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}}. |
|||
(112 intermediate revisions by 42 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
The Caplan review of the Murray book, discussed in the article is online at http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/an_optimists_ta.html . Therefore, there could be a link to that url. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.82.0.173|96.82.0.173]] ([[User talk:96.82.0.173#top|talk]]) 11:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
{{Race and intelligence talk page notice}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=y|class=B|vital=yes|living=y|listas=Murray, Charles|1= |
|||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Low|s&a-work-group=y|s&a-priority=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|IA=yes|IA-importance=low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}} |
|||
|class=C |
|||
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high|American=yes|American-importance=mid|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=mid}} |
|||
|listas=Murray, Charles |
|||
}} |
|||
|needs-photo=yes}} |
|||
{{Annual readership}} |
|||
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
{{WikiProject Libertarianism|class=c|importance=mid}} |
|||
| algo = old(90d) |
|||
{{WikiProject Conservatism}} |
|||
| 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) |
|||
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--> |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
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 |
|||
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}}). |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|||
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) |
|||
== White Nationalist label seems inappropriate to quote neutrally. == |
|||
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) |
|||
:SPLC identifies all types of hate groups including black-separatists, old-school anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, as well as new-school secular white nationalists. The secular white nationalists are famous for the slogan “a white Jew is white” and call for whites of all religions to unite in the war against brown people. Secular white nationalists hold up the wall in Israel and the reallocation of land from brown Palestinians to white Jews as examples of how white nationalism should work. |
|||
:I don't think Wikipedia should present the Charles Murray view or the SPLC view as correct, but should present the facts in both sides of the debate. [[User:Gouncbeatduke|Gouncbeatduke]] ([[User talk:Gouncbeatduke|talk]]) 18:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== RfC about SPLC identifying Murray as a White Nationalist == |
|||
== "His views on race and intelligence are now considered discredited by mainstream science" ... == |
|||
Question: Should the SPLC's identification of Murray as a White Nationalist be included in the article? |
|||
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. |
|||
Background: The following was removed from this article: |
|||
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. |
|||
: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) |
|||
Please note the question is if the information should be included ANYWHERE in the article. To date, it has be deleted both from the lede and the body. [[User:Gouncbeatduke|Gouncbeatduke]] ([[User talk:Gouncbeatduke|talk]]) 18:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
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> |
|||
=== 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''' <s>both in lede and</s> in the body and summarize/mention in the lede (per Maunus below). 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) |
|||
*'''Include''' mention of the SPLC in the body (and probably other similar critiques since these are abundant) and include some mention of the prominent view that he supports some kind of racialist worldview in the lead - probably summarizing not only SPLC but also the other relevant critical views.[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 10:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' per Maunus's comments. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 13:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include'''. (Body, not lede) (Copied from BLPN) SPLC is a primary source for its own opinion, but it is a recognised *notable* opinion on stuff like this. If it was the *only* organisation/person who thought this way about them, there would be an argument for exclusion. As it stands even a brief search shows a lot of sources that have the same opinion/view of the subject, published in otherwise reliable publications, so it is useable in the body of the article. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 14:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::I didn't find any "lots of sources", could you give us a couple? (Not interested in cites to ''The Nation'' or whatever). [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 17:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::: I would also like to see them listed. The only arguably legitimate source I see is the NY Times editorial. [[User:James J. Lambden|James J. Lambden]] ([[User talk:James J. Lambden|talk]]) |
|||
*'''Exclude'''. The SPLC is a good organization but it's not an ideologically unbiased organization and they sometimes get a little overenthusiastic and cast too wide a net. The Slate piece is just a blog. [http://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/01/26/white-nationalists-and-nativists-want-americans-pay-keep-america-white/215141 Here] you have "Charles Murray, a white nationalist..." but that is Media Matters, also smart people but also ideologically biased. What we want is ''Time'' or CBS denoting him as a white nationalist. I can't find an instance of that. Also, Murray denies being a white nationalist; he's not out-and-proud like [[Richard B. Spencer]] or whatever. That matters some, in a BLP. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 17:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude from lede''' (From BLP/N) If it is only the SPLC making this claim, and its claim parroted by others like Salon, then it is a small viewpoint that should not be presented in the lede. It can be included in the body obviously along with his counter-claim. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 19:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' - as per Maunus' comments, this is a pretty key feature of his public image and notability. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 05:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' - important description from a significant organization; properly given in-text attribution. Weight is appropriate as well, both in terms of placement (in body of article, fairly low down the page) and length (sufficient to establish context, but short enough so as to be proportional to rest of the article). In terms of placement in the lead section, I don't have a strong opinion, but would be inclined to omit. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 06:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' per maunus. Additionally, SPLC's views on hate groups are generally reported in the press in the US as a relatively reliable source. Yes, they are biased, but their opinions on such things are generally worth mentioning, so long as cited as their opinion and it is made clear it is just that. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 03:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude from lede''' as reprinting an accusation of racism in the lede when it has only been alleged by a single source violates the principles of BLP.[[User: Kbog|'''<font color="black">K</font>''']].[[User talk:Kbog|'''<font color="blue">Bog</font>''']] 05:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::A couple other notes: first, the claim that he uses 'pseudoscience and misleading statistics' is a poor representation of the SPLC's article, which does not evaluate the veracity of Murray's empirical claims. A more appropriate summary quote would be that "Murray’s attempts to link social inequality to genes are based on the work of explicitly racist scientists" for example. Second, I integrated the section into the "human group differences" section before I saw this RFC, as it fit into the same topic and had very little content of its own. I'm okay with discussing it first now that I see that there is a lot of attention here. [[User: Kbog|'''<font color="black">K</font>''']].[[User talk:Kbog|'''<font color="blue">Bog</font>''']] 05:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include in body, exclude from lede, and don't call it "identifies"''' - the word "identifies" implies that the SPLC has some sort of special powers of deduction. In reality, they have the same information as everyone else, and form their own conclusions. The body currently uses the words "described" and "labelled" for the SPLC's opinion, which seems a lot better. The SPLC's opinion is noteworthy but not overwhelmingly important; perhaps it says more about them than it does about Murray. [[User:Korny O'Near|Korny O'Near]] ([[User talk:Korny O'Near|talk]]) 18:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Exclude''' from lede. SPLC's labeling is basically ''ad hominem''. (At one point they labeled [[Southern Poverty Law Center#Controversy over hate group and extremist listings|Ben Carson]] as an "extremist".) Inclusion in the text is problematic in that such stand-alone labeling is prone to [[WP:UNDUE]]. Criticisms of Murray ought to comply with [[Paul Graham (computer programmer)#Graham.27s Hierarchy of Disagreement]]. – [[User:Srich32977|S. Rich]] ([[User talk:Srich32977|talk]]) 21:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Exclude''' Murray is a "white nationalist" is the same sense that Barack Obama is a Muslim, i.e., it's something that unreliable partisan organizations claim in the face of the subject's statements and behavior that refute the claim.--[[User:Victor Chmara|Victor Chmara]] ([[User talk:Victor Chmara|talk]]) 15:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Well there is a significant difference in the fact that White Nationalists love Murray and his work, whereas the worlds Muslims are not great fans of Obama's presidency or policies at all.[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 15:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: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) |
|||
::: That's neither here nor there. Moreover, while white nationalists may appreciate Murray's research, that doesn't mean that Murray shares their politics. [http://www.unz.com/akarlin/charles-murrays-ideology/ Here's] a recent denunciation of Murray's politics from a white nationalist/alt-right perspective. Does this sound like something a white nationalist would say: |
|||
== Contested edits == |
|||
:::: ''I am not impressed by worries about losing America’s Anglo-European identity. Some of the most American people I know are immigrants from other parts of the world. And I’d a hell of a lot rather live in a Little Vietnam or a Little Guatemala neighborhood, even if I couldn’t read the store signs, than in many white-bread communities I can think of.'' |
|||
:::--[[User:Victor Chmara|Victor Chmara]] ([[User talk:Victor Chmara|talk]]) 15:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I do agree that "white naitonalism" does not seem to be an accurate description of his political views, and I wonder why SPLC uses that label. Regardless the fact that he is well known for views that are widely described as racist should be in the article and the lead.[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 16:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
:::::: As [[Alice Dreger]] [https://twitter.com/AliceDreger/status/838023453471096832 pointed out] on Twitter, "Southern Poverty Law [Center] misrepresents scholars' work in an attempt to inflame passions and get attention." That's part of their (very profitable) business model.--[[User:Victor Chmara|Victor Chmara]] ([[User talk:Victor Chmara|talk]]) 16:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Well I guess there is something to that argument that they might not get as much attention to their cause by labeling him a "garden variety conservative racist with a big microphone". [[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 16:27, 5 March 2017 (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) |
|||
*'''Exclude from lead''', but seems fine to discuss in the article in some place, as per the usual criticism of persons. I could not find any good source for Murray being a white nationalist. This label is generally just used as a smear word from ideological opponents of his research. As such, it seems to violate BLP. ''The Bell Curve'' does not contain any instances of ''nationalist'' or ''nationalism''. Given that Murray was also married to an Asian, he seems an unlikely candidate for the label. TBC discusses immigration to the US at some length, but generally refrains from taking any strong positions. E.g. "It seems apparent that there are costs and benefits to any immigration policy and that no extreme view, pro or con, is likely to be correct." and "Whether it will be a functioning multiculturalism or an unraveling one is the main question about immigration, and not one we can answer." (p. 358). [[User:Deleet|Deleet]] ([[User talk:Deleet|talk]]) 08:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' (brought here by bot) I don't fundamentally have a problem including this, however, the term "white nationalist" is obviously very deprecatory and should be based on more than the assessment of a single person - corporate or actual - even if it is a generally respectable one like the SPLC. If this label has been applied to describe Murray by 3-4 disconnected, reputable groups or media outlets, I would probably !vote include. Otherwise, I think this is UNDUE. [[User:DarjeelingTea|DarjeelingTea]] ([[User talk:DarjeelingTea|talk]]) 06:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' The SPLC is not a reliable source, also shown by the untruths they spread about [[Majid Nawaz]]. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 06:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' SPLC is not a reliable source, and this a [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:Instaurare|Instaurare]] ([[User talk:Instaurare|talk]]) 04:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Definitely exclude from lede; exclude from article unless there are multiple sources.''' This can't be justified in the lede at all. I agree with DarjeelingTea that if we can find three "disconnected, reputable groups or media outlets" that characterize Murray in this way, the fact that Murray has been called this name might belong somewhere in the article. However, if we do, I think the term should be explained in that sentence: not "the SPLC calls Murray a white nationalist", but rather, "the SPLC calls Murray a white nationalist because of Murray's public support for X" (where X is one of the tenets of [[White nationalism]], such as opposition to interracial marriage). On the other hand, if the SPLC calls Murray a White nationalism but does not allege that he supports the tenets in the article [[White nationalism]], then the SPLC is making a false statement and it doesn't belong here. Hundreds of people accused Barack Obama of being a Kenyan, but that doesn't mean it should be covered as a fact. — <span style="font: small-caps 12px times;">[[User:Lawrence King|Lawrence King]]</span> <sup style="font: small-caps 10px arial; color: #129dbc;">([[User talk:Lawrence King|<span style="color: #129dbc;">talk</span>]])</sup> 06:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== More contested edits == |
|||
=== Incident at Middlebury College === |
|||
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) |
|||
The term "outside agitators" is a loaded term used by one side in the debate about this incident. Might a more neutral term be used? [[User:PaulAlanLevy|PaulAlanLevy]] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 17:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: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?== |
|||
=== Threaded discussion === |
|||
{{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}} |
|||
*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) |
|||
::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) |
|||
:::This was removed from the body of the article and the lede, but there is some discussion of SPLC in the Bell Curve part. [[User:Gouncbeatduke|Gouncbeatduke]] ([[User talk:Gouncbeatduke|talk]]) 17:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*It appears most editors think this information should be included, but not in the lede. Any thoughts on where and how? The Bell Curve section doesn't seem right to me as 95% of the information SPLC cites in it's claim has nothing to do with the Bell Curve. [[User:Gouncbeatduke|Gouncbeatduke]] ([[User talk:Gouncbeatduke|talk]]) 17:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
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? |
|||
==Columbia scholars== |
|||
This statement[http://www.law.columbia.edu/open-university-project/academic-freedom/faculty-murray-statement] cosigned by more than a hundred (154 to be exact) professors from Columbia University seems relevant in determinining how accepted Murray's views and arguments are, and how general the view that his work contributes to forms of racism is. I will put some quotes here: |
|||
{{quote|"Beginning with his 1984 book Losing Ground and taken up more fully in The Bell Curve[2] in 1994 and through his most recent writing, the corpus of Murray’s work has amounted to an ideological polemic that justifies the ongoing disenfranchisement of African Americans and other people of color, and more recently, poor and working class white people. Although his writings carry the rhetorical patina of science, Murray is largely regarded in academic circles as a rank apologist for racial eugenics and racial inequality in the United States. Murray has every right to publicize his ideas, but we have a duty to object when he does so by assaulting foundational norms of sound scholarship and intellectual integrity. We offer some important background on Murray’s writings in an effort to stand with those members of our community who are demeaned by Murray’s claims."}} |
|||
and |
|||
{{quote|"The “reality of IQ,” he maintains, shows that the overwhelming majority of young people get “nothing” out of college and thus should be tracked in their education toward a trade where they will live a happy, if modest, life. While Murray rests most of his claims on an analysis of class, it just so happens that Murray’s analysis suggests that African Americans do not enjoy the genetic endowment that would suit them to college-level study or economic prosperity. This is an outrageous insult to a significant part of the Columbia community."}} |
|||
and |
|||
{{quote|"The problem is that the science on which Murray bases these claims has been thoroughly debunked by a wide range of scholars. The scientific veneer of which Murray makes use is made up of references to articles published in and writers associated with Mankind Quarterly, an anthropology journal well known for its racism and anti-Semitism. The journal’s founders were apologists for Nazi eugenics policies and the system of Apartheid in South Africa, and have robustly defended the mental inferiority of African Americans. Furthermore, much of the “scholarship” upon which Murray relies was funded by the Pioneer Fund, an organization with a distinctly eugenicist and racist agenda that funded research like Murray’s that maintained that “raising the intelligence of blacks or others still remains beyond our capabilities.”}} |
|||
: '''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) |
|||
It is rare that a biographical subject is also the subject of statements like this coauthored by such a wide range of scholars, I think we should give this statement some weight in determining how to weight material in this article.[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 08:18, 27 March 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) |
|||
*'''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) |
|||
: Agreed. But let's be careful to note which assertions in this Columbia critique are matters of fact, and which are matters of political opinion. The following claims involve matters of fact, which are therefore either true or false: (1) many of Murray's conclusions are rejected in the academic community; (2) the science underlying his arguments comes from a journal known for racist views; (3) Murray received funding from a racist organization. These are very significant claims, and if possible, we should determine whether they are uncontested or whether there are those who deny the truth of these three claims. If they are established as true, then they should appear in this article without weasel words. BLP doesn't prevent established facts from being stated. |
|||
* '''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) |
|||
: |
|||
{{archive bottom}} |
|||
: The following claims, on the other hand, are matters of political opinion: (4) Murray's work could be used to "justify the ongoing disenfranchisement of African Americans and other people of color"; (5) although Murray writes about class, his analysis "just so happens" to "suggest" that African-Americans aren't suited to college. These are not claims that appear in Murray's books; they are inferences that the authors of this statement have made from his books. (Note, for example, that they directly quote from Murray's claim that only 10-12% of 18-year-olds are suited for college, but then they infer from this that zero percent of African-Americans are not suited for college.) If a police spokesman states that most criminals are males between the ages of 18 and 35, this statement ''could be used'' to justify preemptively incarcerating all males of those ages, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should equate the original statement with the ways it might be used. Unless Murray himself has made comments such as those in #4 and #5, we shouldn't hang them around his neck because someone else might say them. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.40.164.13|96.40.164.13]] ([[User talk:96.40.164.13#top|talk]]) 00:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::Whether it is fact or opinion is irrelevant, an opinion about a person and their research is significant and notable if held by 154 Columbia professors strongly enough to publish it. It certainly goes to show precisely why Murray is controversial and to substantiate the claim that he is widely thought to have problematic views about race (which some people in the above discussion doubted).[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 04:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:: It should be noted that many of the 154 Columbia faculty who signed the statement are from departments like Music, Art History, and others which don't give them expertise in evaluating claims about psychometrics or the biology of race so the raw number 154 needs to be considered in light of how many on them have relevant expertise. Of course, it may still be notable the way a statement signed by notable non-expert people. How has the statement been covered in secondary sources seems to be the relevant question. [[User:NPalgan2|NPalgan2]] ([[User talk:NPalgan2|talk]]) 01:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, that shouldn't be noticed unless there is a reliable source noting that. [[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 04:30, 28 March 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)