Jump to content

Talk:Helmuth Nyborg/Archive 1

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

Outdated Refrence

[edit]

The link to the Article "G for Galskab" is outdated since the article has been moved, but I do not how know to change it. The link to its new location is http://politiken.dk/debat/ledere/article81143.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.74.217.62 (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A martyr to political correctness

[edit]

It looks like the first draft of this article was POV, taking a stand opposed to Professor Nyborg--stating for example that the heritability of intelligence is a "theory" (it's an empirical fact, emerging from every study that tested for it), and branding his "defenders" as "controversial intelligence researchers" (all people who research intelligence are controversial, since the empirical facts they have uncovered fly in the face of what most of us want to believe). Some of the later material, on how Nyborg's methodology compares favorably to his peers, strikes me as much more NPOV. Nyborg is truly a martyr to political correctness, and IMHO a NPOV article would emphasize that. I intend to make a few changes. Any thoughts? --Anthon.Eff 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distance between nipples

[edit]

2/3 of the children Helmuth Nyborg followed through the years left. Especially around puberty. The research did not only consist of testing IQ regularly but also photographing the children nude from 3 different views, taking blodsamples for hormones, and measuring the distance between the girls nipples and measuring the size of the boys testicles. So far I haven't seen any data public about the IQ of the girls choosing to leave the research project, neither the boys. Should this information be included in the profile? --Toften (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be original research to introduce your own criticisms of Nyborg's work. Try to find and cite a published paper that mentions these possible sources of sample selection bias.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You, "Anton.Eff", have stated that "Nyborg is truly a martyr to political correctness", so in your mind there obviously is no doubt. However the argument for his suspension was that he was deemed guilty of scientific misconduct in relation to the academic documentation. Nyborg himself tells about the photographing [1]: Others, amongst those his boss, have told about the nipple-measurement, and adding new children to compensate for the loss in newspaper articles I'm sure you must be aware of.--Toften (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong about the martyr stuff. In general, though, I don't think it's a good idea for politicians to tell scientists how to do science. I'm not wrong about original research--you'll need to find a reputable source for any criticisms of his work, avoiding your own synthesis. This is especially sensitive because Nyborg is a living person. Please let me know if I can be of any help. mvh--Anthon.Eff (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not one politician has had a role in this case, as far as I now. In Denmark it is just bad taste to talk about gender differences as well as about discrimination. I am presently trying to get a link to a report published in 2006 on the quality of the Nyborg-research, but I am not sure it is public. Behind the report are three appointed experts from academia within the research field.--Toften (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found said report but I can't find where it gives the alternative numbers for IQ difference. The old reference is dead so I am compelled to remove the sentence. If anyone can find the numbers in The official report then we can add it again. I browsed through the report but I haven't got the necessary statistical prowess to extract the numbers. eruantalon (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which paper?

[edit]

The section "Aarhus University reaction" starts with the sentence "Even though the paper had passed peer review.." could someone please clarify which paper this is referring to? It's not clear to the casual reader. Thanks. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Maybe these references will help clean up some of the questions about the article. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now is a good time to dig into the sources and see if the article can be improved by referring to more and better sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is writer on IQ the same person as the Olympic medalist?

[edit]

Let's check sources. There has been a recent insertion into the article of information about an Olympic medalist. Is he really the same person as the subject of this article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little digging in danish sources - he did apparently win A bronze medal in the Olympic games in Rome in 1960 IN 4 X 500 metres kayak.[2]·Maunus·ƛ· 00:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English-language source on recent academic controversy

[edit]

Several recent edits to this article have used Danish-language publications as sources, and now there is an English-language source Citing “scientific dishonesty,” Danish board calls for retraction of controversial paper on decline of Western civilization from a blog group-edited by experienced science journalists that reports on the latest developments. As the case is resolved, there should be some English-language sources for further edits to this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have some information. http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2015/04/nyborg-un-watsoned.html 2003:5B:4B42:1360:F4EE:7EC7:4C75:7325 (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Helmuth Nyborg. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New decision by danish court

[edit]

maybe this should be incorporated into the article: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/30/denmark-court-clears-controversial-psychologist-of-misconduct-charges/ : 

A Danish court has determined that psychologist Helmuth Nyborg did not commit misconduct in a controversial 2011 paper which predicted an influx of immigrants into Denmark would lower the population’s average IQ by the latter part of this century.

Best --hroest 17:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have adopted the article accordingly as now the decision by the DCSD was overturned by a court and thus should not figure as prominently any more. See also the following "Editors note" in the journal: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915000446 where a committee basically clears him of all formal charges. Please note that the only thing they investigated was whether Nyborg stole data / did not acknowledge a collaborator but the decision does not say anything about the validity of the research itself. I think we should also add sources that question the methodology and the conclusions drawn from the data. Simply because the research was formally correct does not mean that it is correct in its conclusions (and the other way as well). Best regards --hroest 18:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a cite from Retraction Watch on the verdict, and mentioned the 200000kr judgement. I also pulled a non-notable section attempting to smear Nyborg for attending a conference which some allegedly bad people also attended, and changed some wording to be more accurate and less accusatory. The bottom of the lede paragraph where it says that the university administrations' censure was politically motivated is supported by the existing (now translated) reference. The other reference in that section had no body text at all, besides being in Danish and behind a paywall, so I deleted it. Feel free to add it back if you can find a link with text, preferably in or translated into English. One danish reference was replaced with a Google translations, and this should be done for all the other Danish references for them to be appropriate in English-language WP.

It is inappropriate to revert any changes if other means such as actual editing would result in a more accurate, well-sourced article. This happens far too often. Don't.Enon (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to the 2011 controversy section.

[edit]

I did a few edits to the 2011 controversy section.

Removed false claim that HN was found guilty twice by UVVU. He was found not guilty the first time.

Right wing group. This is a nationalist group, so be precise: Den Danske Forening which translates to The Danish Union/Orgnization/Coalition (the word lacks a direct English equivalent).

Added information about the journal verdict, namely about the composition of the researchers in the ad hoc committee since these are themselves prominent enough to have Wiki pages (3/4).

--Deleet (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helmuth Nyborg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helmuth Nyborg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helmuth_Nyborg/Archive_1&oldid=1239498174"