Talk:James Watson/Archive 4

Most racist quote
Some editors want to call Watson a racist. Some want to quote what he said. I think to compromise we should put in Watson's most racist quote sentence. What is that?

I think it was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really" Collapsing Jack (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * wait a moment. I just checked the article and it's fine. What do the various editors here want?

What do you want? (One sentence please):
 * I think it's ok. Collapsing Jack (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair is fair and reasonable is reasonable. Our job is to inform, not to pillory. To put the most racist quote sentence in the lede need not be the most informative, and sounds like cherry-picking with intent to pillory. I say put the best summary quote, the one that expresses Watson's biological intent, the one that Collect suggested, in the lede, and his most representative elaborations in the body. There already are two in the body, which include the one you instanced. JonRichfield (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Use sources to inform content. That's what we do. Summarize sources to inform the reader about the subject. SageRad (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we have said before we should summarize what he said that led to his widespread condemnation and subsequent forced resignation. That is what is relevant. The sources overwhelmingly say there was no "biological intent" and certainly no science behind watson's comments. We as editors must not attempt to interpret what he said or even try to justify what he said. We should summarize that what he said that directly led to his condemnation and resignation. Landerman56 (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Aren't consistent patterns the hallmark of science? Let me get this straight, we see a consistent race/IQ correlation, then we posit a hodge podge of imaginary environmental variables, which all combine in various combinations in all times and places to produce the same result, to account for it. That's science? Collapsing Jack (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is off-topic here. But yes, that's science. Science hasn't figured it out yet fully, and science is flawed and imperfect as well. It does not know everything. But there are many factors posited as reasons for race/IQ correlations other than genetics, and they are very valid. First, the measurement is not measuring "intelligence" but a certain subset or form of such a concept, and secondly, there are confounding factors that are very powerful. The best "consensus" among scientific literature is that there is no consensus, although i know that i agree with the environmental factors and measurement issues, and i think science is a laggard with bias here. To close, this is all off-topic anyway, as we're here to report what reliable sources say about Watson, not to philosophize and use our own original research or synthesis. SageRad (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I could not ignore this. It's still off-topic as this is not directly about the content of this article, but when you say "consistent IQ/race correlation" you're in error, because it's not consistent. In fact a primary demonstration that it's not genetic is the shift in the correlation through time among groups as social conditions change. That's a prime debunker of the claim that it's a genetic disposition. SageRad (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we have said before we should summarize what he said that led to his widespread condemnation and subsequent forced resignation. That is what is relevant. The sources overwhelmingly say there was no "biological intent" and certainly no science behind watson's comments. We as editors must not attempt to interpret what he said or even try to justify what he said. We should summarize that what he said that directly led to his condemnation and resignation.Landerman56 (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV in our attribution
I tried to change this sentence from:
 * In mid-March 1953, using experimental data collected mainly by Rosalind Franklin (without her permission) and also by Maurice Wilkins, Watson and Crick deduced the double helix structure of DNA.

to:
 * In mid-March 1953, using, among other data, some experimental data collected by Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, Watson and Crick deduced the double helix structure of DNA.

My edit got reverted as a "major change". What is wrong with my version? I assert that it is more NPOV. I created Timeline of the discovery of the structure of DNA in part, to try to illustrate the NPOV version of the story on a place of neutral ground. The timeline could use a few more sources, I suppose, and I am working on that. Comments?--Samantha9798 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ye, yes Now I invoke upon you every scintialla of your activism. I dare your to modify the historical tract. Rosy did something but what of it? I invoke teamwork now. Not later but NOW.---Samantha9798 (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because it substantially changed the meaning of a sourced statement without explanation. The cited source (and many others) emphasises that Franklin's data was used without permission and that this data was "critical" to Watson and Crick's discovery. If you believe your version of the story is more in keeping with WP:NPOV then you will need to provide sources to substantiate that (but note that Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs. NPOV is a fair and balanced summary of the available sources, nothing more nothing less.) Joe Roe (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Samantha9798 now indeffed as a CU sock. Meters (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Specifics concerning NPOV
Re this edit: although the tone of the IP's comment was over the top, I agreed that the current version of the article has problems with WP:NPOV and WP:STRUCTURE. The material about the various controversies needs to be integrated into the main text of the article rather than having its own section, and it may be too long in proportion to other parts of the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to remove your tag you added to the article and discuss it here instead. Saying something "may" violate NPOV is not a compelling reason to add the tag nor make any changes to the article. If you are offering specific changes then please propose them here on this talk page in lieu of adding unnecessary tags claiming violations on the page. Landerman56 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made clear here why the tag was added and I'm disappointed that it was removed. However, I'm not going to edit war because this article is enough of a battlefield as it is. There are structural problems with the controversy section because it drags on at excessive length compared to the rest of the article. BLP articles should not have criticism/controversy sections and would not reach GA or FA with one.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I might not agree with you that the article is of excessive length. Whether or not this article has been a battlefield should not deter good faith contributions on Wikipedia notwithstanding any structural problems. As far as GA and FA are concerned, I see no reason for this article not to be up to standards when in fact Watson made featured picture of the day in 2016. Landerman56 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are structural problems here. No article would reach GA or FA with a criticism/controversy section, as this material should be rewritten to fit in with the main body of the article. The infobox image File:James D Watson.jpg is excellent and a Featured Picture, but the text here needs some work. The article seems to have become bogged down in arguments over some of Watson's comments, particularly on race and IQ, leading to discretionary sanctions.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to submit this as a featured article then feel free. If you wish to argue whether the article merits this standard then please discuss that on the featured article section of Wikipedia. As for this article and it's content, if you have a specific question or proposal please discuss it here Landerman56 (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Franklin and the Nobel prize
My edit was reverted. However, I added that because it is accepted that Franklin was another contributor to the discovery of DNA structure, but was not awarded because she had died. I thought the led:e should note that (in the Nobel prize sentence). -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The WP:LEAD is a summary, and the reverted edit did not make clear that a) the Nobel Prize cannot be awarded to someone who is dead and b) the Nobel Prize for a work can only be awarded to three people anyway. This has long been a source of controversy, because Franklin was unable to win a Nobel Prize under the rules of the Swedish Academy. Even if she had been alive, this would have led to a problem. The WP:LEAD isn't the best place to look at this controversy.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not about a "controversy" at all. It is to note that there were four people involved. Not the Nobel prize itself is the notable point, but the reason for awarding it. And there is no knowing on how the Academy would have solved that three-people rule in this case. -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't really necessary to say in the WP:LEAD here that Franklin died in 1958, because her name is wikilinked and it isn't of key importance for the lead section of this article. She is mentioned by name in the lead here, so she isn't being left out of the equation, which is a common criticism because of the failure to award her a Nobel Prize.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with much of anything Ian says but on this I will concur.Landerman56 (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That she died in itself is not for the lede I agree (duh). But. There were four discoverers (mentioned), and three Nobel prize recipients (mentioned). That diff should be clarified. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Watson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005105825/http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers to http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Race
Watson's latest comments on race, reported in the NYTimes (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html), and earlier comments from 2010, reported in David Reich's book "Who We Are and How We Got Here," are not present in the article. In the proposed (pending) version I collected his views on the subject in a separate section. They are remarked on frequently enough in public media that I think they need more emphasis than getting dispersed throughout a very long article. The article, in fact, does not even contain the word "race" after the lede. Like it or not, Watson has notoriety on the subject. 76.14.87.118 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have accepted your edits as I did not find this material already in the article, and it seems sufficiently material that it would merit a sub-section under the "Controversies" section. I am happy to be over-ruled by other editors who are more knowledgeable with this BLP, but it seems that at a minimum it should merit a discussion on this Talk Page (and a more consensus-based agreement).  The referencing of this paragraph should also be improved as this is quite serious material (and thus, why I am happy to be over-ruled by other editors). Britishfinance (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is the relevant quote from Reich for the 2010 comments (included under fair-use): "When I [Reich] saw Watson at Cold Spring Harbor, he leaned over and whispered to me and to the geneticist Beth Shapiro, who was sitting next to me, something to the effect of "When are you guys going to figure out why it is that you Jews are so much smarter than anyone else?" He then said that Jews and Indian Brahmins were both high achievers because of genetic advantages conferred by thousands of years of natural selection to be scholars. He went on to whisper that Indians in his experience were also servile, much like he thought they had been under British colonialism, and he speculated that this trait had come about because of selection under the caste system. He also talked about how East Asian students tended to be conformist, because of selection for conformity in ancient Chinese society." The setting is the 2010 meeting on "DNA, Genetics, and the History of Mankind [sic]" at Cold Spring Harbor Lab. His 2018 comments in the PBS movie "Decoding Watson," the ones that triggered the NY Times article, have drawn sharp comments from the scientific world: Pachter's comment Blekhman's comments Flier's comments.
 * Watson has made these remarks over and over. One sample: "Some anti-semitism is justified:" National Review article. Note that the National Review is conservative leaning. Lior Pachter, Professor of Computational Biology at Caltech, has collected Watson's racist (and other intolerant) remarks at this blog (these are comments that can be reliably sourced with some work): Pachter's blog
 * Despite all this, nothing on Wikipedia? A wholesale revert of an attempt to include this, with a reason that was untrue (already present when not so)? Repeated twice? What gives?
 * 76.14.87.118 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The exact quote from Watson, present in the cited source: "I would like for them [his old views] to have changed, that there be new knowledge that says that your nurture is much more important than nature. But I haven’t seen any knowledge. And there’s a difference on the average between blacks and whites on I.Q. tests. I would say the difference is, it’s genetic.’’ When Watson is this blunt, I don't see why Wikipedia needs to add riders and caveats when paraphrasing him. He does _not_ say "partly" genetic, nor does he make any reference to the environment or nurture. 76.14.87.118 (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi my name is gavin Tea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C0:8001:8DE0:D8E4:CBC4:6141:5955 (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

James Watson Jr.
Re this edit: This was reverted per WP:COMMONNAME because it is not the article title, and almost every source describes him as simply James Watson, eg   .-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 06:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)