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)
- 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)
[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, butsince 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)
- 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)
-
-
-
-
-
- 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)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Seeing no opposition to the text's removal in over a year, I removed the text and was promptly reverted by User:Futurebird with the comment "please don't remove sourced information". The text I removed is a textbook violation of WP:SYN. The only conceivable reason for mentioning the researchers' previous grants from the Pioneer Fund in this context, especially at the beginning of a section labeled "Controversy", is to insinuate we cannot trust the judgment of scientists who have ever accepted money from the Pioneer Fund. The text as it stands does not cite any notable commentator who mentions the signatories' grantee status as an argument against their impartiality. The argument, as it is now, is not attributed.
- Like Rikurzhen said, this is no better than flagging a list of authors as Jewish to not-so-quietly imply that the opinions of Jews cannot be trusted. Imagine the absurdity of pointing out which of Gottfredson's critics have African ancestry, adding links to reliable sources where they claim African ancestry, and arguing for the text's inclusion on the ground that it's "sourced information". This text is exactly the sort of unattributed opinion WP:SYN was written to exclude. -- Schaefer (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
It's mentioned for the sake of context. The title of this article is misleading enough without it. futurebird 02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please elaborate. The title of this Wikipedia article is the same as the title of its subject. What would you prefer it be called? And what does this have to do with whether Pioneer Fund grantees should be marked as such? -- Schaefer (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The title makes it seem like this article really represents the official mainstream scientific view on this subject, and that is disputed. The information about the Pioneer fund shows that the validity of this document and the way that it was produced isn't universally accepted. It makes the article more balenced. Furthermore, it is sourced and directly relavent. futurebird 03:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Articles on works with controversial titles inherit their titles. If this is biased, then so is the article The Origin of Species, whose title suggests the article really is about the origin of species. Or, even worse, look at the titles of Did Six Million Really Die? or The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, both on books that deny the Holocaust. If titles of this form are biased, what alternative do you suggest?
- Despite your claims to the contrary, the information about the Pioneer Fund is simply not sourced, and must be removed under WP:BLP. The information about signatories sitting on the Intelligence board is sourced, so we will have to decide whether mentioning this is a violation of WP:SYN. Hopefully other editors will join in and help reach consensus. -- Schaefer (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
