Talk:Media portrayal of race and intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

It's slanted to the right[edit]

I propose changing the name of this article to something like "Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) concerns of liberal bias" Since that is all that it covers. There are other types of bias in the reporting, but this article gives the impression that liberal bias is the major and only problem in the way this issue has been presented.futurebird 04:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't be non-neutral by not including something that isn't available to be included. can you suggest any published works which describe a conservative bias in the presentation of "race and intelligence" topics in the media? the existing cited works, published by academics (who like myself are liberal-leaning), only mention a liberal bias -- and only as a small part of their analysis. --W. D. Hamilton 07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It will take some time for me to locate the sources, but it is clear that there is bias in the way the media tend to focus on the inferiority of African-Americans rather than other questions and discoveries related to this topic. In addition TV news reporting spends little or no time exploring what is meant by 'race' but rather assumes that the viewer-ship's understanding of is identical to that of academics. The idea of race is the US is still largely described by the one drop rule-- a deeply racist idea that is incompatible with genetic research and cultural definitions of race that complicate the debate.
It's also worth noting the vast quantity of media attention given to race and intelligence compared to the lesser focus on heritability of intelligence which is arguably a more valid area for academic research. Does a topic such as race deserve the kind and quantity of air play it receives?
These are all questions that relate to media bias that are widely acknowledged to people who follow the debate, but they are absent from this article. That is why it is unbalenced. --futurebird 12:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Are there any sources which discuss these questions? It seems that there are not. --W. D. Hamilton 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Criticism added. -futurebird 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why criticisms was tagged[edit]

Please explain why criticisms was tagged with "This first sentence may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text." Any other readers please weigh in on what you think about this. futurebird 03:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither source cites nor discusses the Snyderman and Rothman (1988) book. Each is about a previous book. The text claims that they do.
Notable about S&R(1988) is that they find no evidence for an effect of the "liberal bias" they report among experts on their opinions on the topic. Nor do they report that individual variation in political views affects individual variation in opinion among reports and editors. Having a "liberal bias" plays little role in the explanations that S&R offer to explain media misrepresentations. --W. D. Hamilton 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I'll look in to it. futurebird 04:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Snyderman and Rothman (1988) is a dubious source[edit]

It is not accepted outside of small conservative circles. More left-leaning people have called it outright racist. It is not the kind of material that an encyclopedia article should use as a source and it is just about the only source for much of this article, which consists primarily of regurgitated findings from a single questionable study.

If not removed, I recommend out-merging most of the Snyderman and Rothman findings (except for a brief summary) to its own article. After that, this article should be expanded to include the entire history of this debate in the media and more balanced coverage of right wing bias.futurebird 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS are the standards at issue. S&R meets and exceeds them. --W. D. Hamilton 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:RS "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" --This article has only one and it is questionalble. The claims are exceptional. And again too much of the article depends on a single source. futurebird 04:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
the "single source" is a book-length treatment. published criticism of the book should be presented as such. removing verifiable and well cited (has citations and has received citations) is inappropriate. --W. D. Hamilton 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
How credible are the people who cite it? When I searched I only found it referenced by David Duke and "stormfront" -- of course, just because bigots have used it does not mean it is a "bad source" but, please tell me which highly credible research has been based on this paper?futurebird 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Check google scholar or a scholarly citation index. A simple google search isn't going to be informative. S&R can't be held liable for what racists think about their work. --W. D. Hamilton 04:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the ball is in your court in terms of finding these sources. futurebird 04:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm telling you to check google scholar b/c I already did. You'll find plenty of citations there. Outside of that, the underlying survey data is commented on by Sternberg here. More generally, the RS guidelines are clearly met and exceeded by the S&R(1988) book -- it's a scholarly work, the top tier of quality. Race and intelligence is a controversial topic, and as this article itself demonstrates, looking at nonscholarly sources (like the main google search) isn't going to be informative. --W. D. Hamilton 07:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The caption of the image[edit]

The caption of the image implies a protest, but I only see people talking. That statement needs to be sourced.futurebird 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

the source was in the underlying image page. i coped it to a ref. --W. D. Hamilton 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! futurebird 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

national review - relevance?[edit]

what is the relevance of reporting that snyderman and rothman have published articles in national review? --W. D. Hamilton

It relates to their credibility as sources and the potential for political or racial bias coloring their research. Extremely conservative and liberal sources should be identified as such for the sake of clarity and honesty. The clearest way to do this is by showing the connection these individuals may have to extreme liberal or conservative organizations or press, since then the reader may interpret the potential for bias in their claims. Given the sensitive nature of the material it is the least we can do for our readers. futurebird 04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?[edit]

This is a debate, not an article. It should be nominated for deletion. There is nothing contributed here that isn't explained in full detail in the main article. This would never make it into a mainstream encyclopedia.

Computerhag 06:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That was my first thought. However, it has been nominated two times and the vote was to keep. I would support deleting this article, though, if anyone wanted to take it on. futurebird 06:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There isn't room in the main article for all of the details in this one. Some re-partitioning of subarticles may occur in the future. At that point, this issue may get addressed. The multitude of tags are kind of silly. --W. D. Hamilton 07:21, 15 January

2007 (UTC)

I don't happen to think wikipedia policy is silly. I think this article is more about what you feel and not encyclopedic at all. This is not a debate board and wikipedia is not a platform to make "tail end of the normal curve" arguments appear mainstream. These types of arguments deserve a sentence, not an inflated article. The main article not only covers this material, but it contradicts it. This needs to go. Computerhag 02:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Tags are neccessary and appropriate. Under WP:V, WP:N and WP:SYNT this article fails the test for inclusion on Wikipedia. BTW I have done a JSTOR search which was quite enlightening. I am not a researcher specializing in this field but as an academic I know, as I am sure W. D. Hamilton knows, that the reliability of any academic source is based upon peer-review. These are excerpts from two academic reviews of Snyderman and Rothman's book.
  • '"For some strange and inexplicable reason the authors [Snyderman and Rothman] come thoroughly unglued in he final chapter [where they complain about media bias]"[1] "[T]his book is comprehensive and informative on the I.Q controversy. It is also insemsitive, irresponsible and dangerous"[1].
  • " while the authors say that they seek to understand the divergence between expert and public on the nature of intelligence, they simply take this divergence as a given and then attribute it to the biased coverage of a liberal press..."[2] "It is unfortunate that Snyderman and Rothman chose to present their study of the IQ controversy as just one more attack on the influence of the liberal media on popular attitudes. This theme obscures the book's value both as a study in the sociology of science and in the diffusion if scientific information through the mass media."[2]
  • While one article did take on board the possibility that genetics effected IQ, they did not prove Snyderman and Rothman's thesis on media bias [3]. One other article contradicts this [4] There are about 18 other articles that are found but most refer to other works by Snyderman and Rothman.
I'm putting these here and not in the article because in my view they show that Snyderman and Rothman's views are 'not notable rather notable - since this article is comprised mainly by these views I am in favour of Afd (apologies for the length of this message)--Cailil 03:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


There are two aspects to this discussion: (1) the notability of the topic and (2) the literature surrounding Snyderman and Rothman (1988). Cailil interprets negative reviews of S&R's thesis (2) as evidence for the non-notability (1). I have to disagree with this claim. Scholarly disagreement shows, if anything, that a particular topic is notable enough to arouse debate. (For example, consider the negative reviews of The Bell Curve.) A second question to ask is whether this sub-article should persist. I was agnostic about this question until Cailil's post. Evidence of a dispute demonstrates that there is yet more to say about the topic. Depending on the precise content of the papers which reacted to S&R, this would indicate a need for at least one of two articles: (a) the current article and/or (b) an article for The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy. --W. D. Hamilton 03:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

W. D. Hamiliton you may have a point about an article for The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy, however scholarly disagreements are not in and of themselves notable enough for a large, detailed articles. This article, which relies so heavily on one perspective (whether discreditted or not), is in and of itself unbalanced and tends towards WP:SYNT - using facts to make a point.

I must clarify that I found no scholarly disagreement on Snyderman and Rothman, both reviews dealing with the book consider its failings to be so major that they compromise it fatally. In my (admittedly brief) experince W. D. Hamilton seems to be the only one arguing their case. The more "positive" article (above) refers not to Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) but Race and intelligence. If you can you point to reliable sources that substantiate Snyderman and Rothman's claims (about the media) I might reconsider my AfD opinion. Until this can be shown I am altering the POV tag, to state that the neutrality of the subject of this article is questioned.

If you want to crate an article about the The IQ Controversy it should be shorter and less involved than this one, which as Computerhag notes sounds more like a debate than an encyclopedia entry.

All of this aside, I am unclear why this subject has been seperated from the Race and intelligence article, it would make more sense to merge it--Cailil 04:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Google searching turns up as many articles reporting S&R's findings about media portrayal with a positive affect as a negative one ([1] [2] [[3]). I'm doubtful that WP:V extends so far as to eliminate descriptions of academic debates, but I guess some deletionists might go so far. The race and intelligence article uses WP:Summary style to keep the main article short, but given the progress of other events, there may be reason to move content from this subarticle to another. I don't see rapid progress towards this, however. --W. D. Hamilton 19:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't mean to imply that the argument was not notable at all - merely that as seperate and distinct articles such debates would not neccessarily pass the WP:N test. Apologies if I was unclear. Personally I think since this article is about Race and Intelligence it belongs there (but perhaps in a more concise version). I would strongly urge that merger be considered--Cailil 19:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The corresponding summary section material exists at Race_and_intelligence#Media_portrayal. There's no room for much more detail in the main article. There are simply too many topics to give any one much detail.
Re: WP:SYNT, note that the first 2/3 of the article are simply describing The IQ Controversy, so there is no synthesis there. Moving to an article about the The IQ Controversy would mostly be fine; some material would lose a home, but not much; the major problem is that media portrayal makes up only a fraction of the book's total content. --W. D. Hamilton 19:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Major concerns[edit]

This article is so absurdly lopsided I would support deleting it. Though, I'm also open to the idea of a massive revision (one that would reduce the current content in to a paragraph and expand in to other areas.) Here are some things to address.

Mostly Snyderman and Rothman[edit]

  • Most of the content of this article relates to the Snyderman and Rothman study, which says that the media are playing down the potential for a genetic basis for IQ that is linked to race. This study is not terribly important or universally respected. It deserves a sentence or two at most not a whole article.
  • The graphs dominate this article and they are from the Snyderman and Rothman study.
  • The article gives the appearence of being well researched and backed up by citations, but often these citations reference the same few authors.

Misleading title[edit]

The title of the article is misleading. It claims to cover the media portrayal of the controversy over race and intelligence, but in fact, it mostly covers the Snyderman and Rothman study.

No historical content or context[edit]

There is no mention of the long history of racial minorities being portray as stupid in the media. No mention of the books and papers of eugenicists which were at one time well respected by the scientific community and the main stream press.

Tone, selective quoting[edit]

  • The tone of the writing, despite editing supports the genetic hypothesis and the image used attempts to cast "so called Demonstrators" in a negative light.
  • The article was outright misleading before I edited it using tightly cropped quotes to conceal information that might contradict the POV of the author. We need to keep a close eye on this.futurebird 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to concur with futurebird. This content fork has become unbalanced, due to its emphasis on Snyderman and Rothman - which is not a well respected source. I would add my voice to calls for an AfD on grounds of WP:N#Rationale_for_requiring_a_level_of_notability--Cailil 15:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

GetAgrippa's sources?[edit]

The literature does support a genetic model of intelligence:Hulshoff Pol HE, Schnack HG, Posthuma D, Mandl RC, Baare WF, van Oel C, van Haren NE, Collins DL, Evans AC, Amunts K, Burgel U, Zilles K, de Geus E, Boomsma DI, Kahn RS. Genetic contributions to human brain morphology and intelligence.J Neurosci. 2006 Oct 4;26(40):10235-42. PMID: 17021179 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Thompson PM, Cannon TD, Narr KL, van Erp T, Poutanen VP, Huttunen M, Lonnqvist J, Standertskjold-Nordenstam CG, Kaprio J, Khaledy M, Dail R, Zoumalan CI, Toga AW. Genetic influences on brain structure. Nat Neurosci. 2001 Dec;4(12):1253-8. PMID: 11694885 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Baare WF, Hulshoff Pol HE, Boomsma DI, Posthuma D, de Geus EJ, Schnack HG, van Haren NE, van Oel CJ, Kahn RS.Quantitative genetic modeling of variation in human brain morphology.Cereb Cortex. 2001 Sep;11(9):816-24. PMID: 11532887 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Baker LA, Vernon PA, Ho HZ. Related Articles,The genetic correlation between intelligence and speed of information processing.Behav Genet. 1991 Jul;21(4):351-67. GetAgrippa 17:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I did find an interesting article related to differences in all organs (including brain) in blacks compared to whites and metabolism:: Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 May;83(5):1062-7.Small organs with a high metabolic rate explain lower resting energy expenditure in African American than in white adults.Gallagher D, Albu J, He Q, Heshka S, Boxt L, Krasnow N, Elia M. Differences in metabolism maybe another dimension to this issue. GetAgrippa 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No one is denying that intelligence has a genetic component.Ultramarine 20:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my confusion. I can hardly follow what the disagreements are.GetAgrippa 21:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I was on the wrong article. No wonder it didn't make any sense. My apologies again.GetAgrippa 03:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence in the Media[edit]

It seems to me that most of the time it's black people who are made out to be stupid in the media. I thought this article would be about the ways that black people are made to seem stupid in the press and the whole history of that. I guess it might be important to mention this other stuff, but I don't understand what the point of this article is? The media aren't that liberal, you know. This article could mention things like "Jar Jar" and "Sambo" who make fun of black people for being stupid, why is there no content on this side of the story? JJJamal 18:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Bring some sourced material and get editing, SqueakBox 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay! I made some changes. It looks like they are going to stay and not get deleted! JJJamal 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


White supremacists[edit]

This section gives important background, but since the scope of this article hass been expended to inculde other examples of R and I in media, it's now a little confusing. This isn't just about this one study that showed that there might be a liberal bias-- So how can we edit this page to make it more clear? Ideas? JJJamal 18:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it here is the text... Don't know where it should go? (It's good info!) but this isn't the right place for it. It has no mention of media...

futurebird 03:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


White supremacists[edit]

The Southern Poverty Law Center states that: "Race science has potentially frightening consequences, as is evident not only from the horrors of Nazi Germany, but also from the troubled racial history of the United States. If white supremacist groups had their way, the United States would return to its dark days. In publication after publication, hate groups are using this "science" to legitimize racial hatred.

In Calling Our Nation, the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations publishes a piece by a New York psychologist surveying the work of Jensen, Garrett and numerous others. National Vanguard, the publication of former physics professor William Pierce and his neo-Nazi National Alliance, runs a similar piece that concludes that "it is the Negro's deficiency ... which kept him in a state of savagery in his African environment and is now undermining the civilization of a racially mixed America."[4]

Style[edit]

My comment is about style, not content.

For example, Jar Jar a character from the 2002 Star Wars films has been called "a modern incarnation of racist stereotypes." Many aspects of Jar Jar's character are believed to be highly reminiscent of the archetypes portrayed in blackface minstrelsy.

The endnotes are not enough. I thinhk one should avoid the passive voice as much as possible. Using the passive voice functions like "weasel words" - they allow you to make claims that are too vague to be sustained. NPOV insists not only that we provide multiple points of view, but also that we clearly identify points of view and when necessary provide adequate context. So, the above passage - and I would ask all contributing to this article to go through it to find all the other examples - needs to be rewritten so we know (1) who has this view of Jar Jar Binks and (2) why this person's view is worth including in Wikipedia (for example, my mom's opinion is not worthy of inclusion. But the Executive Director of the NAACP or a professor at the Columbia Journalism School would obviously be very appropriate, notable views). You could say, really, my comment is about policy more than style - but my point is, clear style makes it clear whether this is complying with policies or not. Assume it is policy compliant - don't hide the fact in endnotes. I singled out this example but really, there are more in the article and the article will be much stronger I think if you heed my suggestions, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone added the clarification I asked for regarding the first sentence (but not the second sentence - which still is marred by passive voice!). I think Patricia Williams is also a Columbia University law professor who has published extensively on race - these kinds of qualifications are in my opinion more important than the fact that she writes for the Nation. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The same kind of change is needed for the descriptions of Snyderman and Rothman. That they are (Harvard?) professors who are famous for the analyses of the media is important. --W.R.N. 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the current descriptors give a better idea of the kind of sources each of these people are... But, I'm fine with a change, as long as we change both to be fair about this.futurebird 00:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The sources need to have their importance established in some way. Writing for The Nation or writer for The National Review isn't very important. Being a recognized scholar in the field is important. --W.R.N. 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
That seems to be a bit prejudiced - non-academic opinions or employment shouldn't be seen as a negative. Certainly being published in a significant publication is quite important...arguably more important than being a recognized scholar in a small niche field. --JereKrischel 04:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

JK, WRN is right and I think you miss his point. The point is not that Williams is an inappropriate source. The point is that there are hundreds of thousands of journalists and columnists and just because someone is published in a newspaper or magaine does not in and of itself establish them to be important authorities. I am not saying that no journalists are allowed - but look, William Safire is an established columnistat one of the US's most important newspaper and I would not quote him in this article if he wrote a column on race in the media. He is not an expert and just because he has a column in the times does not make him an expert. Paul Krugeman also has a colum in the Times on economic issues and I would quote him in an article on economic issues - but I would not describe him as a writer for the NYT, I would describe him as a Nobelprize winning economist and professor at Princeton (or wherever)! Those are what makes him an authority! Surely you can see the same thing about Williams! She is not an authority becauseshe writes for The Nation, she writes for The Nation because she is an authority. And she is an authority because of her status as law professor and the articles she has published in law journals and the books she has written. Why not acknowledge those credentials! We should! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

importance[edit]

the importance of many of the "examples" is not clear. are they common (but minority) views -- in that case a prominent proponent should be cited -- or are they unique/fringe views -- in that case they should not be included. the relevance to intelligence is not always clear. --W.R.N. 00:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? How is any of this fringe? There are volumes and volumes on media bias some of the most powerful stereotypes relate directly to intelligence... I think this kind of criticism is very main-stream according to Snyderman and Rothman it's too main-stream. futurebird 00:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of examples of black stereotypes. --W.R.N. 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Robert M. Entman an Andrew Rojecki, authors of the The Black Image in the White Mind, in television and film Black characters are less likely to be the "the focal point of the plot and the intellectual drivers of its problem solving." Entman and Rojeki assert that media images of Blacks may have profound effects on the self esteem of young Black people and the perceptions of both Blacks and Whites about black intellectual and cultural potential.[8]

Even so-called positive images of Black people can lead to stereotypes about intelligence. In Darwin's Athletes: how sport has damaged Black America and preserved the myth of race John Milton Hobermanrgues that the prominence of African-American athletes provides fuel for painful racial stereotypes, and encourages a de-emphasis on academic achievement in black communities.[9] Several other authors have said that sports coverage that highlights 'natural black athleticism' has the effect of suggesting white superiority in other areas, such as intelligence.[10]

Here, I'll trim it down a little... futurebird 04:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Robert M. Entman an Andrew Rojecki, authors of the The Black Image in the White Mind, in television and film Black characters are less likely to be the "the intellectual drivers of its problem solving." Entman and Rojeki assert that media images of Blacks may have profound effects on the perceptions by both Blacks and Whites about black intellectual potential.[8]

Even so-called positive images of Black people can lead to stereotypes about intelligence. In Darwin's Athletes: how sport has damaged Black America and preserved the myth of race John Milton Hoberman says that the prominence of African-American athletes encourages a de-emphasis on academic achievement in black communities.[9] Several other authors have said that sports coverage that highlights 'natural black athleticism' has the effect of suggesting white superiority in other areas, such as intelligence.[10]

How's that?

I think WRN's point is, what are these author's qualifications? Hundreds of thousands of books are published each year and most of them are crap. Howcan we tell the good ones from the bad ones? It isnot an impossible task. For example, is the book published through a University Press (if so, it went through something like peer-review)? Are the authors scholars, university professors, in what discipline? These are relevant issues. If they are journalists, what was their research based on? Did the book win a Pulitzer Prize? I am not aying a book needs to meet all of these condistions. These are merely examples of ways we can tell a more authoritative book froma lessauthoritative, or more mainstream from fringe, book. Perhaps there are other ways. WRN's point is, one way or another, we need to distinguish between moreimportant and less important sources. That is a valid point. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The Black Image in the White Mind - Chicago University Press
  • Darwin's Athletes ISBN 0395822920 Author has taught courses on sport and politics at Harvard University, the University of Chicago, and the University of Texas at Austin, where he is Professor of Germanic Languages with a specialty in Scandinavian studies, including Norwegian language instruction.

futurebird 14:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Bingo. Make clear the credentials of the source (German languages does not seem germain, but sports an politics does) and youwill have responded to RIK'svalid concern with a valid response. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"stereotype"[edit]

what is the source of the term "stereotype" in this article. is it merely being used where "description" or "portrayal" would be substitutable? if so, the less loaded term should be used. --W.R.N. 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the sources cited use this word.futurebird 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

NOR?[edit]

what books or review articles are written about media portrayal of race and intelligence (other than Snyderman and Rothman). A list of primary sources is generally not a safe way to compose an article. if two sources aren't linked together in some published source, then it's potentially/likely OR to link them in WP in that it tends to create a novel synthesis. --W.R.N. 07:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Project MUSE has 131 references, JSTOR has 654...I would imagine other scholarly journal databases would have even more. If you'd like, I can give you specific articles to look at. --JereKrischel 08:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. The problem is NOR, not V. That there are so many potential primary sources only exacerbates the problem. NOR: It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; Which are the important sources? Which are related to which others? What do they collectively mean? These questions require 2ndary sources to do that kind of synthesis (e.g. "books or review articles...written about media portrayal of race and intelligence"). that is, it's probably an NOR violation to write the world's first review article on this topic. --W.R.N. 08:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I've just stated that you've got hundreds of articles that discuss the media portrayal of race and intelligence. You thought there was only S&R - I've corrected your misconception, and don't understand what your question still is. --JereKrischel 08:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hundreds of articles that *mention* something aren't a coherent and connected whole. Re-read the NOR provision: It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; If there are no review articles and no review books, then the concatenation of primary sources in merely a way that a particular editor likes runs the very real risk of being OR. WP can't be (policy-wise) the first and only place where multiple sources are put together to make a point about the media portrayal of race differences in intelligence. --W.R.N. 17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand what you're objecting to. The article is Race and intelligence (Media portrayal). Hundreds of articles have been written on the topic. Why is citing those articles OR? Do you see a functional difference between a "review book" and a "book"? Do you require, for example, a review book of REB and TBC before citing them? Or are REB and TBC review books themselves too? Could you give an example of something that REB or TBC cites that shouldn't be cited because they aren't "reviews"?
Could you be more specific about exactly what sentences you think are being OR? --JereKrischel 17:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that the entire examples section may be original research. Not because the individual items don't exist, but because this may be an original synthesis of them. NOR on primary sources: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Some kind of published secondary source which makes a similar (doesn't need to be identical) presentation is needed to establish that its not a novel synthesis of ideas. --W.R.N. 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Here are some studies that deal with this issue directly... and two books.

  • Child Sacrifice- Black America's Price of Paying the Media Piper Orange, Carolyn M.; George, Amiso M.
  • Darwin's Athletes: how sport has damaged Black America and preserved the myth of race By John Milton Hoberman ISBN 0395822920
  • Entman, Robert M. and Andrew Rojecki The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America. 2001

Most of what I have are direct quotes from the sources footnoted. I can't see how you can say the whole thing is OR. This is such an old issue.

futurebird 05:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Alien Menace Article[edit]

I am not familiar with this area of Wikipedia, but I am certainly familiar with this area of study. I edited the Irish section earlier and it was changed again. The issue is really the last sentence, which is going between, basically, "irish were seen as 'white' ever since they came to the United States" and "Irish are seen as white today in the United States." The source cited, Alien Menace, is certainly about how they were not seen as white, but at one point states they are today. I am going to change the sentence to how it is earlier, so it properly reflects the source we are citing. abexy 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen, could you not revert the article without even looking at the discussion page, and then make a statement contradictory to the source you are citing, not to mention a statement which doesn't actually make sense. The views of the Irish people in America have changed since the 19th and 20th centuries, and in fact that is exactly what the article is talking about. Perhaps if you found something which supported the idea that the views of Irish have been the same it would work. abexy 06:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
the "alien menace" is of course not a published article. It's a class assignment designed to stimulate students. You might want to read the Redfield book (it's online free and I linked to it)--Redfield takes ALL the races of the world and compares their faces to animals. It's entertaining. But for seriousscholarship better start with Eric Arneson, “Whiteness and the Historians’ Imagination,” International Labor and Working-Class History 60 (2001): 3-32. The current sentence actually says what? Nothing at all. Rjensen 07:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
looks good, I just didn't want mis-citing. abexy 07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • ^ a b Lennon, John J. . (Sep., 1990). "The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science' Vol. 511, Foreign Language in the Workplace , pp. 212-213".
    • ^ a b Engel Lang, Gladys . (Sep., 1989). "Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 18, No. 5 , pp. 791-793".
    • ^ Alland Jr, Alexander, Michael L Blakey, C Loring Brace, Alan H Goodman, Stephen Molnar, J. Phillippe Rushton, Vincent M. Sarich, Audrey Smedley . (Feb., 1996). "The Eternal Triangle: Race, Class, and IQ in Current Anthropology Vol. 37, No. 1".
    • ^ Wilson, Frank H . (Summer 1995). For Whom Does the Bell Toll?: Meritocracy, the Cognitive Elite, and the Continuing Significance of Race in Postindustrial America in The Journal of Negro Education Vol 64, No 3".