Talk:Heiner Rindermann

HBD pseudoscientist?

[1]

HBD? Hemoglobin subunit delta? Why pseudoscientist? Sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I hope you were being facetious. --SVTCobra (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence controversy

Looking at the German Wikipedia article, it appears that Rindermann has made some statements about group differences in intelligence but it is not clear to me that they are career-defining to the point where the category should to be attached to his bio. Nangaf (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's reported in reliable sources, it can be included. I have reverted your removal. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a biographical article. Can you show me where any of the sources you have restored mention Rindermann? Nangaf (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, both of these sources [2] [3] mention Rindermann in this context? Also, no need for your tags on the article. @Generalrelative has more knowledge of WP:FRINGE clarifications so I will ask him to clarify here as he is an experienced editor on these matters. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Zenomonoz (FYI I use they/them pronouns). I generally avoid getting into discussions about categories, mostly because it rarely seems worth the trouble. I understand the guideline to be, roughly, if it's mentioned in the article, it can be categorized, but in practice a lot of it seems to come down to editor discretion. In any case, I see that this has been brought to BLPN, so it's likely we'll get guidance from the broader community. Generalrelative (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Cheers – and sorry for the assumption, my bad! Zenomonoz (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the deletions suggested by Nangaf, I will say that I second Zenomonoz' reverts (some of this material was added by me a couple years ago, so no surprise). The sources check out, so I see no reason for appeal to WP:BLPREMOVE. But I'm persuadable. Generalrelative (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using the New Statesman article as a source, but I do have a problem with the Wikipedia article appearing to present historical ties between intelligence research and eugenics as factual evidence of racism. I have elaborated on the BPL noticeboard, perhaps we could take the discussion there?

Specifically in relation to the Race and Intelligence controversy category, I believe that for such a category to be appropriate on a biography it should be something career-defining, and while Rindermann clearly has published on issues relevant to the controversy, I'm not sure to what extent this controversy could be said to define his career. The letter in Intelligence is supporting evidence, but doesn't seem enough to me on its own. Is there more? Nangaf (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I do have a problem with the Wikipedia article appearing to present historical ties between intelligence research and eugenics as factual evidence of racism. That's not what the article says, so it's not clear what your problem is. We are not calling Rindermann a racist in Wikivoice (or in attributed commentary either). Generalrelative (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Evidently I disagree. Please take this to BPLN. Nangaf (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I see that this discussion was initiated by canvassing from a topic-banned LTA. See e.g. this for context. I have no doubt that Nangaf was unfamiliar with this context, but now you know. I'll be happy to provide more details if anyone wants them. There is no need to waste additional community time on this. Generalrelative (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That may be true. Or it may not. The author of those comments may be somebody else, and completely unconnected. Regardless, I would like you to address the specific criticisms of the article that I made, and the reasons that I made them. Nangaf (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

No time or interest in arguing this with you any further. The evidence is all right there in the link. We can discuss behavioral issues on our personal talk pages and if necessary on a behavioral noticeboard. Generalrelative (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Clearly not, but I will be making the case on BPLN if you change your mind and feel open to contributing in a constructive manner to the development of this article. Nangaf (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I have edited the article per discussion on BPLN. If you disagree with this edit, please make your case there. If there are further reversions in the absence of discussion I will take this as cause for escalation to dispute resolution. Nangaf (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Due to Generalrelative's repeated reversions [4][5][6][7] and unwillingness to discuss both on this page and WP:BLPN, I have requested resolution on WP:DRN. Nangaf (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Current material [8] reads neutral and is well sourced (potentially over-sourced, in fact). Any "innuendo" in these bland statements of conference and publication participation, beyond the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the indisputable and documented characteristics of both, would appear to be in the eye of the beholder. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Quality tags

I am concerned that the article's commentary on Rindermann's contributions MQ and Intelligence is contrary to guidelines on WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV, and that the text of the article endorses allegations of racism, which contravenes WP:BLP. I have put the tags back up. Please leave the tags until this discussion can be resolved, either here or on the BLP noticeboard. Please don't take this as intransigence on my part, I am genuinely open to discussion and optimistic that we will soon reach consensus! Nangaf (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused by these claims. Let's start with WP:UNDUE. Are you arguing that Rindermann is more notable for other things than his work in the race-and-intelligence topic? What are the secondary sources you're basing this claim on? It seems to me that when reliable, secondary sources comment on Rindermann they are often doing so on the basis of this work, and therefore our current summaries are WP:DUE. Or are there a bunch of reliable, secondary sources discussing Rindermann's other work which are not yet referenced in this article? If so, the thing to do would be to bring them to our attention, or simply build out the article yourself. With regard to WP:SYNTH, it's not at all clear to me what you're referring to. More clarity would be required. Generalrelative (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring is not the way to go, my friend. I'll comment further on the BLP noticeboard. Nangaf (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of edit warring or strike your comment. The article history seems to indicate I've made only one unbroken series of edits (i.e. one edit) since September 2022. Generalrelative (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Take it to BLPN, and don't be so touchy. Nangaf (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You are the one who wants to change long-standing content. Refuting your unfounded accusations of edit-warring does not qualify as "touchy". Read WP:BRD and WP:WAR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Long standing content does not necessarily have a consensus. Please help reach a consensus edit on the BLP noticeboard. Nangaf (talk) 00:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Adhering to BRD is still not edit-warring. You are just trying to evading an admission that your statement about edit-warring was wrong. And this page is for discussing improvements of the article. Noticeboards are for notices. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The Mythical Taboo on Race and Intelligence is just one of several sources which explain Rindermann's connection to racialist pseudoscience. Right now the article gives readers the very-much false impression that Rindermann is a reputable mainstream academic. Per that and other sources, he is a WP:FRINGE figure with a lengthy history of contributing to the pseudoscientific "human biodiversity movement". Specifically, (again per that source) Rindermann's work within that movement has included dubious studies which exist solely to imply that this group's pseudoscientific position actually has mainstream support (despite his own findings). Mankind is not an outlier, either, as he has also published in Arktos Media, OpenPsych and so on. To leave the article without any indication of this at all is at best unacceptably incomplete and at worst whitewashing in defense of a fringe position. Grayfell (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not at all sympathetic to Rindermann's research, and skeptical that he has any kind of academic reputation. But for a biographical article, you need to find sources that explicitly state that Rindermann is racist and his research is pseudoscience. Otherwise it is original synthesis to claim that he has connections to racialist pseudoscience. Likewise, if sources exist that explicitly describe his work as "dubious", they can be quoted, and so on. If Rindermann's research has been cited in the context of the human biodiversity movement, which I do not doubt, it is not necessarily the case that Rindermann supports or endorses the same views.

The Jackson article that you mention appears hostile to Rindermann, but it does not describe him in such terms: as far as I can tell, it refers to him indirectly as a "hereditarian psychologist", which is not the same thing at all. Can you clarify?

You say that the Jackson article is one of several sources that describe his connections to racialist pseudoscience, but don't say what those other sources are. Can you be specific about what those sources are and what claims they make?

If you feel that the article misrepresents its subject, can you suggest specific edits and justify them?

If so, you may wish to contribute to the ongoing discussion at WP:BLPN. Nangaf (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

His attendence at Property and Freedom Society conference

Cannot find a source aside from this from a LGBT site:

At the PFC conference in September, Thiel will give a speech titled “In Praise of Free Market Monopoly.” Other speakers include a German author, Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, who will hold forth on “the many fathers of World War II.” Schultze-Rhonhof is a leading proponent of the theory, popular with Holocaust denialists and neo-Nazis, that the Allies, not Hitler, provoked WWII. Also onstage will be Heiner Rindermann, who is deeply concerned that brown immigrants with low IQs will bring about the downfall of European society.

But I think it is relevant to the article to mention he attended a Property and Freedom Society conference in 2016 and did a controversial speech on immigration. The society itself mentions the speech here with a video so it did happen.

@Grayfell: also note that I added a section to article covering the paper you linked above.51.6.193.169 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

For the second part, it looks like you are talking about these edits. If memory serves, Rindermann has done more than one of these stupid surveys over the years. They come up occasionally, typically as an example of the "walled garden" of modern scientific racism. On Wikipedia one discussion of this specific survey was held here: Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 102#Inclusion of Rindermann survey. I would be cautious not to over-state their significance. I don't think, for example, that this needs an entire subsection.

That leads back to the first part of your comment. This is a walled garden. There is a seemingly endless supply of these conferences, attended by the same group of fringe pseudoacademics and usually one or two special guests. We need a reliable, independent source to indicate why this one is significant as an example. It isn't enough to say that it happened as a factoid, we need to explain why it matters.

More importantly, this is a WP:BLP, so I would not citing an unreliable source. I don't see any of the usual signs that Towleroad is a reliable source, so I don't think you should cite that for this content. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey of expert opinion on intelligence

IP 51's recent addition needs some workshopping. I'm sorry not to be able to immediately spend time on improving it, but as it was it had enough problems that it couldn't stay in this BLP pending those improvements. A quick list:

• needs less MOS:WEASEL
• Rindermann 2020 did not rely on the Unz blogs
• should probably explain in more detail the critiques focused on survey participant selection
• "a survey on expert opinion intelligence" isn't quite what it was

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)