Talk:Linda Gottfredson/Archive 1

Question
Is this the same Gottfredson who wrote Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography, first published in the Wall Street Journal, December 13, 1994? 

That reprint states:


 * The mainstream shifted slowly but steadily in recent decades as accumulating research evidence changed our understanding of the nature, measurement, origins, and consequence of differences of intelligence. The press and public have yet to catch up to the new mainstream. Social and political pressure, both internal and external to the field of intelligence, continues to make scholars reluctant to share their conclusions freely.

She seems to be saying that the press is out of step, or maybe that they don't understand science well. Maybe it's just that they're trying to meet deadlines and sell papers. Elabro 20:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The same person. The media portrayal was documented by Snyderman and Rothman in the 1980s, see Race_and_intelligence_%28public_controversy%29 for some details. --Rikurzhen 21:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Does Wikipedia have articles on publication pressure, political pressure, etc.? Elabro 20:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I just linked those terms to what I believe are the appropriate articles. Jokestress 18:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
This article could be improved by looking at a broader list of sources. I have posted a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality question?
Anyone have any objections to the neutrality dispute being removed? If not then i will remove itDie4Dixie 21:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any discussion on this page, nor any obvious POV problems with the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The current article still contains clear false innuendo and/or accusations of racism against both Gottfredson and The Pioneer Fund which are clearly the opinion of the authors and are unsupported by fact. Therefore yes, though it's a bit late, I do suggest this article has a clear POV problem: It shows clear bias against Gottfredson and The Pioneer Fund. RaptorFinder (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

" Pioneer Fund supports only research that tends to come out with results that further the division between races"
Thats a blatant accusation without providing any evidence. I will remove it. Also what does it matter where did she get her finances? Do you cite the finances for every scientists on Wikipedia? No, you don't, so stay consistent! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.94.229 (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linda Gottfredson. 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/20140701182703/http://www.issid.org/officers/default.html to http://www.issid.org/officers/default.html

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) 05:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Nazis, really?
The criticism section is merely Reductio ad Hitlerum, it does not actually contain any criticism. Nazi analogies and conjecture about motivation are not arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOrbeck (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Pioneer Fund
Why is the Pioneer Fund mentioned in the lede? And if it is mentioned, why point out that "someone" called it a racist organization? This is such a small part of her overall body of work - I don't see the rationale in even bringing up the Pioneer Fund. 2600:1012:B027:54B0:34F9:AD08:3467:4852 (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned in the lede because it is significant according to many reliable sources spanning decades. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are getting at. The lede is supposed to encapsulate the article.  Why give undue coverage to the Pioneer Fund?  You say it is significant according to many reliable sources, but I am not seeing that, nor how it would warrant mention in the lede of the article.  ETA, this article is supposed to be about Gottfredson, where she has received funding from in the past hardly   warrants mention in the lede paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:62D0:CD7D:1F08:6F47:804F (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted, but Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. The body of the article mentions the Pioneer Fund, and few readers are going to understand why that is significant unless we indicate it. Reliable sources explain its history of scientific racism, and they explain it directly in connection to Gottfredson. Therefore, the article will also explain this. Grayfell (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You still have not answered the question - why is the fact that Gottfredson received funding from the Pioneer Fund significant enough to be mentioned in the lede? Is this customary to mention from where a scientist might have received funding?  Also, the sources cited do not call the Pioneer Fund "racist and white supremacist".  What gives?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:62D0:994C:7B40:33F9:3713 (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If reliable sources repeatedly mention something as a defining trait of a person's career than it is customary for Wikipedia articles to also reflect that. Trying to pretend this is just another grant organization totally devoid of any other context is disingenuous. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

If we are to mention Gottfredson's funding by Pioneer Fund, we would be remiss not to mention the details surrounding said funding. In April of 1990, an arbitration between University of Delaware and Gottfredson was held, wherein University of Delaware claimed that funding through Pioneer Fund was "incompatible with the University's mission". Arbitrators ultimately ruled that the University wrongly and unfairly denied the professor her research funding solely because of the University's disagreement with the content of her research. As a result, Gottfredson's academic freedom was preserved despite the institution's perception of her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:800:A9DB:ACA3:8C4E:DCA9:850D (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Are these sources a joke? The first is a sensationally headlined article by Jan Blits, himself a Pioneer Fund recipient and close colleague of Gottfredson... From 1991, several years before the dust had even settled. Blits is neither impartial, nor is this a useful WP:SECONDARY source for something which hadn't even happened yet.
 * The smu.edu source is over 200 pages, but the search function doesn't find any mentions of case at all. Without a page number, I can only assume you posted the wrong link. Grayfell (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I just had a look at the article and, although Linda Gottfredson is not named as such in the SMU Law Review article, the article refers to "a professor" from the University of Delaware and explicitly mentions the Pioneer Fund, the no. of the case (14 390 1935 90 A) and the year 1991 (see p. 221-223 of the article, p. 52-54 in the PDF file). In addition, the ISAR page about Linda Gottfredson, maintained by Ferris State University (https://ferris-pages.org/ISAR/bibliography/gottfred.htm), gives the same case no. (14 390 1935 90 A). It reads as follows:

[5 August 1991. Arbitrator's report (S. Strongin, Arb.), "In the matter of the arbitration between the University of Delaware Chapter of the American Association of University Professors and the University of Delaware," American Arbitration Association, Case No. 14 390 1935 90 A. The outside arbitrator rules that the University must rescind its ban on Pioneer Fund money.]

Perhaps we can give the case no. in the Wikipedia article, and then use both the ISAR webpage and the SMU Law Review article as sources. Both seem to be reliable sources and, together, they clearly show that the case pertains to Linda Gottfredson and the question of her funding. If anyone has alternative suggestions, please let me know. Sinuthius (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the page numbers.
 * Again, Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources. Legal documents (or similar, such as arbitration) are not that, and there is also a strong aversion to using these kinds of things as WP:PRIMARY sources. This is especially true for a biography of a living person (WP:BLP). We need to summarize what reliable, independent sources say about Gottfredson. It's understandable that we want to tell the whole story, but to do this in proportion to due weight, we need secondary sources, and should only use primary documents to fill-in non-controversial details.
 * As for the 1993 law review article, all sources are judged in in context. This article provides context regarding precisely why this was even considered an issue. This context is about half of the three paragraph summary of the case, so any change based on this source would need to reflect the entire thing.
 * I have looked at ISAR in the past, and do not think it's useful here. The webpage is is hosted by Ferris State, but it is an independent project of some people associated with the school. I am not sure what reputation for accuracy and fact checking a web page from this organization is likely to have. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Your sentiments are spot on - If we are to do this proper, we need to summarize what reliable, independent (secondary) sources say on the matter.


 * Here's a summary substantiated by a few secondary sources: One of the more instructive cases concerning the assault on academic freedom, is the attempt to silence Professor Linda Gottfredson at the University of Delaware. In October 1989, a professor wrote to University President E. A. Trabant requesting the University no longer accept research monies from the Pioneer Fund, because the fund embodied racism, discrimination, and Anti-Semitism (p. 136-140). Upon seeing the history of the Pioneer Fund, and the fact that some of the grantees did research on race and IQ, President Trabant asked the Faculty Senate Committee on Research to investigate the matter. In May, 1990, the committee reached a unanimous ruling recommending the University refuse future grants from the Pioneer Fund on the grounds that Gottfredson's research was incompatible with the University's commitment to racial and cultural diversity (p. 97-99). President Trabant in response to this ruling, cut off support to Gottfredson. In the proceeding months, Gottfredson became a social outcast on campus, overtly shunned by colleagues and was a target of black student demonstrations which sometimes blocked her entrance to classes. She filed a grievance with the faculty welfare committee, and when that failed, appealed to the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors which filed a complaint to the American Arbitration Association (AAA). An arbitrator at the AAA, after sixteen months of lengthy hearings, found the University in the wrong and funding was restored . The arbitrator held that the University's research committee had violated its own standards of review by looking at the content of Gottfredson's research and that Gottfredson had a right to academic freedom that public perceptions alone did not suffice to overcome (p.222). 2601:42:800:A9DB:D802:C29A:40A7:5CF0 (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Those first two sources are not entirely neutral, and come with some additional baggage. Shadow prompted its authors to start the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which gave Blits an award, etc... As I've said before, this topic suffers from a walled-garden effect, as the same handful of names seem to come up over and over again. To be clear, I don't think it could never be used at all. It does need some caution, though.
 * There is also a lot I could say about Hunt's book. As a start, Hunt received funding from the Pioneer Fund to write that book, and he has defended the fund in the introduction. This is a conflict of interest for content which also defends the fund, and that book glosses-over the reasons the fund is still so controversial. It is not, as Hunt misrepresents, based only on its early history, nor is it only "some leftists" who opposed the fund's activities.
 * The Scientist source is now over 25 years old, which does make a difference. It's useful for historical perspective and details, but it would still be better to use modern sources to establish due weight for the larger picture, where possible. With that in mind, what do more recent, more academic, and more impartial sources say about all this? We absolutely should not use loaded phrases like "assault on academic freedom", and less dramatically, we should avoid vague, but damning sounding phrases like "cut-off support". What support did they "cut off"? What support were they obligated to provide? Doesn't freedom of association mean that her colleagues were free to "shun" her? Or does the first amendment only work one-way in this case?
 * Do you see what I'm getting at? Grayfell (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * RS policy doesn't require sources to be completely neutral [See: Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources], and the series of events I summarized are not skewed. I've provided multiple sources all corroborating, and if you wish to claim the whole is still skewed under RS policy, you're going to have to provide better evidence.
 * The "loaded phrases" you cite aren't vague, but I'd be more than happy to use other terminology, it doesn't affect anything. "Cut-off", for instance, simply means the institution denies the grantee funding from a funding source. In this case, the university President halted acceptance of further Pioneer money to Gottfredson. What do you mean by "What support were they obligated to provide?". I don't think you're following the plot: Researchers often apply to private institutions in order to acquire research money. If accepted, the money then goes to the university and is eventually distributed to the researcher. The university functions as a sort of gatekeeper, and controversies like this arise when committees determine universities overstep their power. In this case, it was ruled that the university violated Gottfredson's academic freedom. This is not a vague or loaded claim. What will probably help you in understanding this: Academic Freedom - United States. And I quote, "Academic freedom has recently come under attack, but some people work to defend the first amendment on campuses.[24]" 2601:42:800:A9DB:DC77:F5CC:C6D8:1BDA (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My point was that we need sources to draw these conclusions for us. We cannot use whatever convenient sources we have lying around to support our prior assumptions or first-hand knowledge. Clearly sources do not agree on how, exactly, the University was obligated to handle Gottfredson's funding, and presenting this complicated incident in simplistic and inflammatory terms is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you don't understand why "assault" is loaded, I don't think we're going to get very far.
 * I've removed the Academic Freedom quote from that article, since it was sourced to an opinion article which was used to present extremely broad statements as a simple fact. This is inappropriate for several reasons. The Executive Director of Young Americans for Liberty is free to have and share his opinions, and Time is free to amplify those opinions at their discretion, but we are not obligated to assume those opinions are empirically true, nor that they are useful for summarizing topics. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't using the sources (of which I have at least 6 all corroborating) to support any prior assumptions. The arbitrator verbatim said the university violated its own standards of review by looking at the content of Gottfredson's research and that Gottfredson had a right to academic freedom. This, very clearly, by encyclopedic standards, was historically a circumstance where academic freedom was contested. Not only do the primary documents reflect this (see: ), but so do all secondary sources I've found covering the incident. You're the one complicating the matter.
 * Furthermore, it is in poor form to edit an article I linked in order to further prove your point. In fact, it is devious and I hope others are observing this Talk. The Time article was a perfectly valid source used in, showcasing an opinion that many officials on US college campuses find to be empirically true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:800:A9DB:E1F6:B033:856E:A1AC (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a living project. You drew my attention to a problem elsewhere with an easy fix, so I fixed it. "Showcasing" an opinion as a bald fact is inappropriate, and the source was absolutely not valid in that specific context. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
user:Grayfell is reverting information from the article without consensus. There has been a significant amount of due, relevant information that was previously removed without ANY discussion on talk. Please take a look at the article history for more information. Also can someone please assist me with bringing this disruption to ANI or wherever? I don't have much experience with this, but it is ridiculous whats going on here. There is an effort by one or two SPIs to paint the articles subject in the worst possible light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:62D0:F1FB:D296:3021:A3D6 (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Vandalism, eh? You re-added material which was removed in October 2017, by an experienced editor who left a clear, civil explanation. Coming back years later to reinsert poorly-sourced promotional details which violate WP:NOTRESUME while claiming "vandalism" is disruptive. SPIs? You mean WP:SPAs? I think you might want to check your own history before throwing those accusations around. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is logical to remove highlights of Dr. Gottfredson’s CV as undue and instead include what fringe organizations say about the Pioneer Fund. In the lede no less.  On a page about Dr. Gottfredson.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.211.10.224 (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's standard to only list awards that have their own articles. I see no reason to treat her differently. Doug Weller  talk 10:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. For all the academic bios i have written or edited--which must be over a thousand by now, I have included all national awards at a senior level from an important professional association or other reputable body. Almost always such bodies have their own articles that include the awards--we rarely break it out.  What I normally do not include are: 1/awards from the person's own university ;  2/junior awards, for promising students, postdocs, or   junior faculty;  3/ local or state awards  4/awards representing years of service only  or other routine matters;  5/ legislative tributes  6/awards from social organizations unrelated to the field of expertise ; (and in all of these there are exceptions if there is good reason to think them exceptional). None of my decisions for what to include have ever been challenged, tho sometimes people with a coi have challenged ones I remove.  DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I only added back (and cited) the international Mensa research award, one of the fellowships, and the George A Miller Award. Atsme Talk 📧 19:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

User:DGG - this text has been in the article for almost two years (the Pioneer Fund part has been in there for like four years). There is NO consensus for removal of this, especially since it began with disruptive socking by IPs. And since you're WP:INVOLVED here you DONT get to make pronouncements such as "may not be restored without discussion". I mean, that's true, that's good practice, but there IS discussion here and since it's long standing material you need consensus for removal. Like I said, start an RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Pioneer Fund mention was NEVER in the lede until Grayfell added it without consensus about a month ago. Here is the consensus version of how it was described in the body - could someone please change it back? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Gottfredson&diff=889523011&oldid=889521617   2600:1012:B05F:C534:4D0C:8B54:2DF5:DDBB (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Complete nonsense. I already provided a diff above. Here it is again. December 2017. Here is the same in October 2017 (restored by User:DougWeller) The description of the Pioneer Fund as racist and white supremacist (which it is) goes back to May 2017 . The mentioning of the Pioneer Fund itself goes back further. Now, can you please edit from your regular account, assuming it's not banned? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not objecting to including the Pioneer fund grant matter in the article, since it did provoke a controversy at her university. It should be there, complete with the statement of the findings.  The question is the lede. As for blp, anyone can warn. I may perhaps have made a strategically wrong choice to become involved rather than be able to act as an admin, but I made the choice, because I do have a definite opinion about the subject independent of the discussions at WP, so it wouldn't have been right to pretend that I didn't.  .   DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this is well sourced content, BLP is satisfied. Since this is long standing content you need to start an RfC, in absence of clear consensus on talk to remove it. Note that over the years multiple users, including admins and arbs have restored this content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

More sources
Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Linda Gottfredson, is a longtime advocate of "scientific racism", (...) Over the course of her career, Gottfredson has accepted at least 267,000$ in grants from the Pioneer Fund, an American nonprofit group labeled by the SPLC as a racist and white supremacist group"
 * "It was drafted by Linda Gottfredson, an educational psychologist funded by the white supremacist Pioneer Fund"
 * Neither of these sources are reliable and the information you cited is in violations of BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B01D:E2B5:475:726E:22BD:E3D1 (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How is Joe Feagin unreliable? And how do you even know our policy? Doug Weller  talk 19:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
user:Grayfell is reverting information from the article without consensus. There has been a significant amount of due, relevant information that was previously removed without ANY discussion on talk. Please take a look at the article history for more information. Also can someone please assist me with bringing this disruption to ANI or wherever? I don't have much experience with this, but it is ridiculous whats going on here. There is an effort by one or two SPIs to paint the articles subject in the worst possible light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772D:62D0:F1FB:D296:3021:A3D6 (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Vandalism, eh? You re-added material which was removed in October 2017, by an experienced editor who left a clear, civil explanation. Coming back years later to reinsert poorly-sourced promotional details which violate WP:NOTRESUME while claiming "vandalism" is disruptive. SPIs? You mean WP:SPAs? I think you might want to check your own history before throwing those accusations around. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is logical to remove highlights of Dr. Gottfredson’s CV as undue and instead include what fringe organizations say about the Pioneer Fund. In the lede no less.  On a page about Dr. Gottfredson.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.211.10.224 (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's standard to only list awards that have their own articles. I see no reason to treat her differently. Doug Weller  talk 10:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. For all the academic bios i have written or edited--which must be over a thousand by now, I have included all national awards at a senior level from an important professional association or other reputable body. Almost always such bodies have their own articles that include the awards--we rarely break it out.  What I normally do not include are: 1/awards from the person's own university ;  2/junior awards, for promising students, postdocs, or   junior faculty;  3/ local or state awards  4/awards representing years of service only  or other routine matters;  5/ legislative tributes  6/awards from social organizations unrelated to the field of expertise ; (and in all of these there are exceptions if there is good reason to think them exceptional). None of my decisions for what to include have ever been challenged, tho sometimes people with a coi have challenged ones I remove.  DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I only added back (and cited) the international Mensa research award, one of the fellowships, and the George A Miller Award. Atsme Talk 📧 19:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

User:DGG - this text has been in the article for almost two years (the Pioneer Fund part has been in there for like four years). There is NO consensus for removal of this, especially since it began with disruptive socking by IPs. And since you're WP:INVOLVED here you DONT get to make pronouncements such as "may not be restored without discussion". I mean, that's true, that's good practice, but there IS discussion here and since it's long standing material you need consensus for removal. Like I said, start an RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Pioneer Fund mention was NEVER in the lede until Grayfell added it without consensus about a month ago. Here is the consensus version of how it was described in the body - could someone please change it back? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Gottfredson&diff=889523011&oldid=889521617   2600:1012:B05F:C534:4D0C:8B54:2DF5:DDBB (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Complete nonsense. I already provided a diff above. Here it is again. December 2017. Here is the same in October 2017 (restored by User:DougWeller) The description of the Pioneer Fund as racist and white supremacist (which it is) goes back to May 2017 . The mentioning of the Pioneer Fund itself goes back further. Now, can you please edit from your regular account, assuming it's not banned? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not objecting to including the Pioneer fund grant matter in the article, since it did provoke a controversy at her university. It should be there, complete with the statement of the findings.  The question is the lede. As for blp, anyone can warn. I may perhaps have made a strategically wrong choice to become involved rather than be able to act as an admin, but I made the choice, because I do have a definite opinion about the subject independent of the discussions at WP, so it wouldn't have been right to pretend that I didn't.  .   DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this is well sourced content, BLP is satisfied. Since this is long standing content you need to start an RfC, in absence of clear consensus on talk to remove it. Note that over the years multiple users, including admins and arbs have restored this content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

More sources
Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Linda Gottfredson, is a longtime advocate of "scientific racism", (...) Over the course of her career, Gottfredson has accepted at least 267,000$ in grants from the Pioneer Fund, an American nonprofit group labeled by the SPLC as a racist and white supremacist group"
 * "It was drafted by Linda Gottfredson, an educational psychologist funded by the white supremacist Pioneer Fund"
 * Neither of these sources are reliable and the information you cited is in violations of BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B01D:E2B5:475:726E:22BD:E3D1 (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How is Joe Feagin unreliable? And how do you even know our policy? Doug Weller  talk 19:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream Science on Intelligence
The current definition (22:47, 8 January UTC) of the Mainstream Science on Intelligence is:

"The letter claimed that it was the academic consensus that black people are statistically less intelligent than white people regardless of education or economic background"

For reasons that I have already explained elsewhere (see Talk:Seymour Itzkoff), I think this definition is very problematic. Briefly:

1) It goes beyond what the statement actually states and even contradicts it. The words "that black people are statistically less intelligent than white people" are rather accurate due to the presence of the word "statistically" (although it would be possible to be even more precise). However, the words "regardless of education or economic background" are very problematic. The word "education" does not appear in the section "Source and Stability of Between-Group Differences," and conclusion n°23 states that the average differences are "somewhat smaller but still substantial for individuals from the same socioeconomic backgrounds" (which contradicts what the previous editor wrote).

2) It does not mention at all the purpose of the statement, which was to describe what Gottfredson saw as the widely shared conclusions of intelligence researchers, in order to counteract statements made in the public sphere and describing as discredited some conclusions that are in fact, Gottfredson writes, widely supported. Even worse, it attributes Gottfredson another purpose, which was to defend the Bell Curve. Perhaps she largely agreed with Herrnstein and Murray, but it appears that, as a proponent of the construct of g (see her article, "Why g Matters"), her primary purpose was to tell the public what the conclusions of intelligence research were (according to her).

In order to solve the current problem, I add to the article the definition I put in the "Seymour Itzkoff" article, which I think is quite balanced.

Sinuthius (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This was not acceptable, because it was not clear who was being quoted, or why. Your edit created the impression that this was copied from the letter itself, but it was actually from a different source criticizing the letter. While a citation is barely sufficient as attribution in some cases (per WP:INTEXT), it is still preferable to provide clear attribution in the article, and it's better still to rephrase in our own words, since this avoids the issue and allows for a summary of the topic, which is the entire point of an encyclopedia article. Likewise for Gottfredson's "primary purpose", this would need a reliable, independent source.
 * As for how the letter described itself, this is part of the controversy and is not fully accepted as factual by reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations (even if it is decades old) so we would need a reliable, independent summary of the letter and Gottfredson's role to attempt something like this. Otherwise, readers can go the the letter's dedicated article. Grayfell (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if that were true, we cannot leave what was originally there as it's a complete misrepresentation of what the letter was intended for. As Sinuthius noted, the primary purpose of the letter was to inform the public as to what the consensus of intelligence experts was, in the midst of The Bell Curve controversy. 2601:42:800:A9DB:8C28:6042:81BA:C844 (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You said that "it was not clear who was being quoted, or why." But the quote is from the Mainstream Science on Intelligence. How can you say that it was not? The two first paragraphs of the Mainstream Science on Intelligence read as follows:
 * "Since the publication of The Bell Curve, many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly supported.
 * This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence."
 * When a quote between quotation marks is directly followed by a reference, it constitutes attribution, and in this case, it is a valid one. Sinuthius (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted the section back, as I believe your point about the statement being attributed stands. 2601:42:800:A9DB:BC20:D241:9D23:A73A (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This edit included two quotes, one from the letter, and another one from a different cited source, but the edit failed to clearly differentiate where the second was coming from.
 * Again, since this seems confusing, the edit falsely implied that "that intelligence tests are not biased against American blacks..." was part of the letter, when it was part of a source criticizing the letter. This should either be summarized in our own words, or it should be attributed to the unnamed author of a news article in The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. The obscurity of this source is a whole separate issues, honestly, but let's take them one at a time. Since the claim made about the letter by the source is not, as far as I know, contested, we should simply summarize it in our own words, which I think the current adjusted wording does sufficiently. There are many better sources to chose from, and I assume that one was imported from the Itzkoff article. That was the source I had on hand which clearly listed Itzkoff as a signor. It is not the best source for this article, nor is it even a particularly good one in general, but it's still better than trusting editors to attempt to tackle this in a natural way based only on primary sources.
 * As for the letter's claims, they are just that, claims. Selecting a sentence which presents the letter's claims as "conclusions" is not appropriate, because, in addition to being leading language, it's misleading about the reason we are even mentioning the letter in the first place. As I've already said elsewhere, this isn't the place to regurgitate the letter, and since reliable sources dispute its claims, to put it mildly, we cannot validate fringe claims by presenting them at face value. The letter is now only significant because it is controversial. There would be no other reason to mention something like this in a biography article, and indeed, there would be no reason to write a letter like this if it weren't controversial. If we present this as is without any context, we are blandly passing along public relations. The context must come from reliable, independent sources and not one editor's personal opinion on which sentence best summarize a primary source. Grayfell (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep reverting to your preferred version on both this article and the Itzkoff one, whenever you aren't satisfied with any aspect of the changes other editors are making, but based on my understanding of the WP:BRD process you shouldn't be doing that. You boldly rewrote both these articles last month, your bold changes were challenged, so now you shouldn't keep restoring them without consensus. You need to justify your changes, and until there's a consensus you should allow the stable version of the article to remain, as has been done on the Mankind Quarterly article.


 * Sinuthius above pointed out several several problems in the version you're restoring, and you haven't tried to address any of them. There's also one additional problem with this change that Sinuthius didn't mention: why are we regarding the Southern Poverty Law Center as the best source to use about the MSI statement? Wouldn't it be better to use a source that's written by a psychologist, rather than an advocacy group?


 * It's important to use a source written by a psychologist because psychologists are much more likely to know which assertions in MSI are controversial within the field of psychology, and which aren't. For example, the statement that that intelligence tests are not biased against American blacks is also supported by Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, a 1995 report that represents the official position of the American Psychological Association. I know that we can't cite the APA report itself as a source in this article, because it doesn't mention MSI, but I'm bringing it up because it's an example of how we have to leave it up to experts in the relevant field (psychology) to determine what's a "fringe statement" and what isn't.


 * On the Mankind Quarterly article, Randykitty requested input from user:DGG. It seems like the only way to resolve disputes like these is to get input from uninvolved people, so I request their advice here as well.  based on the discussion above, what do you suggest doing with this article? 2600:1004:B166:9154:E925:96CF:8724:C406 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I want to comment on several points.


 * 1) If we are reporting what a source says, and the wording is critical, it must come from the source itself. This is one of the cases where secondary sources are less reliable. (This is especially true for sources which may be generally on the other side of a controversy.
 * 2) It is generally advisable to give enough of the quote to see the context.
 * 3) It's appropriate to say which organization funded her work, but the nature  of  the organization cannot be summarized here in WP's voice--we just link to it.
 * 4) . We can not make a judgment of her work by quoting only organizations which oppose the conclusions. The best way to deal with this is not to make a conclusion at all. Selective quotation from  either friends or opponents is not NPOV. The reader must be assumed to have the intelligence to understand, from the straightforward presentation of what she says.    DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, and I agree with your suggestions. In particular, I've also noticed that these IQ-related articles typically only use sources which voice opposing conclusions. It's tough to view this as anything but bias on the part of the editors, and it's not in line with Wikipedia's fair representation ideal.
 * That said, since Sinuthius and I have already been reverted several times on this article, would you be willing to take a shot at implementing the proposed changes?2601:42:800:A9DB:480B:EC25:298E:33DE (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like first to hear from -- I do not want to be in the position of a single decider about content on this topic.  DGG ( talk ) 09:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that DGG's words are very wise and agree completely with them. I don't like to edit articles in this area myself, as I have a strong POV (namely that almost all research in race differences/genetics/intelligence is so much crap). Nevertheless, I have to say that I find it weird that the lead here mentions that Gottfredson has received grants from the (rather loathable) Pioneer Fund for a total of 260 k$. For anybody who nows a bit about research funding, that's a really, really small amount. Over her career, this person must have received many times more than that from other sources. A grant of 260 k$ is a small grant (note that a standard NIH "R01" grant generally is about that amount per year). If it's several grants for that total amount, they are almost trivial. To put that in the lead as if it is something that defines her career is very, very WP:UNDUE. --Randykitty (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether 260k$ is a lot or not is WP:OR. Comparing it to the NIH is misleading too, since the PF is not the NIH, but a private entity. And in fact, that's quite a bit of money for a private grant in this particular area. And the key point is not how much but from whom. And as User:Greyfall points out below, at the end of the day what matters is whether the sources think this is significant or not. And they do. Hell, I provided a few more, and no one bothered responding.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that the page on Aurelio José Figueredo (another hereditarian researcher) has a similar issue with about 50% of the very brief article is about funding source Pioneer Fund for the sum of 458k over a period of years. There's no mentions of the guy's books, primate research etc. This guy has 13.6k citations on Google Scholar and h-index of 57, so obviously he has published a lot of stuff one can write something about. Deleet (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Our goal should be to provide readers with context. This is not optional for an encyclopedia article. The letter Gottfredson wrote makes claims which are not neutral, and selecting one or two sentences out of that letter and presenting them as a fair summary is arbitrary at best and misleading at worst. Since we cannot agree on which details of this letter are significant or accurate and which are not, we need to rely on reliable, independent sources. If those sources focus on her association with scientific racism we are obligated to reflect that. Pioneer Fund is, according to an overwhelming number of sources, significant only because of its association with racism. This is why it is noteworthy in relation to Gottfredson (according to sources which are already cited) so providing that context is appropriate, useful and important. Yes, readers can click on that link to find more, but if readers don't know why this fund is significant, we shouldn't be afraid to tell them. That's the whole point of this project.
 * The majority of substantial, reliable sources I have found about Gottfredson discuss race, ether as it relates to academic freedom, or as it relates to race-related policies, such as affirmative action (or both). Passing mentions are fine for filling in details, but the article should reflect the weight of reliable sources. If there are other sources discussing her funding from other, less loathable outlets, let's see them so we can figure out how to include this in the article. That applies to anything else about her, as well, or about any similar researcher, such as Figueredo. We cannot assume that her funding from other sources must be noteworthy just because the Pioneer Funding was noteworthy. We cannot assume that any amount of money is noteworthy unless a reliable source explains why its noteworthy. We work with the sources we have, not our prior assumptions.
 * As for Deleet's borderline canvassing advocacy of "hereditarian" researchers, discuss those on the appropriate article talk pages or post to a noticeboard. This isn't the place to discuss someone else, nor to recruit sympathetic editors to your viewpoint, especially since you have a clear conflict of interest with Mankind. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t agree that “we” can’t agree on the content of the letter to use. Rather, you don’t seem to agree with the other editors. With regards to secondary and independent sources, I note that there is no Wikipedia policy that says one cannot use primary literature, only that it is problematic in some contexts or for some uses (cf. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD).
 * Furthermore, you say that of LG mentions, the majority are in relation to race research (though she has not done much herself) or academic freedom (usually as result of her own persecution). I don’t know about that (and you didn't provide any evidence). When I search for her name, I do see sources like that, such as these books (The Shadow University, Lost Rights, Academic Freedom in the Wired World as well as various left-wing history books written by anti-racists, SPLC and the like). However, I also see many sources like these that discuss her work in career counseling (such as Career and College Readiness Counseling in P-12 Schools, Study Guide for the NCE Exam DSM-5, The School Counselor’s Study Guide for Credentialing Exams). These are mainly related to the theory she advocated in a 1981 paper that has received 2.7k citations on GS. The importance of this work is also reflected in that she keeps being invited to publish articles and book chapters summarizing her current views on that topic (e.g. Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Using Gottfredson's theory of circumscription and compromise in career guidance and counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 71-100). New York: Wiley.). A particularly good source on her is the 33 page interview published in Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics in 2009. Generally speaking, the most well-known thing about LG is not that she received some funding from Pioneer Fund. She is known for multiple reasons, including being an eminent scholar. For instance, ISIR awarded her their Lifetime achievement award in 2013, recognizing her work. She was also given the distinguished contributor interview in 2016.
 * I would also like to remind you of WP:PARTISAN with regards to using SPLC as source (as mentioned by IP user 2600 above). SPLC is of course an advocasy group presenting a quite partisan view. Per policy, such views can be included but not in Wiki voice.
 * I regard your allegation of “borderline canvassing” as uncivil. Please refrain from such accusations. We are discussing matters of WP:UNDUE here, so it seems very natural to me to reference other pages with similar problems. This is explicitly mentioned on WP:APPNOTE (“The talk page of one or more directly related articles.”). Deleet (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes in line with user:DGG's points:
 * 1) The Pioneer Fund's mention should be removed from the lead and remain in the "Life and Work" section. While it's appropriate to specify which organization(s) funded her work, to mention the Pioneer Fund in the lead, and to describe it as a 'white supremacist organization', does not seem to be NPOV. And as noted, it should just be linked (not summarized here).
 * 2) The description of Gottfredson's editorial "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" in the "Life and Work" section needs to be modified. As mentioned at the beginning of this Talk section by user:Sinuthius, not only is the wording problematic, but the purpose of the statement is entirely missing, which makes me think again the person who wrote the section wasn't abiding by NPOV. The purpose of the editorial was to showcase the mainstream conclusions of experts in intelligence and consisted of a poll on a wide range of intelligence-related questions (hint: it didn't merely involve a B-W comparison). The article should reflect this. For those in doubt, see:
 * 3) The description of Gottfredson's legal battle with the University of Delaware I initially suggested be included in the other Talk section (and which was subsequently added), in its current iteration, doesn't adequately represent what occurred, and also needs to be modified. As I mentioned and substantiated with five separate sources, this case was an instance of a professor's academic freedom being challenged -- and this sentiment is straight from the arbitrator. I'd be more than happy to re-post the legal documents proving this isn't a biased conclusion. I wrote a summary above which can be reviewed, but, at the very least, there needs to be an explanation added as to why Gottfredson challenged the ruling.

It would be remiss in closing not to mention that one person has done most of the writing for this and many associated articles, and there seems to be biased conclusions and selective quotations present. I'm hoping with the new faces here we can work to a fairer, more neutral article.

I'm pinging and  as I would appreciate both of their inputs. 2601:42:800:A9DB:8D8B:9420:8D23:E1CA (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes on all 3.
 * The final sentence also should be removed. We don't end an article with a summary of her work from a hostile position.
 * There are probably some other wording changes, which can best be adjusted after the previous matters have been attended to.  DGG ( talk ) 15:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * andI suggest people read the symposium discussed above. The most striking point to me were the several papers showing IQ could be raised proportional to years of education.  DGG ( talk ) 15:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Proposed changes look good to me. Deleet (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * We summarize based on reliable sources, including the unflattering ones. We absolutely cannot claim to be NPOV if we are whitewashing. The Pioneer incident is extremely well-documented and supported by many reliable source spanning decades. In order to remove this, we would need a specific reason that it's unworthy of the lede, and I haven't seen one that's consistent with Wikipedia's policies and goals. Sources decide WP:DUE, not editors. How is is it neutral to remove a historically significant incident? How does that help readers understand this topic? Judging by sources, it's reasonable to think that readers are coming her for context on this specific incident. If we downplay this despite the many sources we have, we are doing a disservice to those readers by prioritizing our own opinions.
 * Being an "advocacy" organization doesn't make a source unreliable. The SPLC is a legitimate and recognized authority on racism, including academic racism. In this case it is an advocacy organization in the same way that Wikipedia is an advocacy organization. Both advocate by providing information. Advocacy organizations for information about pseudoscientific topics, such as the SPLC, are reliable. A reliable source which is widely cited for statements of fact by other reliable sources can and must be taken at face value. The SPLC is overwhelmingly regarded as authoritative in this regard. To misrepresent this as a niche opinion, or one that is only held by the SPLC would be editorializing.
 * The purported purpose of the Mainstream letter is obvious from its title, but merely passing along the existence of the letter would be pointless. The letter's claims, and the purpose of the letter, have been well-discussed by many reliable sources. If we actively ignore reliable sources and only summarizing based on the primary source itself, we could just link to it in the bibliography or see also section. That approach strikes me as lazy and evasive. We should explain what the letter says according to reliable sources in proportion to due weight. To exclusively take the letter at face value would be to ignore many reliable sources, which is inappropriate.
 * As for Deleet's proposed additional sources, at least one is self-published, and there's also a lot of OR and editorializing implications. A mildly hagiographic interview which compares her to Galileo and Scopes is a poor choice if the goal is to suggest we should downplay the controversial nature of her work and career.
 * Some of those sources are specifically in relation to her 1981 work. An explanation of her theory of circumscription and compromise could be added per these sources, but this predates the Pioneer controversy. This would not cancel-out the other, sourced information. Whatever Gottfredson's positions are, we should be able to summarize reliable, independent sources, with primary sources used as a response to, or supplement for, those independent sources. Our opinions about what she really says are just that: opinions. Again again again, we do not ignore sources just because they are unflattering. We handle them carefully, of course, but that's not an excuse to pretend they don't exist.
 * For Wikipedia's purposes, being "eminent" is demonstrated through reliable, independent sources. ISIR has its own walled-garden issues, and labeling SPLC "partisan" while pretending that ISIR is strictly impartial would be silly. As with every Wikipedia article, we should look at what reliable, independent sources say about her go from there. Like it or not, the Pioneer Fund incident is going to be significant to this article based on those sources, and therefor a lede which summarizes the body is almost certainly going to have to mention this incident. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Over the past two weeks, this article has been discussed at User_talk:DGG, and in that discussion one additional person (user:Atsme) has agreed there is sufficient consensus to make my aforementioned changes to the article. There are now five other people who've supported my proposed changes, or argued for similar changes: user:Atsme, user:Sinuthius, user:Randykitty, user:DGG, and user:Deleet. There is only one person disagreeing, and his comment above is bordering on WP:IDHT, so I'll be implementing the proposed changes now.

I've pinged the other editors who participated in this discussion because I'd like them to review my edits and make sure they reflect the consensus. 2601:42:800:A9DB:7161:31D0:DEDF:A73F (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will check; ping me when ready.  DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC).
 * changes made, please review when you have time. Thanks, 2601:42:800:A9DB:7161:31D0:DEDF:A73F (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an WP:RFC will be necessary. If we cannot even explain why the Pioneer Fund is controversial, why even mention it at all? Grayfell (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe the changes are good. We already have an article about the Pioneer Fund and the controversies surrounding it, and it is wikilinked in this BLP. I again refer to an important discussion at the BLP noticeboard regarding a similar issue because quite frankly, it speaks volumes: A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views. (quote by Zaereth edited for brevity; Jimbo Wales agreed.). This BLP is a classic case of when the subject's work is more controversial than the actual subject herself.Atsme ✍🏻📧 15:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should explain why something mentioned in an article might be controversial in the separate article about that thing, whee we can give it full space for a NPOV discussion. Trying to include it every time it's mentioned in an article would either expand all the articles absurdly, or would be too brief to deal with the nuances of NPOV. However, we do need to give the reader some alert to the fact that it might be worth checking the more specific article. WP has some of the features of hypertext.  DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as how the removal of this pertinent material was pushed by a user who got banned under WP:NONAZIS I restored it. We've also been over this many times in this topic area, though it's been awhile. The info that these folks take money from Pioneer Fund is absolutely relevant and most sources which discuss them mention it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * VM, please self-revert considering the IP was not blocked at the time and was simply following local consensus for its removal from the lead as UNDUE. The discussion was among 3 uninvolved editors including myself,  and, all of whom were in agreement. The reason behind its removal still holds true and to my knowledge, has nothing to do with the IP's subsequent block. Read the discussion above and why UNDUE was the determination. If you feel so strongly that it belongs in the lead, then call an RfC. Restoring challenged material that was removed as a result of local consensus in a TP discussion is a violation of the DS applicable to this article. Atsme  Talk 📧 14:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To repeat what I have said before, this material is UNDUE. Almost all her work is in no way controversial, and the attempt to overemphasize those aspects which have been interpreted (interpreted rather dubiously, in my opinion) as being opposed to the current scientific consensus is wrong in any bio, and especially in a BLP.  DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I second that. UNDUE. --Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted what VM restored in noncompliance with earlier local consensus. This is a BLP and the material is not only UNDUE, it is contentious and violative of BLP policy, not to mention DS that are applicable to this article. Atsme Talk 📧 16:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to state for the record that there was clear consensus NOT to include the Pioneer Fund in the lede. There was a good-faith, civil discussion before consensus was reached.  user:Volunteer Marek ignored consensus and disruptively added information that is in clear violation of BLP.  He did the same at Steve Sailer.  VM refused to engage on the talk page as well.  Simply put - it makes no sense to mention the Pioneer Fund in any capacity (much less a critical mention from an unreliable source) in the lede of an article about Linda Gottefredson.  Keeping this info out of the lede is not controversial and is in line with long standing practice at WP.2600:1012:B01E:71D5:48D:C151:D50F:5E6 (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We've had this discussion on a lot of the people related to Pioneer Fund over the years - I've been in these topics for some time - and the general consensus was to include this info in the leds. I also note that there are several people objecting to it above. So - 1) initiated by a disruptive, now banned under WP:NONAZIS user, 2) long standing practice, 3) controversial, 4) no clear consensus == burden on those wanting the change. If you must start an RfC to make such controversial changes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Important note -- This page has been reported at ANI as WP:ANI for concerns of edit warring and discretionary sanctions issues. No specific users were mentioned in the report, but I caution and remind all who are editing this page that discretionary sanctions DO apply to this page. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Convenience break
So here are some observations I've made, which I hope will make this clearer and calmer.


 * Gottfredson is widely cited as an academic. Nobody, as far as I know, is claiming that she is exclusively known for the Bell Curve/Pioneer Fund work.
 * A significant percentage of sources which discuss her as an academic (instead of those which list her name as a citation without specific commentary) do so in relation to her stated positions on race and intelligence.
 * By writing the letter which ostensibly presented the academic consensus on this issue, she positioned herself as a public face for this perspective. Therefore, this isn't an entirely manufactured or unreasonable connection for us to explain. We can, and already do, explain this.
 * There seems to be consensus that her connection to the Pioneer Fund belongs in the body, since it is extremely well documented and clearly has had a lasting impact for various reasons.
 * I do not accept that we provide enough detail for an unfamiliar reader to understand what this means. I don't think we provide a good indication to this hypothetical reader that they should dig deeper and actually click on those links about things like the "Pioneer Fund". A little context goes a long way in helping readers understand the larger picture.
 * At least some reliable sources I have found (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24541873 as an example) cite her as an example of... outdated scientific racialism, let's call it. I think we all understand how important attribution is and Wikipedia's voice and so on, but we are also not obligated to ignore these sources just because of the BLP issues. That's not a precedent any of us want to set. This is not a trivial aspect of how sources describe her work, so one way or another, a fair encyclopedic summary of her is at least going to acknowledge this.

So, the question I have, is how should we summarize all this in the lede? This is not (yet) an RFC, although I still think that might be the next logical step. Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Consensus was already established. While a brief mention of the Pioneer Fund in the body of the article may be due (and I personally don’t think it is) context is critical.  There needs to be information as to how Dr. Gottfredson won her arbitration proceeding.  The arbitration found that her rights were infringed upon.  Additionally as far as I can see, there only reason to mention the controversy surrounding the Pioneer Fund, is perhaps to illustrate how this controversy was weaponized by her critics.  As someone mentioned earlier, the Pioneer Fund grant is a minor minor part of Dr. Gottfredsons esteemed career, hardly worth a mention.  On the other hand, I see no reason as to why you continually remove the various academic honors she has received which are well sourced.  Same goes for her selected works - we list selected works for nearly every author.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.211.10.224 (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Where exactly was this consensus established? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How minor minor a part of someone's esteemed career this is should be decided by sources. Sources have decided that it's not so minor minor after all. The fund's continuing legacy of eugenics and scientific racism, as well as far-right political advocacy, is very well documented. It was not merely "weaponized by her critics" it has been repeatedly documented and discussed by other notable academics, journalist, etc. for decades now.
 * I remove awards when they do not have reliable, independent sources, or when they do not provide the reader with a clear path to understanding the encyclopedic significance of those awards. This isn't a trophy case or resume hosting service. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)