This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nectarflowed (talk | contribs) at 15:06, 3 August 2005 (→divergence of text). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:06, 3 August 2005 by Nectarflowed (talk | contribs) (→divergence of text)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)not an experiment
this is not an experiment. rather, it is a collaborative writing effort between a group of relatively slow writers. more text is coming soon... --Rikurzhen 03:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
WP examples
I pulled the starting material for this article from the example of Global warming controversy. --Rikurzhen 03:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
a list of examples --Rikurzhen 21:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- science
- culture
- history
sources
- The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy by Mark Snyderman, Stanley Rothman
Is EncBib a source?
And we use a tertiary source? The articles about Race in Encyclopeda Britannica would be a good source for what-we-could-call the anthropology POV. Here, just to give you a taster, is the first paragraph of one of the sections:
The scientific debate over “race”
Although their numbers are dwindling, some scientists continue to believe that it is possible to divide Homo sapiens into discrete populations called races. They believe that the physical differences manifest in wide geographic regions are more than superficial; they reflect innate intellectual, moral, emotional, and other behavioral differences among human groups. They deny that social circumstances and the cultural realities of racism have any affect on behaviour or the performance of children and adults on IQ tests.
It goes on like that. A veritable goldmine of well-presented viewpoints held by anthropologists and a large section of academia. Unfortuntately, EncBib is poorly sourced, I would prefer to be able to point to the primary and secondary sources that the author (Audrey Smedley, author of Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview) uses for her overview. But maybe we could use something like that for the overview of public opinion and media portrayal? (We still need any source for what the unwashed masses think.)
What I'm not sure about is if a tertiary source like WP should write about another tertiary source like EB. I think not. Arbor 13:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Our own race article should have something to describe the anthropologists view(s). Slrubinstein and I were pretty thorough with that article. --Rikurzhen 13:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- btw, if we're looking for an example of a straw man applied to IQ researchers, that's a good one. --Rikurzhen 14:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Gould criticism
Here's what we have about Gould:
has been accused of "scholarly malfeasance," (Rushton (1996)), tainting his research with a Marxist bias (Gasper (2002), and presenting misleading statistics.
We cannot refer to Gasper for "accusing Gould of marxist bias", which is what we are doing here, at least implicitly. If anything, Gasper extols Gould for his marxist bias, in any case we are misrepresenting his views. From the top of my head, Pinker has something in Blank Slate that we might use instead, but I need to check. Arbor 10:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'll look for some: --Rikurzhen 17:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
- A 1982 review of MMoM in Nature said it sounded like a "Radio Moscow" broadcast.
- A book review of MMoM in American Journal of Psychology by Lloyd Humphreys pp. 407-415. (1982?) gives us "Marxism" and "Marxist" in a section called "Gould's biases". It is definitely not flattery: "Gould is not himself an objective scientist".
working space
Talk:Race and intelligence controversy/temp
divergence of text
i'm fixing text divergence and as I get the two versions put together I'm deleting the second version. see the last few comments at Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Summary_style_-_Race_and_intelligence_controversy for more details. --Rikurzhen 08:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
we still need to reconcile the "Accusations of systematic misrepresentations and the Pioneer Fund" text, which seems to have been rearranged a lot after the split. --Rikurzhen 08:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I was the one who cleaned up that section (when it was at race and intelligence). The largest difference between the two versions is that the second (the older version) discusses the Pioneer Fund before discussing the broader issue, accusations of systematic representation. I also cleaned up the presentation of the criticism of the fund. For example, critics often present the distributed film as a nazi film, when it was more accurately a film promoting eugenics (popular at the time in most developed nations), produced by the early (pre-war) Nazi party. I'm deleting the old version, as the revisions weren't contested when they were made. (Please revert if there are still concerns) --Nectarflowed 15:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)