Talk:Stephen Jay Gould

Page Views


Restoring content removed without discussion
User:generalrelative With your permission, Id like to restore the previously deleted content until such time that it can be discussed properly in TALK. The content was removed by a since-banned user. 2600:1012:B049:3409:2C3A:43A1:4B7C:1ED4 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For discussion purposes, the sentence doesn't need to be restored, you need only to link a diff, like this initial removal by the sockpuppet editor, which resulted in both you and me restoring the edit.
 * Because Arthur Jensen was a target of Gould's criticism, it is reasonable for Jensen to respond with his own review of Gould's book. WP:MANDY notwithstanding, Jensen is a notable (notorious?) academic, and his response is encyclopedically relevant. I do agree with and  that calling it an accusation of "misrepresentation" in Wikipedia's voice isn't appropriate, because I think Gould characterized Jensen's views quite accurately. The citation should be retained, but with different prose. I suggest "...including a rebuttal by Arthur Jensen, a target of Gould's critique" or something along those lines. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All good points. I wonder though if the whole Jensen angle is really DUE for inclusion at all. As it stands, Jensen isn't mentioned in the summary, which is why I'd argue that his rebuttal isn't germane either. He's given some air time in our article on the book The Mismeasure of Man (arguably too much, given that Jensen doesn't figure into the summary there either) but I'm not sure there's enough to warrant inclusion in the bio. Generalrelative (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) This is a hard call, but I'm leaning toward no on this one. Mainly because I'm not convinced that this editor wasn't a PROFRINGE LTA trying to poison the well. I would have supported removing the Jensen piece, for the reason stated in my edit summary, regardless. I just hadn't been aware it was there. Looks like the same goes for too, but he can speak for himself. I'll also ping  into this conversation to avoid the appearance of canvassing. Generalrelative (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I already canvassed you and NightHeron in my initial comment! The lead section of the article need not mention everything that is in the body. My position is that a brief mention of this in the body is encyclopedically relevant. We aren't promoting anything by including it, we have the ability to make an editorial decision about what the prose says. We could even use what the article on Arthur Jensen says. A suggestion would be "...including a rebuttal by Arthur Jensen, a controversial promoter of race-based differences in IQ who was a target of Gould's criticism". That's a neutral statement that provides enough context for the citation while making it clear he's a notable person with fringe views. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with this. Not convinced it's DUE but not willing to put up a fuss. Generalrelative (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't add it in yet. I want to give a chance to respond. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm also okay with something like that wording. But we need something clearer than "promoter of race-based differences in IQ". Perhaps something like "promoter of the discredited theory that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites" (the part starting with "theory" is taken from Scientific racism). NightHeron (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that if we're going to do this, we should state very clearly what Gould's criticisms of Jensen were. We can then give Jensen a response. But just including the response seems to me to be off base. Generalrelative (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's getting kind of wordy for a brief mention. I thought sticking the adjective "controversial" in front of the name would suffice. How about something more concise, like "...including a rebuttal by Arthur Jensen who promoted of the theory, discredited by Gould, of inherent race-based differences in IQ"? I am not satisfied with that but maybe it's getting close.
 * There's an interesting exchange between some critics and Gould in the New York Review here, in the context of his critique of Jensen. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That wording seems to suggest that Gould was the first and only author to discredit Jensenism (which is not the case - for example, Leon Kamin in his book The Science and Politics of IQ had revealed Burt's scientific fraud and refuted racial hereditarianism 7 years earlier). Perhaps replacing Gould by something like "Gould and other scientists" would solve that problem (at the cost of adding 3 words). (Two minor copy-edits: no "of" after "promoted", and a comma should go before "who".) NightHeron (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) Mmm, but it's not just discredited "by Gould". Indeed, subsequent researchers, beginning with James Flynn did it better. To be clear, I would still prefer not to mention Jensen at all in this bio, but if we do I think we need to present Gould's criticism before Jensen's response. That's just due WP:BALANCE. Generalrelative (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree about the ordering. I'll think about rephrasing. There's no hurry, the article is protected anyway due to this content dispute. Looking around at sources, it seems that Gould's criticism did receive significant coverage; there's a whole paragraph devoted to it in the Arthur Jensen article. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussion seems to have languished. Per the comments above I have added in the phrase "...including a rebuttal by Arthur Jensen who promoted of the theory, discredited by Gould along with James Flynn and other researchers, of inherent race-based differences in IQ." ~Anachronist (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Having given this more thought, I no longer agree that mentioning Jensen's critique is DUE here. Note that the source provided doesn't even mention Jensen's critique, so in this context we're looking at a case of failed verification. I would want to see much more substantial, independent secondary coverage of a FRINGE view before agreeing that it belongs in the bio of a respected scientist (or anyone). Generalrelative (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong feelings either way. I assumed there were sources, based on the discussion above. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

“Jay Gould”
Jay Gould (1836-1892) was a famous New York railroad magnate of Scottish origin. What is the story behind Stephen Jay Gould being named after him? 50.235.80.188 (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)