Talk:The Mismeasure of Man/Archive 1

Desert

Gould abuses the standard concept of desert. No one would say that a down syndrom child "deserves their status", so why would a black person "deserve" it if their genes made them less fit for high-paying jobs? This is such an obvious criticm of his line of argument that there needs to be something said about this. Genes do not excuse mistreatment, this should be obvious.

Also the racism argument doesn't explain why the evil IQ nazis would want to "discriminate" against the low-IQ of their own race. As Gould himself is fond of pointing out there is more variation within race than between race, so most of the "discrimation" would be "hurting" members of the hereditarian's own race.

Removed more bias

I fixed the sentence, "'The Mismeasure of Man' has been highly controversial in some quarters, including among academics and writers who tend to favor heritability and race-based intelligence theories."

This is like saying, "Lederhosen is worn by many groups and cultures, including the vile Nazis." Well, yes, that's true, but that doesn't say anything significant about wearers of lederhosen.

This sentence was just a little too completely absured to be granted a place in Wikipedia.

End racisum now!

Polar discussion

It seems as though criticisms of Goulds work are being discussed in the article by two authors, where one arguement will immediately be followed up by an explanation. Im not sure if this is against wiki's ideals or not, but it seems like the article would read better if those comments were fused into one sentence, so it seems more like it was written by 1 author. tskaze 21:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

that would definitely be an improvement. --Rikurzhen 21:56, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Rushton and the Pioneer Fund

Original line from Criticisms section:

J. Philippe Rushton, head of the Pioneer Fund (which supported some research cited in The Bell Curve), and whose own work has been widely criticized as scientific racism, has charged Gould with scholarly malfeasance for misrepresenting or ignoring relevant scientific research.

I'm removing the parenthetical statement because it implies an ideological link between The Bell Curve and the Pioneer Fund. The Bell Curve cites hundreds of sources, and given the amount of research funded by the Pioneer Fund I'd bet money that they've supported a fair amount of research cited in The Mismeasure of Man as well, so this fact alone is not worth noting. I'm also removing the weasel statement accusing Rushton of scientific racism. What other people think of the guy is better noted in the article J. Philippe Rushton, not here. If anyone knows of any specific criticisms Gould himself has made against Rushton, perhaps those should be included here. -- Schaefer 20:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are correct that it is not necessary or relevant to denigrate Rushton in a parenthetical statement. It is necessary and relevant to note that the criticisms come from people whose work Gould has attacked, as opposed to uninvolved referees. I've put in a few words which I hope will make it clear that Rushton is an interested party. -Willmcw 22:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revert of 213.78.161.139's edits

An anonymous user revised the article, changing present-tense verbs to past-tense verbs (because Gould is dead, presumably.)

I have reverted back to the present tense, because the present tense is used when discussing literary works. -Grick(^{talk to me}) 02:17, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Misrepresenting other people's views

In an interview in The Skeptic, Murray claimed that Gould misrepresented his views. For what it is worth, Gould has done this on a regular basis in many of his essays on evolutionary biology. He would regularly subtly misrepresent the views of other evolutionary biologists, and then skewer them as ignorant, and then explain why his own views were revolutionary. He got something of a bad reputation in the Evo. Biol. community because of this. Interestingly, people he criticised often agreed with many of his ideas; they just lament the fact that (in their view) they could have come to more agreement had he spoken to them. RK 23:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

In addition, there are a number of other claims in response to Gould's Mismeasure of Man that he also misrepresented the views of those he went on to criticize in his book.

Evidence for this? Or are you the one misrepresenting Murray's intentions? "Gould has done this on a regular basis". Pff. FUD in the highest order. The arguments prevail, and therefore you should base your assumptions in much more than just ad hominemizing. "He got something of a bad reputation". Pff. So did Charles Darwin. So what? Could you expect anything different from someone attacking the status quo of some theories he believes to be profoundly unbased? Can you imagine the headaches he created to all those scholars who devoted their lives to something he just scoured as a "reification"?195.23.224.35 10:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a repeated truism in certain circles. However it is not an accepted truth held by most biologists. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Bias Removed

I have removed 2 items of bias from the article.

1. The statement, in the summary, with no background or justification, that Gould was "flogging a dead horse" in his criticism of the Bell Curve. Also, the statement, cited without sources, that there is a correlation of 0.4 between cranial capacity and IQ. This is not scientifically demonstrated by a trustworthy source.

2. The statement that the Pioneer Fund does scientific research. They are partisan, and they do not do any quality research.

Peter Johnson, 15-Apr-05 16:13

The Pioneer Fund does fund research, and that is one of the problems. The fact that they do not, in the view of Gould and other, do quality research is part of the theme of the book. With all due respect, I'm going to re-insert that item. There may be a better way of wording it. Please feel free to re-write it. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Pioneer fund merely provides funding, the quality of the research speaks for itself.

Technical Capility Limitation Exposed In This Article

There seems to be a technical limitation within Wikipedia exposed in this article under the heading "Claims of bias and falsification". The hyperlink letter "g" (followed by [factor]) should rather be the hyperlink "g factor". I attempted to correct it but was not able to due to the technical capabilities of wikipedia.

Bell Curve

Cut from intro:

Gould later revised and expanded the book in reply to arguments from The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, also a controversial book.

None of this is mentioned further down in the article.

The tendency is for people to review the Bell Curve without reading it, and I wouldn't want our readers to think Gould had done this too.

Please, someone summarize Gould's critique of the Bell Curve and then put this sentence back in the article. Thanks. --Uncle Ed 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You can actually see The Bell Curve mentioned on the picture of the cover! Removing that sentence makes later references to Herrnstein and Murray meaningless. I have re-added it. Noisy | Talk 09:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Gould ascribes various opinions to Herrnstein and Murray which Murray and others say are not expressed or asserted in The Bell Curve.

Gould also disagrees with these opinions.

So I propose changing the text to clarify the fact that:

1. Gould says The Bell Curve asserts X
2. Gould disagrees with X
3. Bell Curve authors (and others) dispute Gould's claim that the Bell Curve asserts X

In other words, Gould disagrees with certain ideas and says why (good so far). Gould also attributes those ideas to others, but those others deny endorsing those ideas. Uncle Ed 18:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Gould vs. Murray

In a New Yorker article, Gould wrote that The Bell Curve contains:

"...claims and supposed documentation that race and class differences are largely caused by genetic factors and are therefore essentially immutable." [1]

Now I have not read the Bell Curve, but it ought to be pretty clear to anyone whether it does or does not claim either of the following:

1. that race and class differences are largely caused by genetic factors
2. that race and class differences are therefore essentially immutable

Probably the easiest way to determine who's right about what the book says, would be a direct quote from the book. I'm looking for something in this form:

• Murray and Herrnstein wrote (on page 368): "Race and class differences are immutable. They are coused by genetic factors. No amount of education or coddling can ever change this." (invented for Wikipedia talk)

My question to my fellow Wikipedians is whether The Bell Curve contains any such quotation.

Until one of us reads the book and finds a quotation anything like the invented bullet point above, I think the article should leave as an open question whether the book contains the points Gould says it does. The article should not say he is wrong, but it should not assume he is right either.

Noisy, do you agree? --Uncle Ed 18:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have an unused book token that I was given as a Christmas present: The Bell Curve is a little outside my general reading area, and my pile of unread books has been growing since I started contributing to Wikipedia, but it is one of those books that you "should" own. Frankly, having read a couple of Gould's books, I'd go for The Bell Curve anyway.

However, given the controversies around both books, I'd have thought that the internet would provide enough to-ing and fro-ing to support any demonstration of disputed claims. Such references would also avoid having to pick and choose individual sentences or paragraphs ... around which cherry-picking or POV arguments could be made. (Not to mention OR.) Safer just to point at other web articles, I'd have thought. As an encyclopaedia we should be just reporting the controversy - not adding to it. Noisy | Talk 19:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this issue is still alive, but I have read The Bell Curve. It makes no claims about genetics, and in fact is very careful to note that hereditary effects need not be genetic. It does argue that IQ has a substantial heritable component - I don't remember the exact numbers, but the authors seem to believe that in the U.S. it's a majority. I don't remember its directly addressing whether the heritability is immutable, although that seemed to me to be an implicit working assumption. Warren Dew (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit of looking around on the Internet and found the following "review of a review":

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/sarle.html

Apparently Gould disagrees with a lot of pre-1950 beliefs (which Murray and Herrnstein also disgree with). If I have time over the weekend, I'll quote from this review (which in turn quotes from The Bell Curve) to show what the book said about the points which get Gould so exercised.

Or if you have time, would you please go ahead and do that? --Uncle Ed 20:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV please

I am the one who put up the disputed tag on the article page. I find it most unencyclopedic to have sentences starting right in the intro such as Gould's revised and expanded text is touted as supposedly refuting arguments purportedly made in another controversial book, The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Please compare this page and its editorial view with that of the possibly opposing viewpoint, The Bell Curve. Overall, the tone of this page seems to take issue with not only the book, but also the writer (also brings up the point - we should refrain from ad hominems in the talk page, but should we really quote ad hominems when somebody else says it? I think it's just as inappropriate). Sorry for yesterday, for some reason my edits to the talk page didn't stick. --Ramdrake 12:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have started by adding Leon Kamin's positive review. I have also copied all the negative reviews to Wikiquote, so that we can weed out what we have here without losing information. Ideally, both sections should be summarised so as to achieve a descriptive tone of voice instead of concatenating quotations. Arbor 07:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbor, this is already much better. Thanks for your input! --Ramdrake 20:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I basically wish to concur (for whatever it's worth) that the article about the book seems to be violating the NPOV objective of Wikipedia. The two things that most struck me in the current version of the article were several claims of majority consensus against the book among other unclearly specified and uncited groups of scientists, and the citation (including extended quotes) of selected authorities who clearly have points of view strongly opposed to this book's position. It seems clear that a large part of the article is intended to attack the book, and my basic reaction is that most of the material on both sides of the controversy might best be cited by external reference, with the article slimmed down to focus on the book itself.

I'm not sure how to approach this aspect from a NPOV, but this is a case of a book that is actually attacking several entire areas of study, and in such a case, it is actually quite reasonable that there will be a strong consensus among the practitioners in those areas that they don't like the book. (Having read the entire book, I might even say that it is not suitable for a NPOV. Too bad we can't make reading the book a prerequisite for editing the article...)

Shanen 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Brevity

It seems that a large portion of the criticism section was just out of control quotation. I understand that wikipedia wants contents, not links, but completely restating, verbatim, large portions of the argument seems like the wrong direction to go in. Certainly, this tit-for-tat could go both ways and become unmanageable. There's also a lot of work left to do in toning down the editorializing in describing the arguments. --JereKrischel 23:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You JereKrischel went too far with the Bartholomew edit. I've read the book and MMoM is at the center of many of the discussions, as the quotes the anon provided would indicate. Better to restore what was there and let the paraphrasing be done over time. --Rikurzhen 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly has gone "too far" with the addition of Bartholomew? Your objection isn't that clear IMO.

I'm not sure who left this last message. The removal of the quotes and their replacment with a single sentence of criticism, instead of an enumartion of the many criticisms found in the many quotes, is objectionable. The lengthy quotes in themselves could be seen as a problem b/c WP should use paraphrasing instead of quotes were possible. --Rikurzhen 04:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think, Rikurzhen, that it ends up degenerating into the same kind of OR that goes on in Race and Intelligence. As an article on the book itself, it seems odd to have such an overwhelming amount of detail in the criticism, but only a passing mention of the books details itself. The same sort of thing happened in the Rushton article, where one side wanted to make his bio article a strong defense of his books and work, and the other side took up the challenge to poke holes in his theories. The level of detail really is excessive. I'll be removing them again, if you can paraphrase lightly, and find some balance on both sides, feel free to put stuff back in. --JereKrischel 07:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you have to put it back because what you removed is arguably notable. Then you or anyone else can summarize for brevity. Given the massive number of citations MMoM has, it's no wonder that a lot of this article focuses on what others have said about it. Also given the high percentage of negative scholarly reviews, it's no wonder that criticism is extensive. This isn't R&I -- it isn't a summary style article -- there's not yet a size problem with this article. --Rikurzhen 07:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place where we hash out the detailed arguments and counter-arguments of everyone regarding an issue. The loop ends up being infinite, with what is arguably on the border of original research, collating and presenting POV arguments in the most persuasive way possible. It should be sufficient to state some small sampling of the various points of view, without dissecting them as if the article were some dissertation. I think R&I is a particularly egregious example of what happens when this kind of detail gets out of hand and slanted in a POV manner. We should limit this article to a summary of MMoM, not a detailed, point by point, blow by blow, defense and attack of its merits. --JereKrischel 07:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. The argument you just presented leads to ridiculous conclusions if generalized -- we would only summarize books, but not present any discussion of their reception. Setting that notion aside -- brevity is great, but you can't simply substitute the detailed contribution the anon made with a single sentence that only mentions one of several topics that were originally covered. There's no good exuse for simply removing it given that it is notable. --Rikurzhen 07:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If I had suggested we simply list the names of critics and praisers, without any indication of their position at all, that would be a ridiculous conclusion. Similarly, deciding that the 10 point rebuttal of someone is sufficiently "notable" as to demand inclusion is a ridiculous conclusion. The problem we run into, Rikurzhen, is the poison of R&I - after you find your "notable" details, I go out and find my "notable" details, then you go and find more "notable" details, and it never ends. The tit-for-tat POV pushing under the guise of simply adding more detail seems to be a familiar and disturbing pattern I've seen. --JereKrischel 07:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

How many books are there that discuss MMoM in more than 1 chapter? Common sense is an excellent guide here. A paragraph about MIFF would be sufficient, but it needs to be a good strong summary, not a half sentence. --Rikurzhen 08:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In case I didn't mention before, I've read MIFF and the anon's edits were on spot and not taken out of context as far as I remember. Bartholomew, who AFAIK has never written anything about intelligence before, has some strong criticisms of MMoM. --Rikurzhen 08:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is just a guideline, but I take it as good sense that WP can be infinite in its depth while keeping each page short and readable. If "Criticisms of MMoM" grows too long with good content, it can be split out via WP:SS. A list of quotes is not appropriate, but that can be fixed. --Rikurzhen 08:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that my original problem still stands - turning Wikipedia into a platform for original research regarding detailed refutations and defenses of positions isn't desirable. It invites and provides a superficial safe harbor for POV wars. --JereKrischel 23:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the list of quotations consititues [[[WP:NOR|original research]]. It is a list of quotes, which itself is undesirable, but not OR. --Rikurzhen 08:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel, in the intertest of "brevity" -- why did you delete the entire cite to the journal Nature? Other deletions aside for now --

I trimmed the quotes down to essentially the overview and first paragraph. Is there a particular snippet you think should be reintroduced? --JereKrischel 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's best to start at the beginning JereKrischel, before we get into the details, of which there are many. First, why do you feel it's appropriate to unilaterally make substantial changes, without any discussion beforehand, to a controversial topic?

Why isn't The Mismeasure of Man a controversial book?

It appears that the book is highly controversial and is considered controversial. That should be clear enough from the article itself and from the qualifications of those cited. Why exactly is this an issue?

---

You should sign your comments if you expect any response. One short response to your query might be that Gould believes that no human can meaningfully be reduced to any number. The best response is that you should read the book to find out. Shanen 06:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)~

No human can meaningfully be reduced to any number... wow. How's that even controversial? If that's controversial, we're in bad shape fellas.195.23.224.35 10:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I just finished this book. It seems to me to call it controversial is, among other things, just a way of posturing a particular political agenda. In my opinion the only thing controversial about it is that a non-psychologist presented a refutation of a primarily psychological theory. The fact that he managed to pull that off quite satisfactorily apparently has angered some professionals in the psycometrics field simply because he intruded into their sacred turf. To me this is an indication of what is wrong with modern science as a whole: too much ego--not enough science. Aletheia (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the kicker:It matters only what reliable sources say about the book. I would agree with you that it really "isn't controversial", but your opinion, or mine, carry no weight on that question. Ironic, though, you mention ego, as the biggest thing I took from reading it is what a large one the author had, regardless of how well he advanced his theses. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I second your opinion on the author's oversized ego. Regardless, there's not much that could be considered controversial in the book.Aletheia (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the context; I think you alluded to what controversy there was above: the book basically discredits a few forms of psychometric methodology (as well as adding some not so subtle editorializing about the competence of the field as a whole, but that is a different issue). The controversy here is that viewed with respect to George Box's maxim All models are wrong, but some are useful, Gould seems to have set up permanent shop in the first clause there, not acknowledging that ignoring the second invites a form of quantitative solipsism which is totally inconsistent with doing science in general. If I were in that field, I wouldn't take too kindly to that; it seems like a pointy hatchet job. But IMO the reaction was due as much or more to the tone of the book (and thus the subtle implied hypocrisy) than with the content. My $0.02. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The long conversation above notwithstanding, the section on criticism is patently unencyclopedic. The positive reviews, many of which are simply culled from the book jacket, should be condensed into one paragraph, and the negative views should be condensed into one paragraph for each of the writers mentioned. There is an entire journal article's worth of stuff quoted here. The gist of each writer's complaints, with perhaps two quotations each, is an encyclopedic approach. Reprinting 2/3 of a review is NOT an encyclopedic approach. If no one objects in the next couple of days I will do it myself. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Please feel free to adjust as you see fit. --JereKrischel 10:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, no one objected so I did it. The "praise" section isn't great, but the "criticism" section was, I think, more egregious. I don't love the way the sources are cited, so if someone wants to change it to meet policy, that would be great.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that some of the critics were themselves mentioned in Mismeasure of Man? Arthur Jensen was cited unfavorably multiple times. Eysenck was portrayed as a racist and a credulous defender of Cyril Burt. Lewontin, on the other hand, is identified as Gould's friend and was always cited favorably.Herb West 02:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The origins of the IQ test

Does not much of Gould´s critique of the IQ test as a measure of intelligence go back to that the test originally was designed as a tool to assess how much someone has learnt in relation to how much (s)he was supposed to have learnt? He also makes reference to someone who teaches a bunch afro-americans (supposedly a dimwitted race ...) some basic math and their scores soared. Also, much of the critique is directed at the design of the test which in the haydays of Ellis Island was socially biased since questions required prior knowledge of very specific things (e.g. that one needs two rackets for tennis - two players with one racket each). Benkeboy 17:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cranial volume and intelligence

I thought the understanding of intelligence has developed quite a lot since the early 20th century when it was fashionably to measure skulls and talk about dumb people with short foreheads and such? So in that sense it might have controversial when it was published, but surely not know? At that intelligence is so much more than reguladetri and recognising 3D objects? Some are really good at recognising 3D objects, but does that make them very intelligent? And also much of the skull measurement people always tried out different combinations of ratios always ending up with very small variations between supposedly intelligent and dumb persons without even having a clear notion of what is meant with intelligence. I guess we do not have that even today ... Benkeboy 17:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gouldmismeasure.jpg

Image:Gouldmismeasure.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hcp7

Hcp7 (talk · contribs), you seem to have some serious hang-ups about this article. Please discuss the changes you want to make here first, as your POV is heavily influencing your edit quality. Also, under what name/ip did you edit in the past? NJGW (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I undid this edit which inserted some statement about sociobiology into the lead because the book is not about sociobiology and the rest of the article does not discuss this view of Gould's. Also, that ref goes to a letter Gould signed with a lot of other people in 1975, so I'm not sure how it can be included there without giving some undue weight to some letter Gould signed. I know why Hcp7 did this, as he/she thinks that it is wrong to give background information about why Hans Eysenck is controversial, but per wp:NPOV I think people really need to know what Eysenck is controversial for if they are going to be subjected to his opinions. NJGW (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't respond to trolling, unless you edit your first comment and remove personal attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcp7 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hcp7, you are a wp:SPA (POV much?) who is too blinded by your agenda. This is an observable fact. Do not edit if you can't discuss. NJGW (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "controversial" in the lead

NJGW has removed the word "controversial" from the article. First, contrary to what NJGW says, the book was also criticized by people not covered in the book as the criticism section explains. Second, I added a neutral and non-controversial source that directly states the book was controversial. This source was removed by NJGW under no valid reason. Not sure why, censorship? Hcp7 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Reason was given in the edit summary and on your talk page. wp:IDHT is not a valid argument. Also, I was reinstating another editor's edit which you changed. Criticism does not equal controversy. Nearly everything is criticized by someone. Please find a source better than a throw away line in his obit, and stop edit warring. Warring at this article seems to be your only purpose on Wikipedia. NJGW (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem is not a valid argument either. And actually you are the one who is warring; I wrote to you in the edit summary to discuss before removing again and you could have waited until we finish discussion but chose to war. There is no Wikipedia guideline that states the source is not valid for inclusion. You wrote on my talk page "you need a better source for such a strong statement". The source is neutral and non-controversial and you may not remove it just because you don't like what it says. Also the statement was there for along time, and you already edited the article weeks ago, so you only now realized it's "strong"?! Hcp7 (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for removal is that it is a throw-away remark made in an obit and used to characterize a book in the first line of the article's lead. It's a violation of wp:WEIGHT and no wp:CONSENSUS of academic opinion is demonstrated by the source. NJGW (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see you are jumping from one nonsense excuse to another. Your first objection was that the word is unsourced, as you stated in your first edit summary. Now that I brought a source, you are saying it's a violation of WEIGHT. Do you think you're playing a game here? Regarding WEIGHT, I quote from the linked page:

Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

If there is already a reliable, neutral/third-party source that calls the book controversial, then we write the book is controversial and cite the appropriate source. By the way, I brought another source from Bernard Davis, of course not because the previous source is illegitimate, but for further verification. What you call an "obit" is a journal article written by a well-known professor, and it calls the book controversial. This is all what's relevant. Also don't forget that the book being controversial to those covered by the book, still makes the book controversial. And you don't seem to have an answer to my question – the word "controversial" has been there for over two years, why didn't you raise all these objections when you edited the article last month? Hard question, isn't it? Hcp7 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please become more familiar with wp:UNDUE and wp:NPOV. You seem to have grave misunderstandings of them. You also are conflating the discussion of controversial topics in the book with the book itself being controversial according to a wp:CONSENSUS of sources. You have also set up an interesting logical fallacy by claiming that a poor statement which has stood for some time should continue to stand. Also, you have reverted 3 different editors on this same issue. This is wp:edit warring and will result in a block if you continue.

Please quote on this talk page the Bernard Davis content that you believe to support your view. I note that Davis states in his review that response from "scientists close to the field" were negative... which is not surprising given that Gould is attacking their position explicitly (and is already discussed in the article elsewhere). But the greater scientific community, and indeed many psychologists support Gould's book and position. Thus, to call the book controversial in the first sentence may not be an accurate description of academic consensus. NJGW (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As per Wiki policies, it should only be called controversial if a consensus of voices in the field calls it that. Having one source call it controversial may be enough to cite it with proper attribution somewhere in the article, but not really for the lede. It should be mentioned in the lede only if the book is uncontroversially controversial (sic!)--Ramdrake (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Would we still have an article on this book if nobody had ever called it controversial or disputed its assertions? I believe so. It has been notably disputed, so we cover that, but that should not be the primary description of the book. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 03:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I initially removed "controversial" because I recognized it as a weasel word. Its awkward inclusion was apparently intended to discredit the book within the opening paragraph, or "poison the well" as it were. Why is it crucial to have the word "controversial" in the lead? Gould is hardly the first person to the criticize the IQ test. Am86 (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

edits reverted?

I just made three staightforward edits (here, here and here). These were merely language improvements and did not change the meaning of the content, with the one exception of removing off-topic content about Cyrus Burt. What was objectionable with these? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. Victor Charma just did a wholesale revert without looking at the edit history. aprock (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks, that would explain it. Could Victor confirm this, or otherwise comment on my changes? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Baccyak4H, I'm sorry that your edits got deleted. That was not my intention. Aprock reverted a large number of my edits, all of them well-sourced and relevant, without giving any good reason for it, so when I reverted the article to an earlier version to restore the content your edits got deleted as well.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Mismeasure of Man/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I would rate the Wikipedia article on The Mismeasure of Man as it currently stands (11 Aug 2007--but who knows what you'll see whenever you read this?) as quite low. (What scale are we supposed to use? The scale link pointed to an explanation that seems totally unrelated and irrelevant to these solicited comments...) The article strikes me as an archetype of the kind of slanted game-playing that has convinced me it is a waste of time and effort to contribute to Wikipedia. Yes, I could fix the most obvious problems, but my point of view is essentially neutral, so I lack the motivation to worry about untwisting the article on a frequent basis. Examples? The first sentence begins by focusing the article in a misleading way, mentioning only the first edition of the book (though the second edition is later mentioned in a distracting way, almost as a kind of footnote). In the second sentence, the style is obscure and twisted, with an awkward negative wording that has to be reversed to imply the actual intention of the book as the latest author of the Wikipedia passage is apparently attempting to obscure it. The next paragraph treats craniometry as a metric of intelligence on a par with intelligence testing. In the actual book it was treated as a minor and equally discredited branch of phrenology--which was selected as a focal topic precisely because it was once widely accepted and is now regarded as bunkum. Phrenology itself is not mentioned anywhere in the article. IQ testing was a much higher focus, but it gets slighted here as the intro wanders off... I read the first edition of the book fairly recently and have clear memory of it, but this article seems to be talking about some other book, one that 'just accidentally' is much more suitable for criticism and dismissal. I admire the goals of Wikipedia, but I think this article is yet another example of how the Wikipedia project is failing to reach them. Shanen 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)