Talk:James Watson

Archives /Archive 1

Original research and conclusions

"This statement is consistent with his previous claims and suggests that he has not actually retreated from his views on genetic determinism"

Instead of drawing conclusions, lets report the facts. Quotes, apologies, repercussions are appropriate. What is suggested by his statements is a matter of opinion. I'm removing this sentence from the article. Jcc1 19:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Mushroom (Talk) 20:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Me too! Amit@Talk 10:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews

I added some material from a recent Economist article on research which seems to show Ashkenazi Jews are significant more intelligent than average. This was removed, with the note "POV and OR". I have re-added this material, since it clearly not POV and OR, and provided the ref to the Economist article. I have removed a second following paragraph which expands upon the implications of this research, since that could be taken as OR.

Toby Douglass 22:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A discussion of whether Watson's purported views are justified or not is POV and OR. In an article about Askenazi Jews, this material is neither POV or OR. But in Watson's article, it is. -- Terry Carroll 23:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are adding material to support Watsons hypothesis regarding genetic determinants and intelligence, please do the scientific thang and cite the actual research papers - then intelligent people can assess how the study was conducted, whether it is therefore a valid investigation or just Watsons normal twaddle, and importantly, who the 'peers' deciding it was worthy of publication were -

Eugenics (again)

Would it be possible to have a small, self-contained, factual, NPOV, well-sourced, non-OR, un-biased, whatever-else, section summarising what Watson's opinions of Eugenics are? 81.98.244.111 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the section above, Watson is quoted as saying 'There are people whose genes] "don't permit a meaningful existence [..] a chance to one day be able to marry, to one day be accepted as equals when entering a room. Hitler said: Kill all who do not have this chance. I say they shouldn't be born in the first place. That's the difference. '

Watson sees himself as different from Hitler in some way, ..Steven Hawkins would not have been gassed or sterilized, just his parents? Mmmmmmmm????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.133.210 (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha...too bad Stephen Hawkings' disability is not genetic.207.245.79.201 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)##Last laugh on you I'm afraid! Jeez, not genetic!!! Steven Hawkins has Motor Neurone Disease - if you are ignorant of the 'genetic' aspects of this condition <http://www.mndassociation.org/research/research_explained/causes/index.html> why on Earth are you attempting to enter a debate on Genes and Eugenics?? Are you saying that it would then have been ok just to sterilize Steven Hawkins, and leave his parents alone? Lets ask his children stupid.

That didn't even answer my first question ("would it be possible"). Also the section would have to include his opinions on different types of eugenics, such as Liberal eugenics versus state coerced eugenics, which you seem to be confused about.81.98.244.111 13:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think stating what his views are in the article does not make the article itself POV. LDHan 14:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• There could be such a page section if we cite reliable and verifiable sources, either Watson's own writings or scholarly analysis of Watson's writings by people who are experts in eugenics and genetics. Many people talk about eugenics only after making the assumption that anyone supporting any type of eugenics is immoral or to be condemned as psuedoscientific or, somehow, "dangerous". As we have seen from comments on this talk page, many people assume that people who favor any form of eugenics automatically want non-voluntary sterilization or other forms of "negative eugenics". I think that kind of attitude makes it very hard for a community of wiki editors to rationally deal with this topic. I think we have to take to heart what Ernst Mayr wrote: "...it has become almost impossible, since 1933, to discuss eugenics objectively." In discussing the prospects for understanding human genetics and providing parents with tools for controlling reproductive outcomes, Watson has suggested the use of other terminology such as "genetic injustice" (see "Genes and politics", published as PMID 9351701) .--JWSchmidt 20:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks for making that clear. The goal was to lessen the misconception against Watson (or at least clarify the prejudices, eg. it would be valid for anti-choice people to hate him), but it's kind of out of my depth... 81.98.244.111 13:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Watson is not really a professional in any field of ethics. He has personal and professional interest in making use of genetic knowledge to help parents, but he has largely been limited to acting professionally as an administrator of scientific funding who has had the chance to help channel money to professional ethicists who do the work. This should probably be mentioned in the article with a citation to Watson's "Genes and politics" article. --JWSchmidt 17:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that JWSchmidt notes 'Watson is not really a professional in any field of Ethics' - I'm an '80s' former student of the late Maurice Wilkins, and in sharp contradistinction from Watson, Wilkins insisted his students could at least to justify their work to themselves from an ethical perspective by instigating a course at Kings (London) entitled 'The Social Impact of the Biosciences': Watson ( a swell headed duffer who just stole Wilkins and Franklins efforts in my probably biased opinion) hasn't had any involvement in encouraging others to consider the impact their research might have on other people - he's had his ego as a 'genius' massaged for his entire adult life, and has always been less than welcoming of debates in which he is forced to consider that he might be wrong. This explains why he just headed for the hills when the storm broke over his racist comments in the UK press recently - a Scientist would have stood their ground, a Scientist would have insisted on taking part in a fully transcribed public discussion in London - he ran to the airport. In my opinion, having been in his presence twice, albeit as a lowly Student, he is arrogant, unbearably sexist to female scientists (which for any male scientist who has valued female colleagues is excruciating to witness), Racist in an ignorant, 'Alf Garnett' stylee, and a rather embarassing duffer. By virtue of his involvement in the Nobel, and nothing else, he's been surrounded by minions all his life who have been too scared to tell him to b#gger off in case their grants got cancelled - its a great shame Cold Spring Harbour didnt 'dead wood' him years earlier. Maurice Wilkins understood the need for Ethical consideration in Science: his lifelong guilt at having contributed to Oppenheimer's baby in his youth made him emphasize to his students the need to explore the likely outcomes of your research on other people- - Watson has wasted a working career presenting lectures, replete with offensive and gratuitous jpegs of women in bikinis, and simply doesnt have the intellectual capacity a proper Scientific 'debate' requires 80.225.140.150 21:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Watson....hasn't had any involvement in encouraging others to consider the impact their research might have on other people" <-- This is not correct. He made an effort to channel a huge chunk of money to ethicists so that they can deal with issues arising from human genome studies. You (80.225.140.150) express well the attitudes of political correctness. Time will tell if Watson is correct, that political correctness is now blocking some of the ethics work that needs to be done. --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI: reeling definition

Reeling is definitely a word. It is a form of the instransative verb "reel", meaning: 1a: to turn or move round and round 1b: to be in a whirl 2: to behave in a violent disorderly manner 3: to waver or fall back (as from a blow) 4: to walk or move unsteadily Slightly different than "shocked", — DIEGO ^talk 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, had thought was slang and just did a quick google. I stand corrected. Pharmboy 01:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Resignation from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Was today's announcement a response to his recent Racist comments regarding Africans being less intelligent than Whites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.208.212 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

From Watson's statement: "This morning I have conveyed to the trustees of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory my desire to retire immediately from my position as its chancellor, as well as from my position on its board"
Dr. James D. Watson Retires as Chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
--JWSchmidt 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So it was 'just a coincidence' then? 80.225.140.150 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)ppDrLofthouse80.225.140.150 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC):)

I have moved the section about Watson's retirement from CSHL to the "Positions" section, and quoted selections from the official press release describing his duties there. I have also expanded the "Positions" section to reflect his employment at Harvard University.Shannon bohle 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a brief summary of the November 11, 2007 NYT article to the section called "Opinion concerning the possible links between race and intelligence". The article did not explicitly list neurological disorders as one of the genetically inherited diseases it mentions, so I added that example because it may be relevant to the purpose of the article and Watson's statement. Neurological disorders can relate directly to the capacity for intelligence, and CSHL researchers along with other scientists are actively engaged in the areas of neurobiology, neurology, and neurogenomics. Neurogenomics involves genetic research into "memory" and "human cognitive disfunction" (See: http://www.cshl.edu/ and http://dart.cshl.edu/DART/public/scripts/main2.pl?link=mission&content=mission.html). Relating inherited disease to race may be controversial, but it may also hold the potential to identify, treat, and cure diseases that are prevalent in a particular population, such as sickle cell anemia in African Americans or affect ethnic groups differently. In terms of neurological disorders, take, for example, a 2006 study by Duke University discussing "Gene interaction, autism, and race", where "Research by a team at Duke University reports that a combination of malfunctioning genes increases the likelihood of autism in African Americans." (See: http://www.autismvox.com/gene-interaction-autism-and-race/ and "Investigation of autism and GABA receptor subunit genes in multiple ethnic groups" http://www.springerlink.com/content/82575608481x7705/?p=6f946a7112b043e8a7c3d7264ebc3f95&pi=0). Scientists look at how and why these malfunctioning genes came about to help to treat individuals with Autism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon bohle (talk • contribs) November 11, 2007

The introduced paragraph is only tangentially related to the Watson controversy. Further, the new text appears to be an attempt to buffer the true nature of Watson's statements. There's nothing scientific about Watson's claim that he ""hoped everyone was equal" but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." However, I think the new information could be added to Race and intelligence when it becomes unlocked. Verum 16:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The article does not seem to be "tangentially related". It directly mentions Watson and the aftermath of discussions arising from his comments. It states, "Such discussions are among thousands that followed the geneticist James D. Watson’s assertion last month that Africans are innately less intelligent than other races. Dr. Watson, a Nobel Prize winner, subsequently apologized and quit his post at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island."

The NYTimes article makes only passing mention of the Watson incident without directly address it. Further, it certainly does not lend credence to his personal, unscientific observations. It does not belong in this article, and it certainly does not justify his sweeping generalizations about black employees (his words). Kindest regards, Verum 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved Hardyplants reference on the controversial statements being the basis of Watson's retirement to the "Controversial Statements" section, where it's already treated. It's redundant and borderline POV to keep repeating it throughout the article. TJRC (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have again added the summary from the NYT article which Verum has twice deleted. The article is properly referenced and quoted. Disagreeing with the point of view of a NYT reporter is not a sufficient reason to delete a reference to a published source. Rather, it is censorship. Please consult the Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution.Shannon bohle (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Shannon, it's obvious that you introduced the new material in an effort to justify Watson's opinion about black people. As if to say, "Hey, it's not that bad, look at all of these other scientists who (may) concur with his statements." The problem is that they've done no such thing! Watson made an off-the-cuff remark that was based on emotion, not empirical observation, and it was nowhere near the legitimate science to which the NYTs article alludes. The referenced article only uses Watson's gaff to frame an article about race and intelligence. So forgive me if I've "censored" your entry, but it's quite clear what you're trying to do. Further, your own user page states that you worked for Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Did you know Watson while you were there? Are you trying to whitewash the nature of his comments because you hold him in esteem? If so, you're violating Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Other editors have made similar comments about your edits in the edit summaries. I'm just trying to maintain the neutrality of this article by removing subtle, well-placed POV edits. Further, I don't find the new content disagreeable, nor do disagree with the "point of view of a NYT reporter." After all, I previously said it would make a decent addition to Race and intelligence. I'm not going to delete your addition because I don't wish to engage in a revert war, but I still don't think it directly attempts to justify Watson, and it's clear that was the implication when you inserted it. Nothing personal, just business. Verum (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Affordable Genome Sequencing and Personalized Health Care

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/us/17dna.html?ex=1353042000&en=4e47cec0d8fa5d93&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

https://www.23andme.com/

"The Global Similarity Map: Genetically, humans are overwhelmingly similar to one another. But over the millennia, slight genetic differences between people have emerged and been passed down. 23andMe's Global Similarity tool compares your genome to those of people around the world. The more similar you are to people in a particular region, the more likely your family tree sprang from that place. . . .This means that 23andMe's Ancestry tools provide you with more accurate, reliable data about your genetic similarity to populations across the globe." (https://www.23andme.com/ourservice/ancestry/, https://www.23andme.com/ourservice/ancestry/science/)

Amendments made

Apologies to any who may disagree with the re-formatting I have done. Quick explanation of what I've done:
A - reformatted quotes to be clearer when reading. It was impossible to break up the intitial "bad" quotes as basically that is a lazy paragraph literally torn out of The Times. Seriously verging on plagiarism there (and could do with reworking/wording). Adapted the final section to draw a difference between his quotes in person and those from texts (i.e. Grubbe makes the distinction in the original article between verbal quoting, and that from a book or written journal - she doesn't specify where or when exactly however). Has to be said, her article lacks the citations required to make it verifiable and the whole paragraph makes about as much sense as a chocolate teapot (very confusing as it's obvious she's taken quotes from several different conversations and pieced together to lend some cohesion...and ended up picking up a thread on Africa (year, date?), a thread on Black intelligence (year, date?) and one on positive discrimination (year, date?) and then finally an attributed written piece (year, date, origin?). There's no evidence to suggest this is all one conversation, let alone even the same topic.
B - moved the equally lazy section regarding melanin and sex drive to the "other" section as it's got nothing to do with the topic of intelligence (aside from the fact that Grubbe included it in the same piece in The Times). Again - it's practically ripped word for word from the original text. I axed the word "reeled" as...err...well, the idea everybody in the audience suddenly felt faint or shuffled unsteadily in a swoon because someone suggested a link between darker skin and sex drive is frankly outlandish and certainly not neutral.
C - formatted into date order. I.e. his original comments, the response, his retraction, the belated response of Edinburgh jumping on a bandwagon that had already left the stable.
D - Renamed topic header as "controversial" would be repeated twice (i.e. it's under the heading "Controversies" and called "Controversial". Egging the pudding a bit).
E - renamed it to match the opening line a little, and also to match the wiki topic race and intelligence. Whole
Hope it reads a little less like a an amateur tabloid journalism piece.--Koncorde 17:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to above. Re-inserting "controversial" is pointless. "prefacing" it twice is pointless. Either remove it from the Controversies section so the article doesn't repeat itself, or change the name entirely. Simply inserting "controversial" makes it look far more incriminating. The current heading I have just reinserted does not deny that he has opinions on the matter and allows the article to define those opinions - and similarly define the misrepresentation Watson endured through them.--Koncorde 13:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

does Wikipedia have to be dull?

superb. Many scientists have praised Franklin's DNA work in glowing terms. Watson wrote, "The X-ray work she did at King's is increasingly regarded as superb." Crick wrote, "Rosalind's experimental work was first class. It is difficult to see how it could be bettered." Do we really have to clutter the page with a string of citations in order to be able to use a word that is not dull and boring? --JWSchmidt 05:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If its the general consenses by peers that some ones work is brilliant or such- then I think it should also be stated in the article as such. Without the need for excessive quoting or referencing. Hardyplants 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Controversies" section is getting silly

The "Controversies" section has become bloated and borderline POV. Adding well-sourced entries pointing out Watson's controversial statements probably complies WP:LIVING, but there have been some edits, both for and against Watson, that seem on the edge. The Other Controversies section has become a trivial "rap sheet", and I've seen two accounts of it being used on popular social news sites to point out how "bad" (not my word) Watson is. The section addressing the latest controversy devolved into a "blow-by-blow" account of retracted speaking invitations and apologies. This info was added as the event unfolded, so perhaps people were excited to keep things up to date, but in retrospect it may be time to re-write this part of the article. Finally, "Controversies" has become diluted with accounts of Watson's signature on a 2000 person petition to end nuclear proliferation, which is outside of the scope of this section and seems like a "feel good" edit. I think the whole thing should be re-written and parred back considerably. Thoughts? Comments? Disagreements? AlphaEta 18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Edit summary: I've tried to clean up the Controversies section and maintain a NPOV by sticking to the cold, hard facts.

1. Removing A LOT of superfluous quotes and the name Hunt-Grubbe from every other sentence. Tried to summarize the sequence of events without cutting any critical information. Tried to retain as many verifiable refs as possible.
2. Deleted "feel good" edits about other research on race and science, autism and schizophrenia. Also cut paragraphs about Watson's participation in ant-war petitions. There's nothing directly attributable to him here, and these two things don't seem "controversial" enough to merit discussion in this section.
3. Tried to make a paragraph out of the "other controversial statements" list. Removed unreferenced material and material with dubious sources.

Let me know what you think. Please feel free to change my edits if you don't like them, but let's make an effort to clean up this section. Thanks, AlphaEta 02:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who condensed it into a blow by blow account as prior to that it was basically "Watson said this racist thing and everybody kicked up a stink". Tried to balance it a bit, cited and ref'd. It read like a critique of the situation rather than a wikipedia article, but that's what was needed at the time it was 'current'.

Think the current edit is a bit rough around the edges and has taken some depth away from it that is really needed. The final sentence is a bit confused as it suggests his 'speaking engagements' are still at risk - they were (presumably) cancelled on his return to the US and the date for the talks have now passed. I'll have a go at fleshing it out into a less blow by blow account when I get chance to sit and read it.--Koncorde (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I do remember how it looked before you cleaned things up, and I agree that it was very sloppy. I gave it a good once over, so it will undoubtedly need a few more rounds of revision. My primary concern was how bloated and overwritten it had become since it was composed as events unfolded. AlphaEta 00:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reads much better now qualifying comments are re-inserted. Makes a more 'real' appraisal and delivery of the events.--Koncorde (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

After digging around to find the source of selected quotes that appeared in the article, it became clear that they were from disparate sources. Regards, AlphaEta 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave up trying to find most of them when it became obvious Hunt-Grubbe was formulating paragraphs in mix and match format. Badly it must be added.Koncorde (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than whitewash the "Other controversies" section, I've condensed the list into one extensively cited sentence. It doesn't seem like most biographical articles contain a list of every controversial statement the subject ever made, so why should this article be the exception? Again, feel free to revert if you feel I've gone too far. Thanks, AlphaEta 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the wikilink to Race and Intelligence. It is what it is, a link to exactly the topic (and tests presumably( Watson was discussing and later referring to even when he later restated his position. The fact someone has flagged the topic is neither here nor there. I have reinserted on the grounds that:

A - Watson discussed it.

B - the NPOV flag will likely never be removed from the topic as it will always be in dispute until genetically disproved/proved (which is inkeeping with the actual topic and discussion Watson has elicited).

The wikipedia article if anything helps demonstrate the whole state of affairs.--Koncorde 19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the final sentence

In the article, Hunt-Grubbe compiled selected quotations from Watson that alluded to a link between race and intelligence.

vs

In the article, Hunt-Grubbe quoted Watson making non-scientific based claims linking race and intelligence.

vs

In the article, Hunt-Grubbe quoted Watson making claims linking race and intelligence.

A - First off, the use of the word "claim" suggests that was Watsons intention, yet we only have Grubbe's word for it. We can cite it as 'claimed' using the BBC website, but again that's just quoting Hunt Grubbe making those claims on Watsons behalf. As it stands Watson denies making the claim specifically pertaining to racial difference, or even that Africa is genetically/intellectually inferior. To use the word claim in that place is therefore incorrect.

B - "non-scientific based" is extremely poor English. "Un-empirical" would be a better word, except that there are obvious 'measured' results confirming any number of positions you so wish. "Unscientific" meanwhile is to suggest there is a scientific way and/or that he conducted some form of irrational test.

C - "non-scientific based" (especially in conjunction with "claimed") gives the impression that he was making some form of uninformed wildly innaccurate statement; rather than having several chunks of quoted text pieced together to form something entirely more sinister.

D - "compiled selected quotations" is the most accurate description of what took place, unless someone else overheard the conversation and can actually confirm that the sentences taken from his lips all occured at the same time in a cohesive structure.

E - "alluded" is also probably the strongest word that can be used when using the phrase "linking race and intelligence" without giving the sub article undue weight of opinion or support. Indeed the Race and Intelligence article should do that for itself without Watson (unless of course he specifically reverts his position and/or goes into far more depth of investigation and expansion).

Have to say that the article actually lacks detail of the fall out from media sources, but having looked at most of the reputable ones - very few actually say anything, instead getting "offended" extras to pop up with soundbites. Still could possibly do with an inclusion of one to balance out the 'controversy' with something other than Cold Harbor and the uni's response as currently it looks a bit apologetic.--Koncorde 18:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all there is simply no dispute that Watson made these claims and apologized for them. There is no dispute regarding the interpretation of what he said which is he claimed that intelligence is a function of race, ethnicity, or geographic birthplace. Plenty of time has passed where Watson could have qualified what he said if somehow what was widely reported was so wildly inaccurate.

I suspect Koncorde of having an agenda here since he's trying to basically put a spin on very simple cut and dry quotations. He did not allude to anything. He spoke words that a twelve year old would interpret just as easily as nobel winning scientists.

He has since apologized and reversed his stance. All of this is already in the article and it is complete as is. As for the link to the highly flagged and inaccurate article. It goes without saying that the article exists simply because Wikipedia does not have the same standards for all articles. it is very clear that the entire article is not NPOV. Wikipedia should be presenting truth not speculation and claims of linking race with intelligence falls far short of even speculation. Landerman56 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really trying to spin anything and would prefer it if you didn't suggest that. It's disingenuous. I just hate terrible English and attempts to whitewash articles (or conversely tar and feather someone). I'll basically clarify what you're attempting to say by using the word 'claim' in that position. Bottom of this chunk (apologies for the formatting by the way);

In the article, Hunt-Grubbe quoted Watson claiming a link between race and intelligence.

In the informal interview Watson was quoted as saying he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" as "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really." - He refers to 'testing'. Doesn't make a claim himself based on any information other than referring to some unknown test. Hence "alluded"

Hunt-Grubbe states that Watson's "hope" is "everyone is equal" but quotes him as having said "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." - Here Watson completely undermines the idea he is 'claiming' a link, by "hoping for equality". However the next sentence is unusual in its inclusion within the Hunt Grubbe article as it does not scan with either the prior sentences, or subsequent parts. He refers to equality with regards to black employees, but he does not make a claim. He neither states a link to intelligence (we presume so based on what was said previously, but we are unable to say for certain where this quote was taken from) nor even the 'race' involved (or country of origin), unless (in a very ungeneticist fashion) he has decided to ignore the many shades of colour/ethnicity around the world that fall under 'black'.

Furthermore, Watson's stance was depicted as being that "you should not discriminate on the basis of colour" by quoting him as having said "there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level." - Nothing to do with making a claim.

Watson was then attributed as having written "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." - and here he makes a standard caveat statement that we should not presume universal heritage. Again not a claim between any particular race and intelligence, but an allusion to a lack of research (which is why the original 'unscientific' comment was not required) and a lack of understanding. Its inclusion (even though it is patently from a different source to his verbal quotes preceding) at that point in the text from Hunt-Grubbe completely changes the tone of the piece and causes you to go back and re-interpret what was previously said. It's misleading.

As for the linked article - again, that's your POV and that of the people who raised the flag on the Wiki article. The article itself covers many of the core controversial issues and highlights (in just the opening segments) the issues at hand. Personally I feel the current lock down on the topic is pointless and holding the topic back from being clarified and "corrected" in so much as such a hotly contested article ever will bed down. Wikipedia presents truth, and the truth is what Watson said, what Hunt Grubbe quoted him as saying. What the press and media interpreted it as meaning. And what discussions exist on the matter at hand. Its scientific verifiability is not your position to judge. Having read through the Race and intelligence article there are sizeable elements that I have issues with, but many of them are intrinsically linked to the subject Watson raised.--Koncorde (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a bit of logic is needed here. A linkage between race and intelligence does not exist. It does not exist scientifically. The fact that a nobel winning scientist made claims that such linkage exists does not lead credence to the existence of such linkage. In fact many people "believe" in such a linkage just as many people might believe in God, Devil, or pink elephants. The issue is that since there is no scientific nor conventional basis for believing in a linkage. The difference between this linkage and God,Devil,and pink elephants is that this linkage has been actually disproved through conventional wisdom. By convention I can refer you to the Declaration of Independence which clearly states the conventional belief of equality. Basically Watson's claims are not proven scientifically and have been disproved through conventional wisdom. Landerman56 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And again that's your POV, just as Watson has his (which undoutably must link to the controversial topic on Wikipedia). To argue that he has made the claim of a link, but then to deny the link to the topic is not logical. You're attempting to argue the topic/discussion/argument on Race and intelligence doesn't exist, when it does (even if only as an inherently racist poser, which again is not our position to judge)?

What is logical is to acknowledge he said what was quoted, that what was quoted was apparently 'from the horses mouth', that what was quoted may or may not have been as a whole a cohesive statement of belief or support for any ideal/idea or concept, but what was intended as its meaning is questionable due to his retraction and re-definition of his comments (namely the need to look into genetic heritage).

As I'm a Brit, the Declaration of Independence is about as relevant as toilet water to both myself and the topic.--Koncorde (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you left the comments in the discussion as they are written by the author. Common courtesy here please.

Last time I checked James Watson is an American so the Declaration of Independence means something to him. Enough of that. Basically there is no dispute from anyone except maybe Koncorde that Watson said what he was quoted as saying. If Koncorde's goal is to remove the quotes then he would surely have an uphill battle there. The linked article is itself highly flagged and will eventually be completely re-written or removed entirely as evidenced by almost every flag in the book having been applied to it. Anyone who makes claims linking race and intelligence is basing that on his or own personal assumptions. There simply is no larger "debate" or scientific basis for the claims. That is exactly why the article itself is so highly flagged. It is not flagged because people simply don't like it. Before making assumptions I advise everyone to read the article in its entirety. I have read both the article and Watson's book. Landerman56 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

....eh? Not sure what you mean by the first line. But I changed nothing of yours barring to indent as is 'common courtesy'. As you may have noted, I did "apologise" for formatting. I apologise here again, but it wont stop me doing it as you basically took my 'response' out of context. Either insert a title header in which your comment would be first (hence not requiring indents as a 'response' to something).

Further "eh?" on the Declaration. Relevance is lost on me there unless you're trying to stretch a philosophical point into science. I would say that he said exactly what he said, what I would question is the interpretation. I do not believe Wikipedia is there to interpret and inserting the word 'Claim' is to "interpret" his meaning and to do so. I explained that you could insert the word 'claim' if it was referenced (and even told you which one you could do it with). I have no intention of attempting to "remove the quotes" and would appreciate it if you didn't make those kind of assertions.

I don't care to tell you how to interpret another section of wikipedia, and I think you do a great disservice to the people working on the other article. Is it a 'good' one? I don't know, but I know at this moment in time it covers the topic in a haphazard manner. I also don't care to tell you what science exists or doesn't exist. Would appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions as my knowledge, or anyone elses knowledge and/or effectively try to asume a position of authority on a subject because you've read a book and an article (or suggest that would lend equal authority). I am not judging Watsons statements in terms of scientific validity. I am working to clarify the perception of what they meant vs intending meaning without making "claims" on his behalf.--Koncorde (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like Koncorde has attempted to completely re-write entire sections of the page. He seems to know more than the dozens of editors who have worked to write the article. Unfortunately It appears he has reverted to vandalism of facts in articles he personally disagrees with Landerman56 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And you're resorting to personal attacks because someone it trying to make good faith changes. Could you please check what changes I have made, and then clarify what exactly I have done wrong. The 'claim' is removed, but instead it is cited by the BBC (covering what you were initially trying to include).--Koncorde (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If I follow you correctly. Every statment that is made that is not your own will get a new indentation. So with that logic there will be entire pages worth of white space. hmmm doesn't sound like very sound logic to me. No intelligent human being needs the indentations. You are simply trying to obscure the real issues here. Landerman56 (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Now back to the discussion at hand. You're changes are wholesale to a section which is the result of dozens of contributors. You may be acting in good faith but you should be mindful not to remove category headers and such without obtaining consensus. I applaud your efforts but let's make sure contributions are done in a way that improves the article. If you google Watson..you will see more articles and commentaries concerning what he was quoted than articles focusing on the fact he resigned and or retired. That is why the header that was in place should not be removed. Landerman56 (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What I suggest if for both Koncorde and Landerman56 to leave the page as is. The headers and titles and wording of the article have been in place for some time now. Allow others a chance to chime in without. If there is a need to scrap the article and do a rewrite surely more than one person would agree with Koncorde. Until I see that his wholesale rewrites should be reverted as necessary to protect the article. Landerman56 (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article needs tweaking. In particular some of the sentences Koncorde addes under the controversies section are reasonable. There is always room to improve articles without changing the headers and completely rewriting the work of dozens of others by a single author. let's discuss specifically what can be changed and how best to do it. If others agree as I am sure they would..then add it to the article.Landerman56 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct - and at a point when suitable it reverts back to a single indent. It may not be how you do things, but it's pretty common on Wikipedia. I also now would appreciate it if you refrained from suggesting I have no intelligence, or that other wikipedia users don't because we may use indentations.

I make my changes as per WP:BB,WP:AGF and WP:BLP. The actual title of that section has been argued back and forth eventually seemingly settling on something that is inherently wrong.

For starters it's horrendous English "Opinion claiming links between race and intelligence" does not make sense. It is a dependent clause. It's confused in its attempt to put everything into 1 line without actually referring to anything. A more accurate line would be "Events leading to his retirement" or "statements leading to his retirement" or "comments regarding race and intelligence". More accurate still would be an entirely seperate subsection rather than a rather vague 'controversy' bit into which stuff has been shovelled.

The title "Retirement from Cold Harbor" describes (though now I realise 'resignation' would be more accurate) what happened as the end result of the events, and allows for the topic to explain the reasons for doing so. It is entirely 'neutral' as per WP:NPOV and does not favour any particular interpretation of what Watson says (part of NPOV's "Let the facts speak for themselves"). You also seem to have ignored the other adaptions I made that firstly allowed your original line of 'claim' to be used in a cited fashion. To insert the 'non scientific' claim (using Collins as an authorative source) that you had previously attempted to include but without a rationale for.

I need not consenus or permission to make changes, just as I didn't get it when I originally made the complete formatting change and inserted most of the references (if you check the history and comments above my myself prior to this occasion) until Alpha Eta made his subsequent changes and Robert K S before him, particularly when there is no consensus on the naming of that section (only what has been left behind after several attempts to clarify it). Regardless what was decided upon can still be revised.

As it stands you made no attempt to 'correct' the heading, instead simply reverting all changes - and then to lambast them as vandalism, and then to cast aspersions upon my motives, then to criticise logic, intelligence, formatting of a discussion etc. As you can see above (and in my contrib history), I have no issue with contributions and edits by anyone and take offence at any suggestion otherwise.

In an attempt to clarify further I have re-amended the heading and re-inserted the other changes unless you can cite some reason as to why they're not good rather than reverting just because you don't like it.--Koncorde (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am heartened to see an effort to conform to wikipedia convention of consensus building. I made improvements to the article flow. Removed some repeated sentences and quotes. Please use care not to cause undue duplication and try to limit the use of unnecessary prepositions and lead-ins. Try to keep the tone as neutral as possible. Unless you have evidence that A resulted in B do not say "as a result of.." Instead just state A and state B and give dates. If the reader would like to infer a link then that is the reader's right. Landerman56 (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Conform? You're having a laugh now.

You've killed a few of the cites/refs and again removed the referral to the race and intelligence for no apparent reason. And that title is the worst yet. Convoluted and is trying to explain everything. NPOV states "Let the facts speak for themselves", not create a header that attempts to concisely explain everything. As it stands I think the controversy section is wrong in its complete format.--Koncorde (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to take out the link to the article. Just that we should decide where to place it in accordance to NPOV. You may attempt to do so and I hope you do. Landerman56 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The controversies section should not be removed. If you wish to have it removed please keep discussing it and win the support of others. In the meantime do not rewrite entire sections and save it to the page, instead put it on the discussion and let other's chime in. Wholesale rewrites to mature articles can only be considered vandalism.

As for the title I think it's important to keep the focus on the topic of the section which is a nobel winning scientist claimed links between intelligence and race. That is the central topic. If you think the topic is not about what he said then please discuss here for everyone to come to know your reasoning. Landerman56 (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of removing the controversies section, but in naming it in a less stupid sounding way. I think the Kings College Results section stands out without the need for it to be 'bundled' in a sub section. Really it should be discussed as wholly part of his career within context. Similarly I feel the section we are working on should be 'out' of the controversy section and part of his actual life and career (i.e. the end of it). Currently it's like his Bio full of nice stuff+oh yeah, the stuff people didn't like at the end.

As for rewriting entire sections - why not? As it is all I ever did was moved two sentences, inserted a reference for something you had tried to claim the day before and inserted a few more quantifying critical comments. Hardly ripped it up by its roots. WP:BB. Anything not liked can be fixed, or edited, or discussed. Wholesale rewrites being vandalism? Don't be stupid.--Koncorde (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears your attempts at consensus building have failed as you simply reverted to your wholesale rewrite. Try changing one sentence at a time and see how that sits, discuss your changes before making them, and not replacing mature content with your excess verbage. Until I see anything along the lines of cooperation your additions will continue to be reverted. I advise you to abide by the rules or we will have to report you for vandalism. That is the 3rd warning. Landerman56 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, the 3RV rule came into play when you did it first - but you don't see me making a song and dance or threatening you with it. If you actually checked what was changed you will see all I did was reinserted the original quotes from Watson, and moved two lines to create a paragraph, fixed the error with cites and inserted a quantifying statement that you originally included but I have no referenced for you. Now I can see why others have had issues with you.--Koncorde (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not making threats to Koncorde or to anyone. I am stating the facts here about your contributions not conforming to Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore you are not being honest about your revisions when you make them. Here's an example.

21:21, 5 December 2007 Koncorde I have amended title to not be so convoluted. People can read the statements. Put quote back in that got lost in an edit somewhere, and formatted into three main paragraphs what was kinda broken up.

However a quick glance at a comparison of prior version you can clearly see that this "minor" edit was in fact a wholesale change. Trying to change entire sections of an article to suit your personal needs are not in the best interests of Wikipedia and ultimately not in a yours as well. Discuss your changes and find commmon ground before making them. That is the way we do things at Wikipedia since this is a mature article that is not flagged and is the culmination of dozens of editors work. You alone cannot possibly outweigh everyone else. Your continued rewrites will be reverted. My reversions are for vandalism which does not trigger the 3RV rule as you know. Landerman56 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you actually look at the edit, the change was to qualify the ending as per your comment regarding his retirement not being attributed to the events.

I clarified a single sentence and inserted cites as per your introduction of civil rights advocates, and introduced 'peers' as an additional.

I cited the 'claim of link between race and intelligence' by inserting the BBC doc (as I stated was an option previously.

I fixed a sentence that had a spelling error, and repositioned a sentence to the beginning of a paragraph so that it scanned correctly.

I replaced a quote from the actual text that you have so far blanked twice for no apparent reason. In total I added about 30 words, most of which were in the final paragraph and placed 'informal' at the beginning to make it clear this was not a biography or professional interview, but one between colleagues.

And yes you are threatening me, and have been insulting and obstinate. Attacked me personally on several occasions and generally not been particularly helpful in any way.--Koncorde (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as your comment that others have had issues with me. Well if you follow the historical discourse you will see that a consensus was made which is very healthy for wikipedia. Having issues is fine and welcomed on the discussion page. You will learn that consensus is the way not fighting and stubborness. Please do not feel burdened that you alone must rewrite the article. Allow a discussion to take place and you may come to realize that the world is not against you. Please do not vandalize the article. Landerman56 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what you think or feel. I'm not attempting to rewrite it alone, I was happily attempting to improve it and have previously tested a number of more 'neutral' titles only to have changes reverted wholesale and/or your mass of edits placed in there instead (which invariably are not due to consensus). Keep your own counsel.--Koncorde (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to discussion regarding the article. You see at least one other editor has reverted some of your changes. There is no reason to make it personal. You are still learning how Wikipedia works as we all have had to learn. This is a mature article not some "in the news" article. Your wholesale changes without prior discourse is the issue here and will continue to be viewed negatively until you are able to contribute to discussion regarding the article and not personal attack. Landerman56 (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you viewing the same thing as me? He reverted a change on the basis that the sentence in place was unwieldy, which it is. That doesn't make the current title correct. And I do take it personally, because how else do I take the things you have said? I made minor changes initially + attempted to create a neutral header, from that you have reverted ALL my edits without actually looking at them. How else do I take it? I also have not drifted at all away from the article.--Koncorde (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also I see by your statement "and have previously tested a number of more 'neutral' titles " that you may misunderstand how to build consensus on Wikipedia. It is not that you "test" changes. You don't throw up something and think that if it is not reverted then it must be fine. No. In fact the present title is the result of many prior changes and consensus building. Check the history and discussion and you will see that the article has been subject to thorough review by dozens of editors over a period of several months. It really is not in good faith for one editor to come along and take it upon him or herself to rewrite entire sections. With that said I hope we can appreciate each other's opinion without getting nasty. Landerman56 (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you having a laugh? This particular section we're editing has only existed since the 18th of October and I have been involved in it since approximately the 22nd. I don't care about the rest of the article, I have simply attempted to create a better article here - whilst you have simply reverted attempts and then flagged it as Vandalism.

"suspect Koncorde of having an agenda"

"Koncorde's goal is to remove the quotes then he would surely have an uphill battle there" (I put them in, and keep replacing them every time you edit one out in error)

"Before making assumptions I advise everyone to read the article in its entirety. I have read both the article and Watson's book" - assuming position of authority.

"It seems like Koncorde has attempted to completely re-write entire sections of the page. He seems to know more than the dozens of editors who have worked to write the article. Unfortunately It appears he has reverted to vandalism of facts in articles he personally disagrees with" - after you messed up the article by moving quotations after responses from the media and I attempted to correct.

"No intelligent human being needs the indentations. You are simply trying to obscure the real issues here"--Koncorde (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's make progress on building healthy discourse here. Here is something to ponder from the article. Furthermore, Watson indicated "you should not discriminate on the basis of colour" by quoting him as having said "there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level."[35]

This seems like someone went through great effor to slip in this link. The use of quotes is done without referencing a source so it is unclear who these words are attributed to? I am sure the source was inadvertently forgotten. Perhaps we should rework that sentence until the source can be attached. Does anyone agree? Landerman56 (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Errr. If you'd read Hunt-Grubbe's article, it would be obvious surely? That's what the cite is there for (yknow, the cite that says where the quote is from, y'know - the article), so you can find it in the article attached. It is linked to the wiki article on Positive Discrimination on the grounds that he was discussing "discriminating on the basis of colour", but in a positive way - hence positive discrimination. I have already once flagged that particular series of quotes as being questionable as Hunt Grubbe does not make it obvious where or when Watson supposedly said those words.--Koncorde (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't journalism. That is why we should take care not to make assumptions about context or what was inside the mind of a man or what his "intentions" were. Rather facts speak for themselves. Words that people say are quotes. From the ensuing quotes one might infer that Watson's original quotes were taken out of context but that is up to the reader to decide. There is simply no proof that they were taken out of context. A quote is a quote is a quote. Providing sources is key. Landerman56 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is thus:

He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address.

Easy, all straight quotes from the horses mouth.

His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

Here part 1 is Hunt Grubbe talking, but there is no clarification as to what Watson said so we are taking her word for it that he does indeed "hope everyone is equal".

He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”.

And again here, she writes the "discriminate on the basis of colour" line.

The issue I have with many of the quotes is that they are Hunt Grubbe's approximation, or assumptions. Something I previously flagged and worked to ensure clarity on the issue (like including the "informal interview" introduction so as to explain some segments were verbatim, and others not entirely clear where or when comments were made)--Koncorde (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your last change "Removed narrative. Simple giving the quotes and dates is complete enough. Remember this is not journalism nor is it a narrative. There is no evidence that anything was taken out of context"

If you read the quote Hunt Grubbe takes of Watson, she does not define its origin other than he 'writes' it. It is therefore out of context, even more so when she takes out a sizeable chunk of the qualifying text.

..."there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so"

“As we find the human genes whose malfunctioning gives rise to such devastating developmental failures, we may well discover that sequence differences within many of them also lead to much of the observable variation in human IQs. A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our desire to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”

That's out of context and you don't need to be a journalist to identify that evidence.--Koncorde (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "context". I put that in quotes because honestly if you think the quotes were taken of context you have to present evidence of what the context was and support it with sources. Putting in a narrative stating somehow the quotes were taken out of context is not complete or supported by any of the news agencies that reported the story nor by Watson himself. Watson did not deny he said these things he. He admitted them and apologized. There is no dispute at all regarding the "context" of the quotes. I do hope this clarifies why I removed the narrative. If not then please let's discuss further as you wish. Landerman56 (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The source is provided at the end of the next paragraph (cite 43) but wasn't inserted by myself (nor was the context line). One of the reasons I had 'moved' some of the text originally (that you reverted, and subsequently when you changed and removed a segment it became more fractured) was to pair references (I believe that was one of Alpha Etas changes). With the changes made the "in context" quote made no sense if it wasn't linked to the sentence referring specifically to the book so can understand its removal at that point, but its loss of relevance was due to a re-edit.--Koncorde (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

reference

From the article, "On October 14, 2007, a biographical article written by one of Watson's former assistants" followed by citation of:
Malloy, J. James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: Faces the consequences, Gene Expression, October 31st, 2007. Retried December 5th, 2007

First, what is the purpose of this citation at this point in this sentence? Second, the cited source seems to be a blog or a forum of some sort. I'm not sure that Wikipedia should cite a blog for a biographical article and this topic. What advantage does this blog have over other sources? What does "Retried December 5th, 2007" mean? --JWSchmidt (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that was an error. Should have been referenced by the Indepentant article, but with reverts back and forth I've picked up the wrong one. Shall correct.--62.24.129.68 (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

From the article, "Watson was quoted as saying he was 'inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa' as 'all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really'." followed by two citations. One citation is to the published interview. The other citation is to the Gene Expression blog which gives the same quote and cites the published interview. I do not understand why Wikipedia is citing the blog....I suggest that we do not cite the blog. There are additional citations to the blog in the Wikipedia article: are any of them needed? It seems like Wikipedia should just cite the primary sources. --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The blog references was intended to be used for the test references. I have been attempting to find a neutral reference for what 'tests' may be alluding to and basically thar article lists them all at the bottom(should have incidentally noted that in the ref). Eventual aim was to flesh it out but (as you may see from the history of the doc) not been easy to do. No news source has so far (that I could locate) touched on the subject, and this is far from my specialist subject of knowledge. Couldn't cite the tests myself (as that is "original research") and as yet few sources have referenced both Watson and the presumable 'tests' he refers to (and there are no Primary sources). If you object to it, please remove but I would ask that an attempt is made to acquire a 'balancing' source.--Koncorde (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The blog cites IQ and Global Inequality, Race Differences in Intelligence, and IQ and the Wealth of Nations as the sources of the test data. I think it would be better for Wikipedia if the James D. Watson article were to cite one of those books directly and one or more of the peer-reviewed studies cited in the book rather than use the blog as a source. I think this can be done in the way that perspective is already given in the James D. Watson article by linking Race and intelligence. I have not read any of those books. It might be useful to leave a note on a few talk pages such as Talk:IQ and the Wealth of Nations....it looks like there are some Wikipedia editors who have actually read these books and they might be able to provide a few links to the most relevant (methodologically sound) primary research articles dealing with geographical variation in intelligence test scores that have been cited by people such as Richard Lynn in their books. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

African-American Watson

Does anybody read about that Watson's DNA sequence reveled he is of African-American heritage (having 16 times fold more black African genes than average European Caucasian)?[1] It is noteworthy that Watson is probably the first African-American (very partly I admit, but much more than he wanted to be I guess) to win a scientific Nobel, I find it hilarious…But any way, lets mention it.--Gilisa (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the african american category that was added to the article. What is the normal rationale for adding it? If it's that of the subject has some alleles (16%) that predominate in Africa then we might have to add this to most US citizens who have relatives dating back before the revolution. David D. (Talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No sense, you are right (however, I don't accept that most of the prerevolution US citizens descendants have "black" alleles for the same extent as he does, it is empirically incorrect...Actually, he have 25% of non-white alleles (Asian and Black) and it means that virtually one of his grandfathers/mothers was neither white nor Caucasian) but still the all issue is noteworthy (and personally I believe that it can explain some of the statements he made against blacks (may be he grew up to a parents that did their best to hide the family history)). Mainly it is hilarious and funny :).--Gilisa (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, a bit of hyperbole on my part ;) And definitely funny. David D. (Talk) 20:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the "African American academics" category for the same reason as David D. TJRC (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why focus on his African ancestry? Didn't the analysis also indicate that a significant fraction of his genes are of Asian origin? If we're going to include this information, we should represent it without bias. AlphaEta 19:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

TJRC, he allready revert it-I didnt understand what else you had to revert but what ever...Any way, as for AlphaEta we can and we should include the information about his Asian origins as well, it looks notable since Watson is widely accused for being racist against any non-European human's group.--Gilisa (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a biographical encyclopedia article, not a tabloid, I suggest that we wait until there is a scientifically peer-reviewed account of the genetic data. What I have seen so far is rumor and what looks like a publicity stunt by a company. Has anyone found a source that explains what the data analysis actually was? --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've only seen news accounts. All of them report in light of Watson's recent comments and have a significant slant against him. I think the material is too preliminary for inclusion, but if people want to add it, they should not just focus on the supposed 16% of Watson's genes which are derived from African ancestors. It would be wrong to cherry pick data from references just to point out irony or humor. AlphaEta 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Gilisa: there were two categories added and reverted. You added "African American academics," Computer-girl added "African American." David D. reverted Computer-girl's "African American." I then reverted your "African American academics." I see Computer-girl has once again re-added "African American." I don't feel like an edit war right now, but I'll probably eventually re-remove it if no one else does first. -- TJRC (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in favour of keeping the information, of course qualified as being a newspaper report. Suppressing such a surprising (and relevant, given recent controversy) piece of news would seem like censorship rather than an effort to maintain a neutral point of view. But on the other hand, I am strongly against putting the article in the African-American category. First of all, because there is still no commonly accepted confirmation of the news. Secondly, because it may not fit anyway: read the "Who is African American?" section of the article African American; the "one-drop" rule according to which any amount of African ancestry would make you "black" seems to be an old legal norm not accepted anymore. That article reports discussion about whether persons who have one white and one black parent (for example, Senator Barack Obama) are to be considered African-American. It also appear that the term should be applied to people who are commonly identified or identify themselves as such. Eubulide (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a similar discussion with Computer-girl on my talk page. Maybe she will join the discussion here. David D. (Talk) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• In my mind, the information's validity should determine how it is presented. How did the company conduct their analysis, and have they made it available for review? What criteria did they use to define a gene as European, Asian or African? If its validity can't be confirmed, the best we can say is that deCODE Genetics claims that 16% of the analyzed genes are derived from an African ancestor, and we can make no definitive statments about the man himself. AlphaEta 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the European average is apparently 1% and he has 16% of African DNA so it would appear significant (I won't claim to be an expert though!). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There is some information at their DeCODEme webpage here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is how they arrived at the 16% value, not necessarily its significance in light of the European average (1%). Regards, AlphaEta 02:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple mathmatics 1% is roughly equal for 1/(2Log64 (or 128)) (representing 1/ the generations passed without the descendant, while 64 is approximately the number of ancestors) of one's ancestors been black while 16% (+9% non white nor Caucasian) equal for 1/4 of one's ancestors was non-European-it's a big difference. However, they should check the Y chromosome type that he have (and the mtDNA) and to see whether one of them is typical for Asians or black Africans-if they will get a positive answer, then they can attribute the findings for his African +Asian roots. More, they probably did statistics regarding the chances of him to have the alleles kinds they find without being of African and Asian genetic background (after all it is mostly about commonality differences between human groups and not about absolute differences) – any way, it seems like that Watson's genome is significantly outside the typical European genetic cluster.--Gilisa (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From his nobel prize bio:

"James Dewey Watson was born in Chicago, Ill., on April 6th, 1928, as the only son of James D. Watson, a businessman, and Jean Mitchell. His father's ancestors were originally of English descent and had lived in the midwest for several generations. His mother's father was a Scottish-born taylor married to a daughter of Irish immigrants who arrived in the United States about 1840.". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There's an extensive pedigree of his father here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I going to see what I can do in filling the gaps in his ancestry. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you bothering with this? The DNA report is in the article. It's probably worth having in there. What are you trying to research here? To identify which of his eight great-grandparents, if any, was of African origin?

We're really beating a dead horse here. TJRC (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm don't get you knickers in a twist- there's no harm in looking is there? Unless there's something obvious like one of his ancestors being identified as Black on the census it's unlikely anything will be found unless any of his family have a family story that might explain the DNA results. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the math is obvious! The question is how they parsed the data. How did DeCode define what constitutes an "Asian" vs. "African" vs. "European" string of DNA? Is this type of analysis common, and is it prone to error? In other words, should we trust these results simply because they were reported in the Sunday Times? Thanks, AlphaEta 02:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It was reported in a lot of other places too. I think it was probably partly a publicity drive for their new DeCodeME service, but they probably do know what they are talking about? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We should notice the creators of "south park" they definitely have here a raw material for another chapter. And seriously, probably it would be very hard to find out who's of Watson ancestors was the non European/Caucasian- My personal opinion is that the answer may lie outside his declared dynasty. Any way, the all issue is noteable.--Gilisa (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be possible to get a reasonably good guess at which of Watson's ancestors had the African forebear by examining photos of his relatives. I know photos have been useful in tracing my own family. His grandfather Thomas Tolman Watson was recorded as a stockbroker in the 1920 census so it is highly likely photographs of he and his wife Nellie Dewey Hamlin exist. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess that this is non of the known ancestors, or those who considered to be his ancestors, that is of African origin. Any way, even if he had African ancestor that you could recognize using photos it will still would considered as not politically correct to base one racial origin upon his appearance while he identify himself/ herself to be from other racial origin. --Gilisa (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. People may have been described as white on the census but if they were seen today most people would regard them as mixed race. Many would probably claim to be of Italian or Spanish descent if anyone asked questions. I doubt any of Watson's near ancestors are a result of illegitimacy of rape although that is not impossible. But as you go further back where some of his forebears may have had a lower social status that may be more likely where the connection will be found. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of the sort of guesswork and speculation that should not be in the encyclopedia, and that would very clearly violate WP:BLP. Gustav, I just went to the restroom and confirmed that my knickers remain untwisted; I am just pointing out that your investigation is not going to yield anything that's appropriate for entry in this article. If you're doing it for your own amusement, great; but this is not the place for it. Start a blog or something. TJRC (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what should and what should not be in Wikipedia. I never intended that anything I found to go straight into the article. And yes I am doing it purely out of my own curiosity. If "reliable sources" want to pick up on anything that would be up to them of course. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

African doesn't mean sub-Saharan black African. James Watson is half Irish, and the Irish and Basques share an ancestry with NORTH African Berbers.

Requested move

_ _ IMO James D. Watson should be renamed to James Watson, with a ToP Dab to James Watson (disambiguation) that begins "This is about the DNA researcher; ....". (This would of course be preceded by a move of the existing James Watson Dab to James Watson (disambiguation).)
_ _ James D. Watson is precluded as the title for his article by WP:UCN: Googling produces

about 30,200 for "James D. Watson" OR "James Dewey Watson" DNA

vs.

about 474,000 for "James Watson" DNA

showing a ratio of about 16:1 favoring the shortest form.
_ _ And he also appears to be the primary person meant by "James Watson":

1. Googling

   "James Watson" actor

   gives 1/4 the hits that

   "James Watson" DNA

   does, even tho the 2nd misses the "James D. Watson" refs, and even tho presumably many of the actor's lks are for minor roles in non-notable films (while JW's mentions in articles that mention DNA are probably at least strong "supporting roles"); and

   "James Watson" 1922 judge

   and

   "James Lopez Watson" are both in the low 4 figures.

2. IMO the other James Watsons are less likely to be sought: they are very short, in most case perfunctory, bios, and are linked to by very few other articles. (Note that the many lks to the Calgary mayor are in fact multiple copies, from all the other Calgary mayors, of the lk to him in a templated list of Calgary mayors.)
3. Altho Googling

   "James Watson" DNA

   produces just under half the hits of

   "James Watson" -DNA

   most of those more numerous hits fail to bear against the move:

   Of the first 10 hits,

   3 are for the actor,

   3 for James D. Watson (including one purporting to be a page created by him!),

   1 for the 20th-cent. pol,

   1 for a "James Watson Cronin", and

   2 for James Watsons not appearing on the James Watson Dab.

   In the next few Google pages, the proportion of James D. Watson hits increases, and no new James Watson-Dab-page people appear.

_ _ IMO, i am being overcautious in accepting the advice of a colleague to pursue this via Wikipedia:Requested moves rather than treating it as uncontroversial.
--Jerzy•t 03:35 & 03:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

agree. I think this is a very good idea, for the reasons stated by Jerzy. I'd been thinking along the same lines myself, but didn't have enough enthusiasm to start it. --TJRC (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I am totally opposed to this change. First of all, why are Google results driving what a person's name is in Wikipedia? Why not just have a redirect page from "James Watson" to this existing page? There are several reasons why I am opposed to the proposed change.

1. First of all, the name in Wikipedia should be the name the individual being written about actually goes by. That would be either "Dr. Watson" or "Dr. James D. Watson" (formal), "James D. Watson" (normal), or "Jim" (familiar). Examples of these useages are documented in the archives at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Also, the way the individual signs their name--in book signings for example, is also important. That would be "James D. Watson".

2. The name the individual publishes under is the most formally recognized name. That would be "James D. Watson"

3. There already exists a naming system for individuals in instances like this. It is not a new concept, especially for librarians. Librarians use the LCNAF or the Library of Congress Name Authority File when determining the correct author name when cataloging books. Any author name can be searched in the LCNAF which is freely available online: http://authorities.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First. Dr. Watson is listed in the LCNAF as "Watson, James D., 1928- ". The closest and therefore the best choice to use here is "James D. Watson" (reversed and without the birth date). When a new individual publishes a book, it is up to NACO members to establish the formal name used by the Library of Congress. (About NACO: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/naco/naco.html). Birth and death dates (when applicable) are only used when there is already someone by that name who is in their system. The name is then added to the LCNAF. Writers are encouraged to stick to the name they are assigned so that all of their works can be easily grouped (collocated) together under the same unique name. This also prevents publications by different authors sharing similar names from being confused with one another. As Wikipedia expands, it might be a good idea to keep this concept in mind and to refer on a regular basis to the usage of the individual's name in the LCNAF. How do the Wikipedia administrators plan to disambiguate when there are multiple people sharing the same name? Is there a standards policy about this to help with consistency throughout the Wikipedia project? If not, maybe there should be. It is not really that difficult to look up an individual and find their authorized name. In the case of "James Watson" there are actually 17 different entries in the LCNAF--that is potentially 17 or so future disambiguations needed down the road as Wikipedia expands and people write new articles. There are 11 LCNAF entries just under "Watson, James D." (or middle name that begins with "D") alone.

4. On a selfish note, as an individual who has significantly contributed to this article, I am left wondering what will happen to the history of my contributions, my discussions on talk pages, etc. if this page is moved? Will all of these be moved as well? If not, I would have a personal objection as well as the above professional objections.

Shannon bohle (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If the page "moves" then everything will move with it, I would think that this page should stay the way it is - and maybe a disambiguation page could be made for 'James Watson' but I have no strong feelings about the issue. Hardyplants (talk) 09

48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)