Jump to content

Talk:Franz Boas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lisapaloma (talk | contribs) at 21:10, 26 October 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Race (human classification)

An unqualified claim that Boas's work was claimed to be fraudulent has been added twice to this article. I've taken the issue to WP:NPOV#Race (human classification) but the rest of the recent edits need review. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jantz

Richard Jantz is extremely pov in its statements about Jantz's work and Boas. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The study linked in the Richard Jantz entry has been cited 121 times according to JSTOR. The statement "Dr. Jantz found only insignificant differences between European and American born children. He also found that exposure to the environment in America did not affect the children's crania. Dr. Richard Jantz’s work discredited Boas' work amongst many scientists, although not all agree with these findings." is wholy factual especially given the high amount of citations the article received. Additionally Dougweller asserts POV without qualifying how the text is POV, unless he thinks that mentioning that sometimes research can be shown as incorrect is POV. Clarification would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.196 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the perspective of Boas' biography and overall significance Jantz failed attempt at besmirching him is mostly insignificant and hardly deserves mention. Much less in the highly biased formulation of the anonymous IP editor. As Dougweller correcly points out Jantz' study has not generally been favorably received among physical anthropologists who do no consider it to have "proven Boas' research to be incorrect". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
121 citations? How many were critical of him? How can the number of citations be used as evidence he's correct? You used a paper by Jantz to claim he discredited his work - isn't it obvious you shouldn't do that? Maybe if everyone agreed Boas is discredited, but clearly they don't. Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of Jantz and Kevin Mac Donald's book

The Jantz paper clearly distinguishes European and American born children. The polemic response claims they used length of time in USA. I don't think it's OR to point out the discrepancy. Also, MacDonald's book has been reviewed enough to be considered notable. Bacterioid (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the definition of OR. Whatever Kevin B MacDonald has to say about Boas is not notable, but clearly and utterly fringe.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::It's right there in black and white, it's not OR:

"Results point to very small and insignificant differences between European- and American-born offspring, and no effect of exposure to the American environment on the cranial index in children. These results contradict Boas' original findings and demonstrate that they may no longer be used to support arguments of plasticity in cranial morphology."[1]
Calling stuff you don't like "fringe" is not reasonable. Bacterioid (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is OR to state your personal views on whether published critiques are valid. MacDonald is not fringe because I don't like him but because he has not been considered a serious academic the past 20 years. Not even by his own department.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::::OK, so you and I can both see it's bullshit, but we have to publish it on WP because of the "rules". Great. Bacterioid (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you publish your rebuttal of Gravlee, Russel and Leonard's rebuttal of Sparks and Jantz in a peer reviewed journal. Then we can include it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::Jantz is a reliable source for what Jantz said. Any source claiming Jantz said something else is not reliable. This is elementary. Bacterioid (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are also misrepresenting Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard's argument - their rebuttal of Jantz and Sparks does not hinge on the whether they distinguish between American and European born children. Boas distinguished between the length of the stay of thre PARENTS in the US and that is what G, B and L state makes Jantz and Sparks paper basically answer a different question than the one Boas investigated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::::Incorrect. Gravlee and co. claim Jantz contrasted based on length of time children were US resident, not controlling for pre-natal environment. This is false. Bacterioid (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MacDonald has been cited a number of times in peer reviewed sources and his thesis has been discussed (sometimes favorably) by other scholars.[2] According to WP:FRINGE that's grounds for inclusion. Bacterioid (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::Dougweller has removed MacDonald again with the argument "more editors agree". However, it is not force of numbers that makes something correct, but validity of argument. Please explain why you think your numerically superior group gets to override the policy referenced above. Bacterioid (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's a guideline and you are edit warring in violation of [[WP:3RR00 - I've reported you. See also WP:CONSENSUS. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::::According to the community definition K-Mac is not "fringe" so you need to think of another reason. Bacterioid (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed at 3RRN that you were seeking consensus, but your next edit was to reinstate MacDonald's book against consensus. This is edit warring, even if your removal of old text wasn't considered a revert (something about which I am not convinced). Searches such as yours are useless - we should really take into account a post at the anti-semitic Vanguard News Network site? Or a pdf on "The Jesus Gene"? Google scholar often throws up some very non-scholarly sources, and citation searches are even more useless. You also need to read WP:SPA. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::::::Well, no we shouldn't. But to cherry pick those examples you would have had to read through the numerous acceptable sources. Furthermore, you removed these other reliable sources from the K-Mac article.[3] I'm really not sure what to make of this feigned ignorance. Bacterioid (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misrepresentation of my edit, which removed what I see as a meaningless citation section, unless it was meant to say "look at these people who cited him, he must be good". I've never seen a citation section before and if I did,I'd remove it no matter who the author was. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That citation section was ridiculous and I am glad it is gone. What MacDonald says about anyone is really not that important, MacDonald is almost the definition of a fringe 'theorist'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::The point is that there are numerous scholarly sources which reference MacDonald (sometimes favorably or neutrally), so according to policy he is not fringe. Bacterioid (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the policy very well. Anyway, there is no need to discuss this any further, consensus seems pretty clear. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::::The policy is very easy to understand and you are attempting to vote to ignore it. Bacterioid (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly do not understand the policy which does not say that all theories that have been cited by anyone in a positive light are not fringe. MacDonald clearly falls under "generally considered pseudoscience", furthermore his claims about Boas are not notable in regards to Boas, though they may be in regards to himself and his work. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bacterioid, you have been here for 3 days, whereas a series of much more experienced editors have told you the same thing. We are not 'voting to ignore' anything. We understand the policy, you do not. We should move on now. You should re read the fringe policy, as well, you might want to look at WP:IDHT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::Yes I have read the fringe policy and K-Mac's thesis is notable and not fringe or pseudoscience, simply by virtue of having been discussed seriously in numerous reliable sources. Editors here are merely asserting the opposite conclusion devoid of any apparent reasoning. I suspect this may be a clique of pro-Boas editors who wish to marginalize any critical views. Perhaps a neutral third party can assess the situation. I will request input at a noticeboard. Bacterioid (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative explanation, and the simpler one is that there is no cabal, but that your interpretation of policy is simply incorrect. Feel free to take it to a noticeboard, please let editors here know about it if and when you do. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cohesiveness

First, I will apologize for knowing very little about editing in HTML.

Second, I have read a lot (not all) of the back-and-forth here and certainly do not want to make waves. I don't know much about Boas or his work (which is why I was reading the article). However, I do believe a good overall pass at editing for readability would be a good thing. There is a lot of jumping around in chronology. He "worked at the Royal Ethnological Museum in Berlin..." is followed by "He returned to Berlin to complete his studies." Then, in 1886 he defended his thesis, "Baffin Land". The next sentence refers to his work on Baffin Island and the book published in 1888. The very next sentence says "In 1885, Boas went to work ... at the Royal Ethnological Museum in Berlin."

Third, the article cites Ruth Benedict's speech in which she cited A. C. Bradley: "We watch 'what is'...". Bradley was quoting Shakespeare, according to Benedict's book, An Anthropologist at Work (on GoogleBooks). Apart from citing a cite of a cite, I don't see this quotation as being helpful for the layperson who wants to understand Boas's work. In fact, I thought it must be a mis-quote, which is why I looked it up!

At that point, I gave up. Lisapaloma (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing problems

Socking

It seems this article was largely written by one individual, SLRubenstein, in 2005.[4] It's largely unclear what sources it is based on. I hope it is not a personal essay. Some drastic pruning may be in order. Bacterioid (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was (he's dead) one of our best editors. Tagging material and then deleting it and untagged (and I don't think controversial and I know sourceable) in less than 24 hours might be viewed by some as tendentious (and why pick on those sentences?). Don't just fact tag, look for sources. You are clearly here as a single purpose editor and need to tread lightly. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I would say the claim that 19C German scientists thought cultural variation was entirely due to some combination of the environment and ease of cultural exchange is false. But you must know that unsourced claims get removed rather than set as homework for anyone that questions them. Could I add unsourced claims then ask you to look them up? Bacterioid (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have a source now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Not a problem. They even come in colors...

Moreover, the history of German anthropology also affords us a unique perspective on the history of Germany itself. That the over whelming majority of German ethnologists and anthropologists were liberal champions of cultural pluralism during the imperial period (1871 —1918) separates them from their counterparts in the rest of liberal Europe. That the majority were not racist, but strongly opposed to biologically based theories of human difference, however, goes to the heart of German historiography. Given the turn toward race science in the early twentieth century and the complicity of many German anthropologists in Nazi race crimes, the liberalism of nineteenth-century anthropology seems counterintuitive. — Penny, H. G.; Bunzl, M., eds. (2003). "Introduction: Rethinking German Anthropology". Worldly Provincialism: German Anthropology in the Age of Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 9780472089260.

Past editors appear to have supplied the appropriate sources so any material challenged or likely to be challenged would be verifiable. Inline citations should not be difficult to generate. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franz_Boas&oldid=578872199"