User talk:Biohistorian15

This is Biohistorian15's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 5 days

ANI notice about frivolous SPIs

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 90.255.65.51 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:French Communist Party on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

revision as of 17:28, 19 September 2024

I get that the source is criticism of Lynn work. But they did an analysis of his data sets and found his conclusions to be faulty. I'm not certain if those were all his data sets (I say because the article talks about the data sets around black individuals) but the fact that a large group of experts have called for the main body of his work to be retracted which does effect part of what he adds to the article should be taken into account.

I think it might be more than simple criticism of him as a person and might be the grain of salt that has to be taken when an expert or researcher has obvious ulterior motives. Retraction of scientific work is a huge deal and rarely done even when experiments were faulty.

I don't believe in removing Lynn's work unless a full retraction for manipulation of data is issued but it's definitely something that needs context of some type in the article.

First source

Call for retraction of Lynn's work

I brought this here first because I don't want this becoming a 4 day discussion over 2 sentences that inadvertently devolves into how awful Lynn is as a person.

RCSCott91 (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RCSCott91. I've seen this multiple times, you know. His work on completely unrelated topics was/is also undermined this way.

On the other hand, someone calling for the retraction of somebody else that so happens to do highly politicized research is definitely suspect.

Since you've demonstrated relevance here, nonetheless, do you think making it a note would work? (Cf. Template:Efn) Biohistorian15 (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, making it a Note would probably the most appropriate considering the call for retraction hasn't been acted on yet. It shows that there is disagreement acknowledged but doesn't disregard that the research was considered peer reviewed at the time of publication. RCSCott91 (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds a lot better already. Thanks. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wish to do the note or have me attempt it? I must warn I have never done one before, although I would probably study how a finished one looks in wiki and try to mimic it.

Also, We both just received a topic alert. Which feels a bit late for me because I've been editing that Jewish intelligence article for a month but they are strained on admins and stuff. RCSCott91 (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just added it back in. It was due after all.

I wouldn't worry too much about that user warning/notice if I were you; these are common.

Realistically though, all this was wasted time because the same editors as usual will immediately jump in, revert me and cite ~5 additional criticisms on top... Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good. Worst case, article talk page for consensus.

Honestly, until and if his work is retracted, this seems to be in line with WP:NPOV RCSCott91 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Biohistorian15 You should probably be aware that I disagree with Lynn's conclusions and beliefs but his findings seem on par with outcomes for persons of color in the USA. The residual effects of Jim Crow era only began to be fully addressed in the last decades and considering that his data doesn't correct for economic-social status, I'm under the impression that he was measuring the disparity in America, whether he intended it or not. RCSCott91 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics alert

You have recently made edits related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. This is a standard message to inform you that the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]