian", "Vox", and a paper with only one listed citation. These sources are politically highly partisan and simply cannot be taken seriously. We all know race and intelligence is a political football - the race and intelligence page on Wikipedia is locked. There are a small number of right-wing extremists who would like to use the genetic component of intelligence for racism(although that would be quite hard since racial rankings of IQ place whites in the middle of the pack), but this is countered by a much larger group of authoritarian identity politics following left-wingers who want to pretend genetics and intelligence don't influence society.
When I have listened to academics discussing the current state of race and intelligence the conclusion they have reached is that the jury is still out. Certainly research by Robert Plomin implies a strong genetic component of IQ and that will reflect your biological parents.
Anyway casually dismissing Murray on the basis rants from highly partisan sources completely undermines Wikipedia as a reliable and trustworthy source of information. The sentence should be either removed or should simply state that some people still consider race and intelligence a controversial subject with no definitive conclusion at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.123.82 (talk • contribs)
- Please refer to Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_103#RfC_on_racial_hereditarianism and WP:FRINGE. We are required to identify fringe beliefs as such. This will not be relitigated here. Generalrelative (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Contested edits
If IP 2601:805:8180:2d70:212a:16da:315a:3912 would like to make controversial changes to this page, they will need to persuade others first, since almost everything that is currently written here is the result of a preexisting consensus process. In particular, this edit contradicts the strong consensus of Wikipedia editors which found that the scientific consensus is that racial disparities in average performance on IQ tests are not caused by genetic differences. See this RfC: Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 103#RfC on racial hereditarianism. All Wikipedia pages which deal with this topic must conform to the finding of that RfC, and any WP:FRINGE views which contradict it need to be described from a mainstream point of view. Generalrelative (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- There have recently been edits by Rayner111 and Nrunje attempting to change this wording once again. My understanding is that the present wording is required by the WP:FRINGE guideline, and any attempts to introduce ambiguity to the statement run afoul of the prevailing consensus. I invite these editors to make their case here if they would like to see the language changed. Generalrelative (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
More contested edits
I invite ShirtNShoesPls to discuss their preferred text here rather than edit warring. Happy to be persuaded, but at first glance the suggested language appears WP:UNDUE. And contrary to the assertion in your edit summary, the current version of the lead does not fail to mention his promotion of discredited ideas about race and intelligence. With particular regard to including allegations of white supremacy in the lead, see the above RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Some parts of that edit go too far, but I do think that we should describe his views on race and intelligence in the first sentence; it's by far the thing that he's most notable for. Mentioning it only in the very last sentence feels extremely strange. --Aquillion (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Good point. I'd be open to a rewrite that does a better job highlighting what Murray is best known for so long as it comports with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:TONE. In my view, the suggested edit reads like a WP:STRAWSOCK type of argument. I'm not accusing ShirtNShoesPls of this, but we have seen this tactic in the R&I topic area and those accounts made similar types of edits. Generalrelative (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think second sentence tends to read better if it's a sentence that is long (as this one will be). It's only my personal preference, but putting fringe disclaimers in the first sentence always feels a bit RationalWiki for me (I enjoy a bit of RationalWiki, but still). Zenomonoz (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- On topics like [[race and intelligence] or creationism we don't need to "balance" the two perspectives. WP: NPOV doesn't prevent us from taking stances if there's overwhelming evidence for one side of the dispute. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Who are you arguing against here, ShirtNShoesPls? Generalrelative (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to "balance" two perspectives? What is the other perspective here? I'm saying things often read better with a short first sentence and a clarifying second sentence. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- On topics like [[race and intelligence] or creationism we don't need to "balance" the two perspectives. WP: NPOV doesn't prevent us from taking stances if there's overwhelming evidence for one side of the dispute. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- If there are RS calling Murray's work pseudoscientific, let's get them into the body of the article. BODYFOLLOWSLEAD is not the way to go. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
RFC: Should Charles Murray's positions on race and intelligence be described as pseudoscientific in the lead?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Charles Murray's insistence that the intelligence gaps between "races" is partially or mostly attributable to genetics be mentioned in his lead? And should this page state that his beliefs on the matter are considered pseudoscientific by members of the scientific community?
- Background: The information has recently been removed from several of the articles surrounding Murray, along with other "racialist" thinkers such as Richard Lynn, due to a recent Quillette article that claims that the notion is a smearjob against him and other "hereditarian" thinkers. Others state that this presents a false balance. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Close as premature: The discussion above appears (to me) to fall well short of WP:RFCBEFORE. ShirtNShoesPls has not actually engaged at all with other editors. They've simply made a single declarative statement that ignores the substance of what others are saying. And now they've repeated that pattern above in their "Background" comment. In actual fact, the R&I topic area has been subjected to wave after wave of brain-dead meatpuppetry for years. It is nothing new, and has nothing to do with the OP's preferred text being reverted. Their phrasing
The information has recently been removed
is frankly misleading. They tried to institute a rather radical change in tone and I reverted it as WP:UNDUE. They have made zero effort to address that concern. Generalrelative (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Close as premature the discussion above doesn't really justify going to a RFC yet per WP:RFCBEFORE. Nemov (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: I posted a request for closure at WP:ANRFC due to the calls above for an early close. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)