Talk:Mainstream Science on Intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Marked grantees

Marking researchers who have received grants when the funded work isn't under discussion seems to give undue implied prominence to a perspective that's contrary to the perspectives of environmental professionals like Sternberg, Flynn, and Tucker (ask for quotes).--Nectar 22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sternberg, Flynn, and Tucker didn't sign this statement, so their perspectives are not relevant to this article. Rushton himself noted the PF connection: "In response to what they felt was a superficial and misleading treatment of The Bell Curve by the mass media, fifty-two scholars (including fourteen who had received Pioneer support and thirty-eight who had not) signed a statement published in The Wall Street Journal..." [1] When I do the APA statement we can mention two of them received Pioneer Fund money. Jokestress 22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A footnote would be fine, but there's not a basis in the literature for this article to imply accepting a grant biases researchers for the rest of their lives on whatever they comment on.--Nectar 23:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The article makes no claims of bias on the part of recipients, but the Pioneer Fund connection was notable enough to be referenced by the president of the fund himself. Jokestress 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

Yeah, there would need to be a "good" reason to mention PF grantees in *this* article. The Rushton piece is about PF specifically, but the relevance relationship is not symmetrical. As a rhetorically-charged example, it would not be appropriate to prominently asterick the Jewish researchers. --Rikurzhen 23:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the first instance of PF referral, but since it's in here, it seems it would help readers to show which of the signatories received funding. Jokestress 00:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a pretty transparent attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a particular point of view, in this case an attack on the document by claiming its authors were biased by funding sources. I only glanced at the article and immediately knew that part was marked up by a POV pusher, and so came to the talk page to find out... surprise, surprise; I was right. It has now been removed. --Delirium 05:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)