Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence (book)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Neutrality tag

The quote from Southern Poverty Law Center is POV pushing. --Jagz (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". "Ultramarine (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This addresses justification for removal of article content but not the fact that the content adversely affects the NPOV of the article. --Jagz (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical views does not lessen NPOV, it increases it. Add sourced supporting views if you have sources.Ultramarine (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be very preferable to give a more complete synopsis of what Washington Summit Publishers publishes instead of a cherry picking quote that seeks to cast the publisher in a negative light. Adding more quotes would make the article look ridiculous. --Jagz (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV includes both critical and supporting views. It violates NPOV to selectively delete the critical ones.Ultramarine (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat again that adding additional quotes regarding the publisher would make the article look unprofessional and ridiculous. If you feel the need, include the quote into a more complete statement of the types of books the publisher publishes. --Jagz (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"adding additional quotes regarding the publisher would make the article look unprofessional and ridiculous." Exactly what policy are you citing? If you have some supporting quotes, feel free to add them.Ultramarine (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to use some common sense when writing articles. Why don't you write an article about the publisher if you feel it is notable; that would get rid of the red link. --Jagz (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Common sense includes mentioning both critical and supporting views.Ultramarine (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Supporting and critical views of the book would be justified. Supporting and critical views of the publisher in this article would be going overboard. --Jagz (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? That is a non-academic publisher lessens the reliability of the book.Ultramarine (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How does it do that? --Jagz (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.Ultramarine (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding supporting and critical views of the publisher violates WP:SYN, unless a source is provided which criticizes Race Differences in Intelligence on the basis of its sub-par publisher. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here: [1]Ultramarine (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Excuse me—I should have turned off case-sensitivity before running a search for "race differences". Looks kosher to me now. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unpublished synthesis

From the article:
"Some of Lynn's research has been funded by the Pioneer Fund. As with Lynn's book IQ and Global Inequality, the book was not published by an academic publisher but by Washington Summit Publishers, which offers books on anthropology, evolution, genetics, pscyhology, philosophy, and curent events.[2] According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, it has reprinted "a range of classical and modern racist tracts, along with books on eugenics"."

1. The first sentence is irrelevant since there is no citation that links the book to the Pioneer Fund.
2. The third sentence is irrelevant because there is no citation, not even the newly added one, that links this book to the types of books described by the quote, "a range of classical and modern racist tracts, along with books on eugenics". The quote says that the publisher reprints those types of books but does not say that they are the only type of book they publish. --Jagz (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This link [2] bring together the book, Lynn, the publisher, the Pioneer Fund, and racism. This link [3] also makes similar connections.Ultramarine (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The first link does not support your claim. After discussing the book it says, "WSP also reprints “classic” Aryan and eugenic tracts including a homily to the antisemitic philosopher Count de Gobineau as a pioneer of genetics." It does not say that the book in question falls into that category. --Jagz (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Washington Summit Publishers (WSP) run by yet another Occidental Quarterly editorial board member, Louis Andrews of Augusta, Georgia. It is Andrews who manages the American distribution of Right Now!. WSP publishes Race Differences in Intelligence by Richard Lynn, emeritus professor at the University of Ulster, who like Taylor is a recipient of Pioneer Fund grants. WSP also reprints “classic” Aryan and eugenic tracts including a homily to the antisemitic philosopher Count de Gobineau as a pioneer of genetics." Book clearly linked to Lynn, the publisher, the Pioneer Fund, and racism.Ultramarine (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that they are engaged in mud-slinging. Unfortunately, the quote you provided does not directly link the book to the Pioneer Fund or Aryan tracts. There is nothing that states that the book was funded by the Pioneer Fund or that the book is an Aryan tract. --Jagz (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nor does the article state that. The publisher and prior funding casts doubt on the book regardless.Ultramarine (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is original research and not allowed in Wikipedia. --Jagz (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No original research. It is Searchlight which connects these things together. I am merely quoting them.Ultramarine (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The connection is only in your imagination. --Jagz (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I can just add the above quote + source to the article. No OR or imagination.Ultramarine (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read: [4] --Jagz (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ultramarine is right, it isn't OR, and it casts doubt about the publisher and its publications, without being specific about this one book. The only thing is that the entire quote (the linking together of Lynn's funding, WSP et al.) needs to be more clearly attributed. No OR there as far as I'm concerned.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the criticism as its not about the book, so it is off topic. By stating "Some of the criticisms regarding IQ and the Wealth of Nations may also apply." we are clearly showing its not on topic. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is on-topic in the sense that it shows the lack of a proper academic background for the publisher, therefore showing it's not a proper scientific book.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is off topic. You're probably well aware that it is off topic. --Jagz (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to re-add that it is not peer-reviewed, then you need a source stating that specifically. A book can be by a racist publisher as it seems was attempting to be said, yet still have a proper academic background. The author themselves is a PhD and professor in the appropriate fields, stating the publisher has a racist or smeared background, says nothing about the book itself. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The quality of the publisher is relevant, see WP:RS.Ultramarine (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're beating a dead horse. --Jagz (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am pointing out WP policy.Ultramarine (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That the publisher has a reputation for publishing fringe material is relevant, as it suggests this book may be fringe as well.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You use the word fringe whenever you can't think of anything substantial to say. --Jagz (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Some of the material published by WSP is clearly fringe stuff.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am pointing out Wikipedia policy. Non-academic material is less reliable.Ultramarine (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article already mentions that the book was published by a non-academic publisher. --Jagz (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That is good. The criticism mentioned by Searchlight is still valid and sourced.Ultramarine (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So you want to use clearly biased source to criticize a non-academic publisher so it casts doubt on the quality of the book? --Jagz (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, everybody has a bias. The question is whether this opinion (the SPLC's) is notable enough for inclusion. I'd agree it is.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV. Claims of POV are not reason for excluding material. I am pointing out the connections Searchlight make, not only limited to non-academic status.Ultramarine (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Searchlight (magazine) is a biased and your intentions seem insidious. I think Lynn should sue you for libel. --Jagz (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Again read WP:NPOV: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"."Ultramarine (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You want to use an unreliable source to challenge the reliability of the book by criticizing the book's publisher? --Jagz (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Searchlight is no less reliable than this non-academic book. The article not limited to only reliability. The article gives important background to the book, the very complex web of far right individuals and organizations.Ultramarine (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started an article for you to work on: Washington Summit Publishers. --Jagz (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. How about in this article simply stating "As with Lynn's book IQ and Global Inequality, the book was not published by an academic publisher but by Washington Summit Publishers, which according to itself offers books on anthropology, evolution, genetics, psychology, philosophy, and current events. Critics state that it is connected to the far right and has published racist material."Ultramarine (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is probably difficult to find academic publishers for such controversial books regardless of their quality. The author probably did not have much of a choice. The publisher has filled a niche. --Jagz (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lynn had an academic publisher for IQ and the Wealth of Nations.Ultramarine (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I said difficult, not impossible. --Jagz (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, make the book less reliable.Ultramarine (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your job here is not to judge reliability, only report what others say about its reliability. If you spent less time trying to prove things and instead focused on reporting things, this would not be an issue. Since the source presented only critiques the publisher it is off topic. WP:RS applies to sources we use, its not a method to judge an article. Read the rules before spitting them at people, figuratively obviously. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Searchlight articles connects racism, Lynn, the Pioneer Fund, the Publisher, and the book. I am merely quoting them.Ultramarine (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Connects? It simply is criticizing the publisher and mentions his book is published by them, it does not make any critique of the book. Hence its off-topic. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lynn is a man. The whole searchlight article describes connections between various far right groups and individuals. It is this web that is interesting.Ultramarine (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

However interesting it is off-topic. The book is mentioned only to say it is published by the listed publisher, that is not a criticism of the book, it is a critique of the publisher, place it on the article of the publisher. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole web of far right connections is very relevant background for the book. There is no policy against such information. In fact, NPOV requires its inclusion in order to give the whole picture.Ultramarine (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires both sides of a debate to present. That does not mean making one up. Until you can show there is criticism of the book, it is off topic and not acceptable. Far right connections? web of groups? I ask you step back and think if you are attempting to add relevant information about the book, or if you have another reason to add it. Then write down the quote from the article and ask yourself is this quote about the book, or about the publisher. Information about the publisher should be present in the publishers article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy requiring that all information about the publisher must be in a separate article. I am not making anything up. Just citing Searchlights article who notes this complex web of far right activists. Very relevant background.Ultramarine (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct, however there is a policy that material being added is about the subject, the subject is the book, the information you are attempting to add is about the publisher, so it is off topic. Further even if one did argue it was on topic, your attempts to link the book to a "complex web of far right activists" would require more then a sole source stating the same information. I am sure you are aware of the policies requiring more sources for more outrageous claims. I welcome any other sources you may have that would perhaps be about the book itself, and not simply a passing 1 sentence mention which only states who the publisher of the book is. I am sure others on this talk page would also appreciate it if those sources were made available for review. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Another source has been added to Washington Summit Publishers. See my proposal above.Ultramarine (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewording does not make the article on topic. You are still writing about the publisher and not the book itself. The second source does not mention Lynn, nor the book at all. Kind of speaks for itself when your sources only mention the book in one sentence, simply stating who published it, and the other does not mention it at all. Your claims that the book is connected to a "complex web of far right activists" will need to be about the book itself. More then a passing mention of who the publisher is will be needed to attach the outrageous claim. Is there no criticism directly of the book that can be added? Meaning someone writing about the book itself. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cite the policy stating that everything regarding the publisher must be in a separate article. Nor is there any policy excluding important background material.Ultramarine (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are asking me what policy requires information in an article be about the subject of the article? Sorry I do not know where it is written. When you present a policy permitting the influx of fringe conspiracies of "complex web of far right activists" acting in concert, and can then show those sources are discussing this book and not its publisher, let me know. Until then, the article will have to suffice with those preventing off topic information from being permitted. Again I ask, is there no criticism directly of the book that can be added? Meaning someone writing about the book itself. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Searchlight is not a fringe source and mentions the book. A book published by WSP probably is a fringe source.Ultramarine (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) I've inserted an attributed quote from Searchlight Magazine which explains the cntroversiality of WSP. I'd appreciate if editors would stp trying to whitewash the issue and present them as a legitimate, run-of-the-mill publisher, which obviously they're not.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about the publisher, the publisher has an article now thanks to Jagz, feel free to place information about the publisher in their own article. Peoples issues with the publisher and accusations against the publisher are off topic as this article is not about them, it is about a book, one of many, they published. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We can't just whitewash the fact that it's a non-academic book, published by a controversial editor. This is relevant info about the book, same for example as if the book were self-published, or published by a reknowned academic publisher (such as there are many).--Ramdrake (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you find a reference that criticizes the book you can try that, otherwise you're barking up the wrong tree. Circumstantial evidence isn't going to cut it. --Jagz (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a crime. The reputation of the publisher is a relevant factor. This isn't a peer-reviewed science book and people have a right to know this.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source stating the book is not a "peer reviewed science book" then you can add a line stating Newspaper/Author states in writing for Whoever, the book, Differences in Intelligence is not a peer reviewed title" Oddly enough someone calling the publisher a racist is not stating if the book is peer reviewed or not. They are not actually saying anything about the book at all. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And, BTW, Jagz, you just broke 3RR. Please revert yourself before someone reports you.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Glass houses and stones: [5] [6] [7] [8] --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Look again. Two of my edits were actual additions, and not reverts. It seems it is you who are unable to tolerate any criticism of this book and its publisher.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Its the same content, it counts as a revert. readding the controversial part over and over, no matter if you slightly reword it. Anyway, I have never read the book, I just care about this thrust to prove "the web of right wing ..." etc by bashing the publisher. If you have someone laying criticism of the book itself then I would have no objection, however grasping at straws by stating the article was a critique of the book when it simply stated the book was published by the WSP, is not criticism of the book itself. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)