Talk:Richard Lynn

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	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
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Psychology Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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 Richard Lynn, 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.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – 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.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 200 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

"Advocate"

This article says Lynn "advocates for a genetic relationship between race and intelligence". Aside from the fact that the article needs to be updated because of his passing, this sentence is also flawed. One cannot "advocate" for a scientific fact. You can advocate for a change in policy but you cannot advocate for or against nature. You cannot be an advocate for a blue sky. Even if Lynn was wrong, you cannot be an advocate for a red sky. You can't advocate for something you cannot change. 99.6.61.222 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But him saying it dos not make it a scientific fact. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Lynn was an advocate for the idea that there is a genetic relationship between race and intelligence in the same way that Donald Trump is an advocate for the idea that the 2020 US election was stolen. Generalrelative (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IP mentioned it, the sentence is a bit odd. A clearer wording would be to say that he "advocates for scientific racism". He performed and promoted research which supported his prior assumptions about pseudoscientific conceptions of both race and intelligence, and also ignored or disputed the mountains of valid research which challenged those assumptions. This is just standard procedure for scientific racism. Grayfell (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Lynn hasn’t just argued for a genetic contribution between groups. He has argued that humans should ‘phase out’ the less intelligent. Some brief evidence of the racism could be included in the opening as evidence. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see we're on the same page here, Zenomonoz. I definitely agree in principle that the phrasing of the lead can be improved significantly, and would be more than happy to discuss suggested rewrites.
We should also consider cutting back on what I would argue is a bloated and excessively self-sourced article body, and then circling back to ensure that the lead appropriately summarizes the body. Sources published in Personality and Individual Differences and Intelligence, where Lynn served as an editor, should also be examined critically because of lack of independence. Generalrelative (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea. If an editor comes up with improvements, I am on board. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about a specious analogy! 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:4856:846F:2696:2FA1 (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Re: Generalrelative (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)) 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:4856:846F:2696:2FA1 (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what tRS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Haven’t he died? RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. But we've had trouble finding reliable sources covering his death, so we can't include it yet. See the discussions above. If you can find any WP:RS coverage, go ahead and add it; but the only thing I can find is a blog post and coverage in white supremacist publications, which is definitely insufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Richard Lynn's appear to have died, some of the Obits are of this one, but they are all blogs. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Telegraph article currently cited for his death, this New Statesman article confirms it: https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/09/rise-new-tech-right-iq-cognitive-elite Mwphil (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwphil: Slatersteven's comment is dated to before Jkaharper's addition of the Telegraph source above, which was indeed the kind of reliable source we were waiting for per WP:BLP. That said, I'll be happy to add the additional citation. Generalrelative (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Differences Revision Undone

Why was my revision[1] undone? My edit contains the correct interpretation of the studies the original cited. It's literally what the papers say, validated by the citations linked. The original I edited very disingenuously implies something else. Is it "valid" per Wiki rules because it's what the paper says? Genuinely trying to understand the editing process better because the reverted version is very, very inaccurately stating reality, even if it's accurately restating what the paper erroneously concluded. Thanks.

Pingpong947 (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please put new sections on the talkpage at the bottom. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted by @Generalrelative: who wrote: Rv good-faith edit. This appears to contain original analysis. Please read WP:OR. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I feel it's verifiable by the citations, but can understand the potential conflict with certain sections on the WP:OR page. I've edited the section to include my updated summary of Lynn's study, which restates the conclusion in cleaner fashion. I removed the following paragraph as it actually plagiarizes word-for-word from the abstract, violating WP:PLAG. It also incorrectly attributed paper authorship.

Thank you for correction on where to place new sections. Pingpong947 (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COPYVIO

On the righthand side the abstract of 10.1016/j.intell.2005.09.004 and on the left hand side the Wikipedia article.

Polygnotus (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also added text, for a start. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to the alleged violation, its hard to see how that can be summarized any other way, than to be almost the same text. Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, maybe: "The observed gender differences in development were less pronounced than Lynn's predictions suggested. In fact, the disparities were so minimal as to be essentially negligible "? What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but only change that line. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Yeah that was the only line that was problematic from a copyvio standpoint afaik. I changed it. Is everyone OK with this version? It says essentially the same thing. Polygnotus (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"researchers such as" is not very strong. Perhaps that can be improved. Polygnotus (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not however the only issue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:BACKWARDS would rightly have us seeing some problems here. But as long as it is one sentence, this probably isn't a big deal.

Might I ask @Slatersteven why PG is not supposed to edit anything beyond that line? Honest question. If there are yet further COPYVIOs we should best discuss this now. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am many things but I am not PG. Polygnotus (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say they could not, but that is the only change I agree with. It is not an agreement with the rest of their edit. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only objected to the copyvio/close paraphrasing, idgaf about the rest of the edit. Polygnotus (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]