Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:12, 10 June 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of the race and intelligence controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 7 days

Wikipedia is not a portrait gallery

I've removed some of the bewildering array of portraits. Strange to see such bloat, most I can recall anywhere on Wikipedia. Portraitpedia we are not.99.141.254.167 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the portraits (almost all found/added by MathSci) were really good and interesting. Maybe add back half the ones you deleted? What do other editors think? David.Kane (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, add them back, please. mikemikev (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added them back. Mathsci (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the encyclopedic purpose of a portrait gallery? Twenty-three images? Sixteen portraits? Not acceptable.99.141.254.167 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If MathSci, Mikemikev and I agree on something (!?), then we are probably right.

I say keep them. David.Kane (talk)

That's not a sufficient basis for inclusion. Please support your basis, I will be removing the portraits again - the onus is upon those arguing for inclusion. 99.141.254.167 (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy which forbids the inclsion of images to illustrate an article. What is frowned upon is an article composed uniquely of a picture gallery, unless you can cite an article of policy of which I'm unaware. I say leave the pictures in.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The burden for inclusion lies with those who wish to add material. What is the encyclopedic value in 23 images, 16 portraits? Each one challenged should be supported. Supporting arguments should also be presented not only for each challenged image but for the body of 23 as a whole. 23 images is far beyond any encyclopedic need. 99.141.254.167 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "The burden for inclusion lies with those who wish to add material." Could you kindly source that statement to an official Wikipedia policy? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, please look at WP:Burden. .19:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Twelve portraits removed as unsupported, individually and as a group, for inclusion in the article.99.141.254.167 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webster revert

Nothing more to say about Webster than my edit summary. This is what needs to be said. This article is not about Jensen. It is not a trial over what he "really" meant by what when. It is about the history of societal and academic controversies over race and intelligence. And how do you write an article about the controversy if you are going to pretend the key figures embroiled in it such as Arthur Jensen didn't provoke any controversy? It's not our role to resolve the controversy, we're here to describe it. So to review Jensen's part: Jensen's 1969 paper exploded in controversy-there were widespread protests, he became essentially an untouchable even in academia over it. Why? Come on! Why is because most people who read it thought it suggested blacks didn't do as well in school as whites because they inherited genes giving them significantly lower IQs than whites, and there's no way to raise it. It was interpreted to say their low IQs can't be raised through better education or improvements to their environment via social programs. That's why Jensen became an extremely provocative figure in race and intelligence controversy, why there were widespread protests against him, and why he became a something of a pariah. It's historic revisionism to pretend he wasn't criticized for this reason, or that this criticism was a completely manufactured hoax spread by fringy conspiracy kooks! That's what happened, right? So how is this article going to tell the story without including any of the key arguments traded in it? Professor marginalia (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to myself, apparently, but take a look other articles at wikipedia such as these:

They include quotations representative of the "controversy" the article is addressing and any lack of "neutrality" is no barrier against them even when it's unflattering to a living person. OKAY? Gotta get this straight--we have to be neutral in as accurately representing the controversy as it occurred. It is not even permitted for us at wikipedia to create a whole different narrative of the controversy to make life more fair to the people who were involved in them. We don't change history, we don't "pretty" it up, we don't sensationalize it either. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you reverted this, you said in your edit summary “there is no blp rule that all quoted sources are ‘NPOV’”. So it sounds like you’re acknowledging that a quote which refers to Jensen believing in “the inferior genetic attributes of blacks” is not taking an NPOV perspective about this. Right? And you also agree that neutrality is of primary importance in an article about a living figure, right?

Other than the quote from the APA’s report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, this quote from Webster is the longest quote in the entire article. It’s also one of the most strongly anti-Jensen quotes in the article, and is at odds with both what Jensen said in his own paper and the secondary sources that we’ve agreed are neutral such as Loehlin. Now, if our goal is to make the article as neutral as possible, are the views that we want to give the most space the ones that take the most strongly anti-Jensen view? Or should the views that we give the most space the ones that we agree are fairly neutral, such as Loehlin and the APA?

That’s a rhetorical question. This is the reason why I reverted this addition to the article, and I suspect it’s why David.Kane reverted it also. If you want this quote to stay in the article, you’ll need to explain how it’s acceptable to give the most space to the sources that are the least neutral. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page has overstuffed with enough of this childishness already so don't put words in my mouth and grandstand with "rhetorical questions". There is no such rule, so don't use the nonexistent rule when reverting. Are we clear? I would also highly recommend you and David.Kane stop tag teaming. Are you acting as his spokesman here?

So now it's WP:NPOV. Not WP:BLP. Inconveniently, there is no "revert on sight" provision in NPOV. So no there is no urgency to revert the content before discussing it. If you think there is undue balance for one side than the other, start a new section and propose how you think to improve it in terms of the overall scope discussing the 1969 paper, or all Jensen's work that relates. It can't be accomplished by arbitrarily and imperiously "vetoing" references and claims on an WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read WP:BLP, you’ll see that the rule I’m referring to is part of it. Specifically, it’s this: Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral.

You asked why David.Kane and I had both reverted this material, so I’m explaining it. I’m only acting as a spokesman for myself, although I suspect that his reasons are similar to mine. Since the two sentences I quoted are part of WP:BLP, and the rule for possible BLP violations is to revert on sight, everything I’ve done is an application of this policy.

I’ve explained why I think this material isn’t consistent with this portion of BLP policy. If you think it is, then it’s now your job to explain why that’s the case. If you can’t, then it’ll need to be removed. This is no different from every other possible BLP violation we’ve discussed here. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well I have read it, many times, but thanks for the advice. Webster isn't fringe.. He's a sociologist, working right there in the thick of race and multicultural issues in society, written many books on it, and this particular book, as I said, has been cited many, many times. Fringe, at wikipedia, has very specific definition. Fringe, he's not. Nor is his opinion. It was shared by many, and that's why Jensen became such a lightening rod. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t claiming that Webster is fringe. My point is merely that if we’re seeking to describe Jensen neutrally, and to not provide disproportionate space to any viewpoint about him, providing more space to one of his most vociferous critics than we do to any other perspective about him is not the way to do it.

I actually don’t have a problem with Webster’s perspective about this being mentioned, but I think the current lengthy quote from him ought to be condensed into something that’s not longer than a sentence or so. Would you consider that an acceptable compromise? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This doesn't in this case seem to be "the view of a tiny minority". A number of uninvolved academics from various parts of the social sciences gave their dispassionate readings of this article, which has been described as long, discursive and written in a hurry (Lee Cronbach explained why in 1975). Jensen's theory of Level I/Level II abilities (associative/cognitive) is described in numerous secondary sources and appears in the article. As many commentators write, Jensen points out that although blacks and whites perform equally well in Level I skills, blacks perform less well in Level II skills, which are the cognitive skills measured by IQ tests. Jensen suggests that it would be more reasonable to teach those with less aptitude in Level II skills, using primarily their Level I skills, i.e. by rote memorization rather than through learning abstract concepts. This is what almost all of the multiple sources so far have written. It is not a BLP violation, nor are those commenting a minority. They don't consitute a tightly formed group of conspirators. These are academic writers, often writing in a less speculative and more dispassionate way than Jensen himself. Several of the accounts occur in standard textbooks. The article of Jensen, as he himself remarked later in 1998, was not in any sense in a final state. It was speculative and he later changed his mind on several points. His academic reputation does not rest on this paper; it is on the other hand the historical document that, in a highly volatile politicalclimate of unrest and struggle, sparked a possibly disproprotionate reaction. That is made rather clear in the article (one reason the FBI picture is there, an FBI picture of the "weathermen" was the only choice because of WP copyright rules). In this case writers are assessing Jensen's article as a historical document. Their readings are therefore extremely important to provide context for why it created an uproar. That of course is slightly ambiguous (as Cronbach relates) and that is reflected in the WP article. If Jensen's article, even in just a few places, contained reasoning which as it happened was construed in a negative way, whether that was intended or not, we cannot suggest to readers of the WP article that that interpretation has not been suggested. In the article the comments are ascribed to particular authors. Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before Professor marginalia paraphrases and shortens Webster's comments in the article, which of course I completely agree should be done, it would be helpful if Mikemikev and David.Kane could give some assurance that they would cease removing properly sourced material from the article. That would be a very positive step forward. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to confirm that I will not revert correctly sourced and accurate material. For example, you added a quote [1] from Jencks. Neither I nor anyone else removed it. Why would that be if your view --- that we remove all material critical of Jensen or describing his position --- were accurate? Why do you think we have not removed that quote? Simple: Jencks describes Jensen's views accurately, just as Loehlin et al do. Correct descriptions of Jensen's views will stay. WP:BLP requires us to remove and discuss (potentially) inaccurate descriptions. David.Kane (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Professor Marginalia wrote:

So to review Jensen's part: Jensen's 1969 paper exploded in controversy-there were widespread protests, he became essentially an untouchable even in academia over it. Why? Come on! Why is because most people who read it thought it suggested blacks didn't do as well in school as whites because they inherited genes giving them significantly lower IQs than whites, and there's no way to raise it. It was interpreted to say their low IQs can't be raised through better education or improvements to their environment via social programs. That's why Jensen became an extremely provocative figure in race and intelligence controversy, why there were widespread protests against him, and why he became a something of a pariah.

I agree with all this! This is a reasonable summary of what happened. I think that the current article describes it well. I am not against adding more detail. (Although if the section devoted to Jensen (1969) gets any longer, we will need to break it off as its own article.) I simply insist on removing (and then discussing) material which, at first glance, is not accurate. The key issue seems to be claims from various folks that Jensen sought to treat all black children differently from all white children. He never wrote this. This is a much more extreme (and objectionable position) then his views on IQ differences and their genetic causes.

Professor Marginalia: In all honesty, I think that I have failed to make my position clear to you. I am in favor of detailed discussion of Jensen's views on IQ differences and their genetic cause. He really did write all those things. But WP:BLP requires that we only include accurate descriptions of his views. David.Kane (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No wikipedian can judge whether something is a "correct version of Jensen's views" or an "accurate decription of his views". The article concerns a historical document, written in 1969. Commentators point out that Jensen changed his mind on parts of the paper subsequently. As far as the history is concerned, the WP article relies on what secondary sources say, not second-guessing by wikipedians. That is just WP:OR.

Captain Occam has said that he is happy with content in the segment from Webster. Is this also your view now? Mathsci (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only verifiable quotes from the subject himself are acceptable in such a controversal article about a living person. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you say doesn't seem to be correct. A not particularly complimentary quote from the biography by Anthony Seldon has been used in the article an John Major. That is permissible. And that would apply to almost anything in the book, provided it was not WP:UNDUE. This is not a controversial article at all: it's a neutral article. The events in history might have been controversial, but that is an entirely different matter. The article is certainly not about just one person: it is a small part of of the history of psychology, which involves many people, several of whom like Richard Lewontin and Leon Kamin are still living. Mathsci (talk)

I don't have much time to devote to this at the moment. But to XXanthippe, I don't know where you got that idea but it's not at all the BLP policy position. Nothing of the kind. And to David.Kane, I believe you're interpreting claims here as saying all black or all white when that wasn't what the claim said, or the secondary source said. Jensen didn't say they should be strictly segregated by race, but legitimized segregation was widely interpreted to be the outcome of such a recommendation given Jensen's own assertion that the average black has an IQ requiring a very different kind of education than the average white. In other words, the separate education would be the norm, not the exception? Get it? But this is what I've tried to explain many times--our job isn't to judge who did or didn't interpret Jensen's work properly. Our job is to accurately describe how these notable, published figures, academics, and other parties to the dispute did. We need to accurately describe how Jensen describes his own work. We need to accurately describe how his critics interpreted it. That's what we do. At no point do we nobodies at wikipedia step in to the fray and presume to judge the validity of those interpretations based on our own interpretation of the primary text itself. See? Professor marginalia (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your last five sentences. The difficulty is that some people in this debate are not following their import. If this were a debate that had taken place in the nineteenth century, historians would have had time to absorb and assess all the evidence and all the participants would be dead. But this controversy is going on at present and most of the participants are very much alive. It is essential, on BLP grounds, that all the living participants are given fair treatment. Wikipedia must state explicitly what protagonists actually said as well as what cherry-picked commentators allege that they said. There are so many unreliable and biased secondary sources here that excruciating care must be taken to be fair. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe wrote, "Only verifiable quotes from the subject himself are acceptable in such a controversal article about a living person." Not true. perhaps it would be better if this discussion were left to people who understand our BLP policy, or are willing to honor it. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mathsci has agreed with me that it's reasonable to condense the Webster material, I've gone ahead and done that now. I've also included a passage from Flynn (1980) in order to help balance it. Mathsci has stated that he considers Flynn one of the leading authorities on psychometrics, so hopefully including his view about this won't be contentious either. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Most of the episodes I've watched battled over here are decades old..Jensen, an octogenarian, is one of the few of the most notable participants reacting to his paper who is even still alive, and that debate is more than 50 years old now. I would like someone here to list out the supposedly "unreliable" and "biased" secondary sources allegedly filling the section, because what I've seen happen over and over and over again is the sources have been rejected out of hand by editors who didn't look at them, don't know anything about the qualifications of the author, but simply based on the editor's personal disagreement with the claim itself. In other words, the standard used here for calling a text "biased" or "unreliable" is not the authority, or lack of, to the published source. Instead, editors are judging the claim as "true" or not based on their own personal opinion of Jensen and pronouncing sources "biased" or "unreliable" if they don't conform to it. In other words, the inexpert wikipedian has appointed himself the judge of what's a "true" interpretation or conclusion to come to from a primary source. And that's completely backwards--in fact that's exactly what editors cannot do per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter summaries of the 1969 paper of Jensen

This section is intended for summaries. We don't include unsourced synthesis nor do comment on the writer (eg words like "in a critical account"). That is WP:OR. In the account of James R. Flynn (from New Zealand) he comments about the events of the 1969-1975. That is clearly of this section. It is to help readers understand how different academics in reliable secondary sources have interpreted Jensen's paper. Certainly it's not about whether Jensen's paper is correct or not. That people commented later on that is mentioned in the appropriate place in the article. These are straight summaries, not points of view on the correctness of Jensen's article. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Flynn isn’t about whether Jensen is right or wrong; it’s only about whether Jensen should be taken seriously as a scientist.

Let me make sure I understand your point about this correctly. Is it that you don’t have a problem with the Flynn material in general, but just think it’s in the wrong part of the article? If that’s the only problem here, then it can be moved to wherever you think is an appropriate place.

Incidentally, it might be worthwhile in general to cover the 1970s debate between Jensen and Flynn, because this debate is what defined most of the basic assumptions of the race and intelligence debate. (As well as leading to discoveries such as the Flynn Effect.) --Captain Occam (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his Level - Level II theory was taken seriously by experts: the sentence about Flynn and Mckintosh should make that clear. We are giving authors' summaries of the articles, not their personal opinions or comments in the light of historical events. I did access a typed book or paper by Flynn where he discussed the Level I and Level II theories, but I'm not sure now that it was the 1980 book. I'd have to check that carefully. How did you access Flynn's 1980 book? Mathsci (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about Flynn and Mckintosh just says that they both gave accounts of Jensen’s research. It doesn’t make it clear how valuable Flynn considered Jensen’s contributions to psychometrics to be, including his research about race differences. It also doesn’t provide any information about the 1970s debate between Jensen and Flynn, which I think the article should cover.

Flynn’s book used to be available at Google Books, but I’m not sure if it still is. You can always just buy it or find it at a library, in any case. I might purchase a copy of it on eBay or somewhere similar. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I own a copy of Flynn (1980). It has two brief discussions of Jensen's ideas about Level I and Level II on pages 27-29 and 205-206. It seems consistent with the descriptions that we already have in the article. Let me know if you have questions. David.Kane (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn on Bushmen

One of the captions says that according to Lynn's Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, Bushmen are "mentally retarded". This sounds dubious. I'd like to have an exact quote on this.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually read Lynn's book, but when this was discussed on the talk page for the Race and intelligence article someone quoted the relevant passage of it. Based on that, I'm pretty sure the way Lynn describes this is that Bushmen have a lower mental age than other groups of people. Some of Lynn's critics have interpreted this as meaning the same thing as mental retardation, but that isn't the wording Lynn actually uses. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Lynn himself does not use the words "mentally retarded", then the article should not use them either.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's on page 76 of Lynn [2] and referred in the secondary source, the book review of Nicholas Mackintosh. Instead of blanking content, could editors please go to the secondary sources to verify the content? In Tucker's 2002 book, it was explained on Page 2 (and elsewhere) that the Pioneer Fund financed Mankind Quarterly. That's why there was a precise page citation. I've slightly changed the wording to make this more explicit. Mathsci (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Mathsci has just reverted the article six times in under 24 hours. Victor, you might want to report this at AN3. I'd rather not do it myself, because of my involvement both here and in the AN/I thread; I think it's generally preferable for things like this to be reported by someone who's as un-involved as possible.

Let me know if you don’t want to, and I or David.Kane can do it. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matschi now claims that Mankind Quarterly is "Pioneer-financed". This suggests that all or most of its funding is from Pioneer. Is this true? Currently, the article links together the Mainstream statement, Pioneer and Mankind Quarterly in a very POV manner.

In the quote Lynn does not explicitly classify them as "mentally retarded". I modified the caption accordingly.

In reverting my edits, Mathsci ended up deleting corrections of fact, clarifications and additions that I think even he would approve of. Can we agree on which of them are ok? The quotes from the Mainstream statement should stay and the Lynn & Vanhanen books should be mentioned.

Occam, I have no interest in reporting on Mathsci or anyone else, but you can of course do it if you want.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the vandalism by the driveby IP and requested semiprotection of the page; and will continue to do so, since it against consensus. He is removing images and text against consensus. In every other case I have in fact added new properly sourced content each time. Pioneer-financed is reported in the secondary source - it only means partially in this case. I have modified the caption to agree with the secondary source (Mackintosh) and the primary source (Lynn) and disambiguate bushmen. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

Note that a request for arbitration has been filed relating to various disputes over this article (among others). Rvcx (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Images and Captions

Yes - MathSci, MikeMikev, and David Kane really did agree that the miniportraits were nice. And i will add my vote to the list. So it really is true that people who are often divided can find some common ground!

Now, an anonymous editor has entered into a revert war deleting the images. Apparently this IP raised an objection on this talk page, and no one agreed with the objection, and two editors who have usually differed with MathSci supported him in this case. So the IP knows that editors with a history of work on this article support the images. That this person has gone to war deleting images and reverting MathSci seems to me to be the worst kind of disruptive editing. It serves no purpose except to discourage any agreement (let alone collaboration) between MathSci, David and Mike.

The page is now protected but I urge any admin checking this out to see that MathSci was restoring edits supported by a consensus of registered users, in opposition to an anonymous SPA who refuses to listen to anyone else. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Slr. In my new temporary statement on the RfAr I describe this consensus as a "rare event". I have no idea who the driveby IP was, but they were simply vandalizing the article. I can see no reason to WP:AGF in this case. It was out-and-out vandalism. Mathsci (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think the photos added a nice touch and made the article better. I could imagine a reasonable argument for decreasing their number or substituting some for others, but visitor did not seem interested in discussion. Don't we know any admins who can fix this? David.Kane (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has yet to lift even a finger to support the images notability for inclusion individually or as a group. At the moment this is simply a textbook example of the fact that Wikipedia is not run by "Votes". "Nice pictures" is not sufficient support for their encyclopedic notability. 99.141.254.167 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that I'm tremendousnessly disappointed in the Editor "Mathsci's" fabrications. Your false declaration at ArbCom is troubling: "On the other hand I haven't seen the level of disruptive edits that have occurred on the history article, with no scholarly basis whatsoever. I don't quite know why, but a series of IPs has been randomly vandalizing the article for the last two weeks, removing images and newly added content"

My first edit to the article was at 13:30, yesterday June 1st. One needs to go back to early last month to find the next IP edits:[9](2), from there one needs to go back nearly another week - except this IP edit inserts an image:(3). Your false testimony otherwise, coupled with your unshaded declaration of no WP:AGF, and blatant mis-characterization of my edit as drive by vandalism does nothing to further honest discussion of the debate on its merits and substance. One can only wonder how often you resort to such techniques when your intellect fails you - perhaps such behavior can be found littered along the route that brought you before Arb-Com in the first place.99.141.254.167 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

99.141.254.167: Can you point us toward any Wikipedia policy which specifies how many photos are too many in an article? Perhaps I am naive, but most encyclopedias that write an article which mentions X like to include a picture of X, if one is available. Given that the article mentions, for example, Arthur Jensen, what is wrong with including a picture of him? Perhaps your position is that the article should only include photos of people about whom there is enough discussion? I just want to get a better sense of your point of view. Can you point us toward examples of articles that also had too many photos but which, after discussion, had them removed? David.Kane (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on Jensen. Jensen was retained, as perhaps 3/4 of the article revolves around him. Shockley, given his fame, his association and his influence on Jensen was also retained. Lysenko's infamy and real world ramifications kept his image. (I was also influenced by a desire to highlight the link as a sort of educational "Someone You Should Know") Binet was kept (again a closet link, like Lysenko, advertising, "Something You Should Know") as the path here begins at IQ testing, itself a notable and important subject for it's controversial utility and influence. 99.141.254.167 (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pictures are great. Maybe the Lysenko and Boas portraits are questionable, since they weren't direct participants, acting more as "labels" for a certain points of view. The rest I have no problem with, and I think they help readers connect better by putting faces with a bunch of unfamiliar names. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to remove the wanted poster for the Weather Underground. This group, and its members, are not related to local SDS chapter action in 1973 (The image caption here incorrectly dates the protest to 1969). The Weather faction did not exist until the SDS national convention, becoming first the Weathermen and overthrowing SDS leadership before the organization SDS later effectively dissolved and core members went underground. The poster has no relevance and is an historical mis-characterization. Also note that the faction that protested (SDS-WSA) was specifically the faction that DID NOT support or include Weather.99.141.254.167 (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture illustrates the article. The FBI picture dates from 1970 and the people pictured were leaders of Students for a Democratic Society. You incorrectly assert that the protest was in 1973. However that claim is cdirectly ontradicted by what's written in the 1975 article by Lee Cronbach, where he describes how the protest as occuring in 1969 two weeks after Jensen's paper appeared. The caption had a citation and you didn't bother to check the secondary source. Your personal point of view is irrelevant for editing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please directly quote the source which attributes the protest to any one of the pictured individuals - or to the Weather Underground? An organization which itself did not exist as such until Christmas, 1969? Thank you in advance for the direct quote in support of the claim.99.141.254.167 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<== Passage from page 3 of Cronbach (1975):

As soon as the article was in type the publicity broke. The Harvard Review made the article available to the press along with the remarks of the prearranged critics. Substantial excerpts appeared in U.S. News and the New York Times, and lesser accounts appeared in other media. Within two weeks, the Students for a Democratic Society were cruising the Berkeley campus with a sound truck whose chant was "Stop racism. Fire Jensen!"And on the Eastern seaboard, it was rumored that the Nixon cabinet had discussed whether the article could be used to justify reducing outlays to aid blacks.

So 1969, not 1973. Other sources write "Fight racism. Fire Jensen!" (probably more accurate, if it matters). 99.141.254.167 will find that Jensen wrote about this event in the 1972 book "Genetics and Education". Why is he trying to contribute here if everything he says contradicts the sources, which he doesn't bother to read? The illustration illustrates the organization not the protests. Only he seems to object and h;s said a number of quite incorrect things so far. Why should anybody pay any attention to his personal thoughts on wikipedia? This isn't a WP:FORUM after all is it? Mathsci (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference has nothing at all to do with the Weathermen. Period. The FBI wanted poster has no relevance at all. My ref regarding the 1973 SDS protest referred to "A Resolution Against Racism" that was published in the New York Times on October 28, 1973 that specifically targeted Jensen and Shockley, leading to the formation of the Committee Against Racism, (CAR). 99.141.254.167 (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which secondary source cites the letter to the New York Times? Mathsci (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a letter. Here are some cites:[10] [11][12][13][14] It's also described in this Wikipedia entry on the SDS here:[15] Are the cites acceptable?99.141.254.167 (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it that no further opposition to removing the FBI poster exists?99.141.254.167 (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All your suggestions for removing images are invalid. You are simply being disruptive. All the picture illustrate indivuals involved in the controversy. Your reasons for emoving them seem petty and not designed to increase the readability of the article. If you look at a standard texbook on the history of psychology, such as that of Ludy T. Benjamin, pictures do appear. Your suggestions seem wholly negative and not designed to improve this encyclopedia. The half page advertisement can be mentioned, but no reliable secondary source indicates that SDS, in whatever form it had by 1973, was responsible for collecting the signatures. The other images were supported by all contributors to this page except you and so will be restored when the page is unlocked. If you persist in edit warring to remove them, your own editing patterns will probably be mentioned in the current ArbCom case. IP editors rarely appear to suddenly edit an article of this type without having previously edited wikipedia under a different account. Mathsci (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MathSci. The consensus of editors here clearly want more pictures, not fewer and there is no Wikipedia policy against such a preference. I am happy to discuss the merits of specific images --- for example, the Nazi pamphlet should go; maybe the Wanted poster is off-topic --- but wholesale deletions without discussion are clearly unacceptable. Once the article restriction is lifted, I support adding the images back. David.Kane (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Nazi pamphlet? Could David.Kane clarify his thoughts a little? My guess is that many editors voicing opinions here will not be permitted to edit these articles in a month or two's time. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to | this which, I now see, was not a Nazi pamphlet. The description given is "The first issue of Neue Anthropologie was dedicated to Fritz Lenz, coauthor with Erwin Baur and Eugen Fischer of a text on Rassenhygiene, the scientific theory used to justify genocide in Nazi Germany[78]". Comments: 1) To the extent that this belongs in the article at all, it does not belong in the section labeled 1960-1980. 2) As best I can tell, none of those author or the journal itself are mentioned in the article. 3) Although I agree that on-topic images are good, images with no direct connection to the text/topic of an article are bad. At the very least, the caption needs to make clear what relevance the image has, at least if it is not obvious from reading the article. Given all that, I am deleting, but I am not against it being re-added if someone can fix/explain the above. I think that the vast majority of MathSci's other images should be re-added. But, instead of simply adding them all back (I don't want to edit war), I will just add back a selection of the most relevant ones. David.Kane (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Underground FBI wanted poster

The FBI wanted poster of the Weather Underground has no relevance whatsoever here. Weather had no involvement. The ref supplied earlier makes no mention of Weather. The Weather Underground on the poster did not even exist until Christmas of 1969. It's removal is required.99.141.254.167 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those pictured were the leaders of SDS. Your own account, which seems to be an alternative account of a regular editor, has been so disruptive on various noticeboards that it is likely to be blocked fairly soon based on WP:DUCK. Mathsci (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC

No. Those pictured were leaders of the Weather Underground. The SDS of Berkeley in 1969 were unrelated. Please produce a ref showing any Weather Underground involvement, the group didn't even exist then. We really shouldn't be creating an artificial history were none exists. It's important to be honest with our sources.99.141.250.125 (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the images again. Please do not re-insert. There was no Berkeley Chapter of the Weather Underground. the Weather Underground did not even exist then.99.141.250.125 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]