This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stephen Jay Gould article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods 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.GastropodsWikipedia:WikiProject GastropodsTemplate:WikiProject GastropodsGastropods articles
Taxonomy: For all marine species, Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS. When starting a new article, do not use sources of taxonomic information that predate the 2017 revision for all gastropod groups ("Revised Classification, Nomenclator and Typification of Gastropod and Monoplacophoran Families" by Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Bernhard Hausdorf, Andrzej Kaim, Yasunori Kano, Alexander Nützel, Pavel Parkhaev, Michael Schrödl and Ellen E. Strong in Malacologia, 2017, 61(1–2): 1–526.) (can be dowloaded at Researchgate.net), substituting the previous classification of 2005 Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence
The article Stephen Jay Gould, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.
Page Views
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
This is a GA review conducted by the sweeps process to assess older GA articles to determine whether they are still up to the quality as when they were promoted to GA. I believe that this article is well written, well-referenced, detailed, and is NPOV. This article remains a GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page16:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For discussion purposes, the sentence doesn't need to be restored, you need only to link a diff, like this initial removal by the sockpuppet editor, which resulted in both you and me restoring the edit.
Because Arthur Jensen was a target of Gould's criticism, it is reasonable for Jensen to respond with his own review of Gould's book. WP:MANDY notwithstanding, Jensen is a notable (notorious?) academic, and his response is encyclopedically relevant. I do agree with NightHeron and Generalrelative that calling it an accusation of "misrepresentation" in Wikipedia's voice isn't appropriate, because I think Gould characterized Jensen's views quite accurately. The citation should be retained, but with different prose. I suggest "...including a rebuttal by Arthur Jensen, a target of Gould's critique" or something along those lines. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good points. I wonder though if the whole Jensen angle is really DUE for inclusion at all. As it stands, Jensen isn't mentioned in the summary, which is why I'd argue that his rebuttal isn't germane either. He's given some air time in our article on the book The Mismeasure of Man (arguably too much, given that Jensen doesn't figure into the summary there either) but I'm not sure there's enough to warrant inclusion in the bio. Generalrelative (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) This is a hard call, but I'm leaning toward no on this one. Mainly because I'm not convinced that this editor wasn't a PROFRINGE LTA trying to poison the well. I would have supported removing the Jensen piece, for the reason stated in my edit summary, regardless. I just hadn't been aware it was there. Looks like the same goes for NightHeron too, but he can speak for himself. I'll also ping Anachronist into this conversation to avoid the appearance of canvassing. Generalrelative (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, I already canvassed you and NightHeron in my initial comment! The lead section of the article need not mention everything that is in the body. My position is that a brief mention of this in the body is encyclopedically relevant. We aren't promoting anything by including it, we have the ability to make an editorial decision about what the prose says. We could even use what the article on Arthur Jensen says. A suggestion would be "...including a rebuttal by Arthur Jensen, a controversial promoter of race-based differences in IQ who was a target of Gould's criticism". That's a neutral statement that provides enough context for the citation while making it clear he's a notable person with fringe views. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm also okay with something like that wording. But we need something clearer than "promoter of race-based differences in IQ". Perhaps something like "promoter of the discredited theory that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites" (the part starting with "theory" is taken from Scientific racism). NightHeron (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that if we're going to do this, we should state very clearly what Gould's criticisms of Jensen were. We can then give Jensen a response. But just including the response seems to me to be off base. Generalrelative (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's getting kind of wordy for a brief mention. I thought sticking the adjective "controversial" in front of the name would suffice. How about something more concise, like "...including a rebuttal by Arthur Jensen who promoted of the theory, discredited by Gould, of inherent race-based differences in IQ"? I am not satisfied with that but maybe it's getting close.
That wording seems to suggest that Gould was the first and only author to discredit Jensenism (which is not the case - for example, Leon Kamin in his book The Science and Politics of IQ had revealed Burt's scientific fraud and refuted racial hereditarianism 7 years earlier). Perhaps replacing Gould by something like "Gould and other scientists" would solve that problem (at the cost of adding 3 words). (Two minor copy-edits: no "of" after "promoted", and a comma should go before "who".) NightHeron (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Mmm, but it's not just discredited "by Gould". Indeed, subsequent researchers, beginning with James Flynn did it better. To be clear, I would still prefer not to mention Jensen at all in this bio, but if we do I think we need to present Gould's criticism before Jensen's response. That's just due WP:BALANCE. Generalrelative (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the ordering. I'll think about rephrasing. There's no hurry, the article is protected anyway due to this content dispute. Looking around at sources, it seems that Gould's criticism did receive significant coverage; there's a whole paragraph devoted to it in the Arthur Jensen article. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion seems to have languished. Per the comments above I have added in the phrase "...including a rebuttal by Arthur Jensen who promoted of the theory, discredited by Gould along with James Flynn and other researchers, of inherent race-based differences in IQ." ~Anachronist (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having given this more thought, I no longer agree that mentioning Jensen's critique is DUE here. Note that the source provided doesn't even mention Jensen's critique, so in this context we're looking at a case of failed verification. I would want to see much more substantial, independent secondary coverage of a FRINGE view before agreeing that it belongs in the bio of a respected scientist (or anyone). Generalrelative (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
