Talk:Satoshi Kanazawa: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:39, 18 May 2011

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Psychology Unassessed

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Notability

With Wikipedia's credibility always at stake, I wonder does this page meet the WP:PROF (notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements), or is it merely a vanity project?

You have a point - I don't think this particular academic meets the notability requirements.Stimpster 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the studies listed in the article (most scientific discoveries made before mid-30s, and beautiful people have girl children) received a bit of significant press coverage. I personally think that this qualifies him under the proposed notability guidelines for academics, parts 1 and 3. -- Plutor ^talk 15:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of info

IP address 90.206.101.27 removed my edit (I wasn't logged in) yesterday claiming it was inaccuarate:

However, flaws were later identified in the statistical analysis, meaning that many of the results were not statistically significant.^[1]

It was published in a peer-reviewed journal (the same one the original article was in)? Why is it inaccurate? -3mta3 (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it back in, and changed the wording slightly so as to actually reflect the journal articles. -3mta3 (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what are this guy's credentials?

His views seems like a mishmash of conservative political rhetoric, pop psychology and dubious evolutionary arguments, all without much evidence. He is clearly not a biologist. Where did he go to school? What is his job title and in what department is he in? He is presenting himself as an academic. What did he do his PhD on? What did he study as an undergraduate (and where)? There needs to be more information here about his background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eperotao (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page reads more like a wikiquote entry than anything else -- rather than just listing his responses to controversy, why not describe the controversies that surround his theories? This feels very biased to me, like a fan writing down his favorite lines from his quotable hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.20.34 (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do his blog posts in Psychology Today not meet any reasonable standards of academic rigor, but so don't his peer-reviewed articles (available on his home page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.135.4 (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please explain to me why anyone takes him seriously???

Between his "Ann Coulter would've been the best president during 9/11" and his recent study regarding the "unattractiveness" of black women (which was based on the observations of THREE male researchers), how does this guy keep getting money to fund these crackpot "research studies" of his? Really...using three colleagues' opinion and representing it as the general opinion of humanity. The man is something else...what that something else is, I don't know and probably don't want to know.

^ Andrew Gelman (April 7, 2007). "Letter to the editors regarding some papers of Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 345 (3): 597–599. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.11.005. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1] Andrew Gelman (April 7, 2007). "Letter to the editors regarding some papers of Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 345 (3): 597–599. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.11.005. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]