Talk:Richard Lynn

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Richard Lynn, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 200 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Lynn has died[edit]

Seeking RS-quality confirmation we can use. So far there's a tweet from Edward Dutton, and a VDARE obituary based on the tweet. So the tweet is all we've got. I mean I don't doubt it, Lynn was 93, but awaiting something less deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I see another user has just added his death date without a source. I will remove it. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11 days Richard Lynn and still not reported. Kinda grotesque D1kiz (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really the best source we can find? Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so far, yes it is! I just had a look. Nothing outside white nationalist blogs and media. When these guys finally die, nobody cares except their remaining fellow travelers. See also Talk:Roger Pearson (anthropologist) - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one any good? It is at least indexed by Google News. David Malone (talk)

As that one was already reverted out no. It may well fail SPS as it seems to have been published in American Renaissance, which is run by the man who wrote the article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah. Written by Jared Taylor from AmRen (which hasn't been found GU or deprecated in an RFC, but really obviously would be) and first published in Unz (which has been deprecated). Roger Pearson's death is cited to AmRen, but I'm quite unhappy about that too - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I went ahead and removed the bit on Roger Pearson sourced exclusively to American Renaissance, a source which should be deleted on sight for obvious reasons. Generalrelative (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been a week, has there been any confirmation from RS? Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty damning evidence that this figure was only ever of marginal notability outside the echo chamber of his racist fans. Might be worth looking over the article for signs of bloat given that fact. Generalrelative (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah. To be clear, he definitely did enough well-documented damage to science to be a noteworthy subject for a Wikipedia article, but race scientists are extremely into the puffery about these guys - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Generalrelative (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it does rather undermine the idea he has any lasting notability, as no one gives a damn about his death (assuming he is, and its not another Richard Lynn),. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

And what damage to science would that be? Are you a scientist yourself?

You're completely unaware of any paradigms within science, especially biology? 84.215.47.58 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about what the users view of science is, this is about Lynn's death (or lack of it). The point is this lack of coverage of his death imp[liesd that he is not really notable as a "scientist" in his case psychology, not biology), but because of his controversial views (notoriety as opposed to notability).Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was right about everything he wrote about. He's not going to recieve any coverage because of how controversial he was. 60.241.30.31 (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But he did, and plenty of it, so it is hard to see why his death woud not be covered. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's definitely not how controversy works. And we already know that the fundamental idea he spent a lifetime pushing was wrong. Simply asserting otherwise is wasting our time. Generalrelative (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, never has been proven to be 'wrong' at all. You are wasting our time saying the opposite. 60.241.30.31 (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is about him being dead, not the correctness of his views. If you can't bring an RS saying he is dead (or at the very least an official notice by his family) this whole thread is a waste of time. This is not a wp:forium or wp:soapbox, about him. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's been ongoing efforts to edit the article to imply Lynn's death, it may be worth simply quoting the WP:BLP policy here:

Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 9 August 1908 [update]) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death.

Note that per BLP:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced–whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Lynn may very well be dead, but we need to wait until reliable sources report it before saying or implying it here. WP:THEREISNORUSH Generalrelative (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be different standards for whether a source can be cited on whether he died (something nobody seems to actually be disputing) vs scientific claims about his work? If no "reliable" source bothers to publish something that arguably qualifies as "old news" (or if they do, that they just cite the sources rejected here as unreliable), does that mean WP waits until 115 years after his birth? 2601:244:200:2680:51BA:8FBB:2B0F:DC8E (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, BLP claims should be held to a higher standard than scientific claims. Pragmatically speaking, the longer we wait the lower our standards will be, but we would have to wait a very long time before we would imply that VDare or American Renaissance are reliable outlets. Since these sources are unreliable for any specific details of Lynn's death, they are also unreliable for the big picture. As Generalrelative said, WP:THEREISNORUSH. Grayfell (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:THEREISNORUSH points out, people are being misled now if WP contains inaccurate information (such as it does right now by claiming Lynn "is" rather than "was" a psychologist). I don't see anybody, including you, actually disbelieving the cited sources about Lynn being dead. So how can the sources actually be "unreliable" on that specific claim, when everybody on the Talk page actually does seem to accept their claim? 2601:244:200:2680:21CA:E9A1:E8C5:4719 (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a case of conflicting imperatives. I think it would be reasonable to bring this up at the biographies of living persons noticeboard to get a broader view from the community. Generalrelative (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s quite hard to find a good source. The web site of The Ulster Institute for Social Research claims that Lynn died in 2023, but they don’t mention any specific date. Giffengrabber (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely one of his former co-authors will write an obituary in a journal friendly towards them. The constant comments suggesting Wikipedia editors are not including it because of 'personal biases' would be better served reading the relevant pages on reliable secondary sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I've inserted a "July 2023" death date now that we have a reliable source (Telegraph obituary). Not sure we should've doubted some of the above sources, but I realise some users are stricter on others when it comes to WP:RS. Anyway, it's now resolved, other than the fact we don't yet have a full date or place of death. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the source and updating the article. Generalrelative (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Advocate"[edit]

This article says Lynn "advocates for a genetic relationship between race and intelligence". Aside from the fact that the article needs to be updated because of his passing, this sentence is also flawed. One cannot "advocate" for a scientific fact. You can advocate for a change in policy but you cannot advocate for or against nature. You cannot be an advocate for a blue sky. Even if Lynn was wrong, you cannot be an advocate for a red sky. You can't advocate for something you cannot change. 99.6.61.222 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But him saying it dos not make it a scientific fact. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Lynn was an advocate for the idea that there is a genetic relationship between race and intelligence in the same way that Donald Trump is an advocate for the idea that the 2020 US election was stolen. Generalrelative (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IP mentioned it, the sentence is a bit odd. A clearer wording would be to say that he "advocates for scientific racism". He performed and promoted research which supported his prior assumptions about pseudoscientific conceptions of both race and intelligence, and also ignored or disputed the mountains of valid research which challenged those assumptions. This is just standard procedure for scientific racism. Grayfell (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Lynn hasn’t just argued for a genetic contribution between groups. He has argued that humans should ‘phase out’ the less intelligent. Some brief evidence of the racism could be included in the opening as evidence. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see we're on the same page here, Zenomonoz. I definitely agree in principle that the phrasing of the lead can be improved significantly, and would be more than happy to discuss suggested rewrites.
We should also consider cutting back on what I would argue is a bloated and excessively self-sourced article body, and then circling back to ensure that the lead appropriately summarizes the body. Sources published in Personality and Individual Differences and Intelligence, where Lynn served as an editor, should also be examined critically because of lack of independence. Generalrelative (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea. If an editor comes up with improvements, I am on board. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about a specious analogy! 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:4856:846F:2696:2FA1 (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Re: Generalrelative (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)) 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:4856:846F:2696:2FA1 (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what tRS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2023[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article should be changed to reflect the fact that Richard Lynn died in July 2023. 62.167.37.182 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

Haven’t he died? RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. But we've had trouble finding reliable sources covering his death, so we can't include it yet. See the discussions above. If you can find any WP:RS coverage, go ahead and add it; but the only thing I can find is a blog post and coverage in white supremacist publications, which is definitely insufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Richard Lynn's appear to have died, some of the Obits are of this one, but they are all blogs. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Telegraph article currently cited for his death, this New Statesman article confirms it: https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/09/rise-new-tech-right-iq-cognitive-elite Mwphil (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwphil: Slatersteven's comment is dated to before Jkaharper's addition of the Telegraph source above, which was indeed the kind of reliable source we were waiting for per WP:BLP. That said, I'll be happy to add the additional citation. Generalrelative (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]