Jump to content

Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Uncited information

This following segment contains no citations:

He has been a witness before United States congressional and senate committees and a consultant to senior Republican government officials in the United States, and conservative officials in the United Kingdom, Eastern Europe, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Can anyone find something to substantiate these claims? Serotrance (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


I found the citation and added it:
National Review Cruise. "Speaker's Biography of Charles Murray." May 2, 2008.
Reservoirhill (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Bell Curve is a top-level work of science" Debunking The Bell Curve

First, the link should have been http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm#Backbellcurve but I'd like to explain why I deleted the link anyways. In Race and Intelligence: Interpretations, Kangas is referenced once with the following disclaimer: Drummond 2005 challenges the factual accuracy of other reporting by Kangas 1999. Further discussion occurs in the talk page of The Bell Curve. I was unable to find Drummond 2005, but if it didn't make The Bell Curve article then it doesn't belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aron.Foster (talk • contribs) 03:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Race

This entire article needs a cleanup, as most of it is based on Jason DeParle's single, unfavorable article. For starters, I'm deleting the description of "race researcher." Dr. Murray's work on race has been incredibly blown out of proportion. In reality, only a tiny minority of his work deals with race. He's never been a race researcher, nor has he ever claimed to be. (Serotrance 10:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Charles Murray (Racist)

I don't respect the guy's scholarship, but isn't having Charles Murray (Racist) redirect to this page a bit much?

Moving criticisms over to The Bell Curve

This whole article is a rehash of the dispute going on over at The Bell Curve. We don't need two pages devoted to this debate. I'll put in some effort to migrate the claims relevent to this issue over to the article The Bell Curve. Until then, I'm putting up an NPOV plaque, as I feel this page is mostly showing one side of a highly controversial issue. -- Schaefer 23:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, that was easy. I didn't notice that almost all of the content had already been pasted in The Bell Curve verbatim in the past, and thus could be safely deleted from here. I've removed my NPOV tag after rewriting the introduction. -- Schaefer 00:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


NPOV - please don't dignify supporters of _The Bell Curve_ by calling their arguments neutral. The assumptions and conclusions of the book were thoroughly demolished shortly after publication by then President of the AAAS Jay Gould in his book _The Mismeasure of Man_.b_calder 15:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Bradley Foundation

Why is it POV to label the Bradley Foundation as "right-wing"? They have a clear political and ideological orientation. -Willmcw 22:55, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bernard Goldberg complains that liberals regard liberalism as mainstream and conservativism as right or far-right. So for them, they are the center and thus need no tag. Those to the left or right of them are the only ones needing a tag.
Goldberg criticizes this usage in Bias. Elabro 17:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Puff piece

The thing is, though, with all the commentary about The Bell Curve moved out of here a year ago, we are left with little but a puff piece. This could be a publicity handout or a promo for him on the lecture circuit. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Boy, you're right. Maybe the media appearances can be cut, for starters. It sure needs work. -Willmcw 07:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Politics

aka, "Libertarian"?

The Charles Murray disambiguation page called him a Libertarian. Was that accurate? Elabro 17:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

He wrote a book titled What it Means to be a Libertarian --Rikurzhen 17:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps his politics should be mentioned in the article about him, then. Elabro 17:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Done. Elabro 17:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK that's fine. --Rikurzhen 21:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm with Elabro's first point. I don't care that he wrote a book claiming to be a libertarian, he writes for, works for, speaks for, and has expressed numerous opinions (such as traditional family values, most notably) which are decidedly social conservative. Chronicles, The Weekly Standard, the AEI are all conservative, neo-conservative and paleo-conservative outfits. Social Conservatism/Traditionalism and even paleo-conservative ideology is often compatible with libertarianism, but often they are diametrically opposed, so these two concepts should not be conflated if at all possible since there is already so much confusion in the popular culture (i.e, Wikipedia's core audience) as to the various ideologies on the right. 173.78.20.96 (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Igniting a cross

I see that someone removed the remark about Murray having burned a cross as a youth for lack of citation. At least one solid citation for this is Adolph Reed, Jr. "Looking Backward", The Nation, 259:18, November 28, 1994. - Jmabel | Talk 04:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's something rock-solid:

...They had formed a kind of good guys' gang, "the Mallows," whose very name, from marshmallows, was a play on their own softness. In the fall of 1960, during their senior year, they nailed some scrap wood into a cross, adorned it with fireworks and set it ablaze on a hill beside the police station, with marshmallows scattered as a calling card.

Rutledge [on of Murray's friends from that time] recalls his astonishment the next day when the talk turned to racial persecution in a town with two black families. "There wouldn't have been a racist thought in our simple-minded minds," he says. "That's how unaware we were."

A long pause follows when Murray is reminded of the event. "Incredibly, incredibly dumb," he says. "But it never crossed our mings that this had any larger significance. And I look back on that and say, 'How on earth could we be so oblivious?' I guess it says something about that day and age that it didn't cross our minds."

Jason DeParle, "Daring Research or 'Social Science Pornography'?: Charles Murray", New York Times Sunday Magazine, October 9, 1994. p. 48 et. seq. The specific quotation is on page 51-52. - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The relevance of this for a reference work such as an encyclopedia is due to controversiality, rather than notability or impact on his life (biography). We can add it to a controversy section if we can provide an argument for doing so (e.g. "DeParle argues Murray's work is racist because when he was 18 he..."). Can you quote the argument DeParle uses this for? --Nectar 06:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
DeParle writes exactly what I quoted above. On the whole, he seems to be attempting to write a neutral article about a controversial figure. He does not draw any conclusion. Given the frequent accusations of Murray being racist and/or racially insensitive, it seems to me that one can hardly fail to mention the cross-burning incident. Even by Murray's own explanation, it shows him on the verge of adulthood being at least "oblivious" to giving racial offense. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
DeParle's thesis is along the lines of that there's still a theme of Murray as a rebellious prankster, but even for those who disagree with him, he's a good person. This is seen, for example, in his concluding paragraphs:
In her view, Murray is still playing the precocious tricks he perfected in seventh grade, when his antics tied their teacher into knots. "He'll take off on one little piece of lint in an argument and make a furball out of it," she says.
But when the evening ends, she sends her visitor packing with a gift for her contrarian friend -- a slice of blueberry pie, freshly baked in her championship kitchen. "No matter what," she says, "I adore him." [1]
At any rate, this isn't a notable issue that comes up in the literature in discussions of Murray or of race and intelligence research.--Nectar 00:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

PRO/CON

The external links section is divided in PRO and CON links. All those links are dealing with The Bell Curve. I think it is not appropriate to make that distinction here, we'd better leave that to the specialized article. If nobody objects, I'll reformat the external links section to fit better with the contents of this article and remove the PRO/CON sections. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to see what you come up with, but I think it is valuable when links are opinionated to give a quick indication of what opinions they represent. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Quotes

The biography section is filled with misleading quotes. It is never stated who is being quoted. A casual reader might assume that Murray is being quoted about his own life, but he's not.

It is bad form to quote someone without making it clear who is being quoted. In this particular case, it is the author of the cited NY Times article who is being quoted, not Murray. This Wikipedia article never makes that clear. It appears to me that the quotes are being used as a way of plagiarizing without plagiarizing: copying text from someone else's work verbatim, then putting the text in quotes to avoid the accusation of plagiarism.

In addition, the citations don't always come immediately after the quotation, as they should according to WP:CITE. "...the citation should be placed directly after the quotation..."[2] JHP 01:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; any reason you don't want to clean this up yourself? - Jmabel | Talk 02:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Related: in the section on "The Bell Curve", the (currently short) paragraph on the title coming from the normal distribution ends with:

The message in the title is that IQ scores are normally distributed because a person's intelligence is the sum of many small random variations in genetic and environmental factors.

It's not clear where this claim comes from, and I don't see it repeated on the main page about The Bell Curve. The claim is patently absurd, given that – no matter how the results of the actual test are distributed – the process of generating an IQ score coerces the test results into a normal distribution. (One takes the actual distribution of results from a sample population, orders their scores so as to produce a cumulative distribution, then feeds this backwards through the cumulative distribution of the Gaussian to obtain the transformation of actual scores onto IQ scores. The result is necessarily exactly normally distributed, regardless of the input distribution.) Thus IQ scores are normally distributed because the process of scoring IQ tests forces it to be normally distributed, by specification, regardless of what genetic/environmental/other factors may contribute to the actual scores obtained or how they contribute.

If the claim actually represents a view expounded by the authors in the book, this should be made clear (ideally along with its absurdity); otherwise, it should be stricken.

It should also be noted that the normal distribution arises as the distribution for sums of many small independent random contributions – and it would appear that the authors do not in fact believe the contributions to IQ score are actually independent.

I'll add a "citation needed" tag to that sentence. Eddy 84.215.27.43 (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Awful article

The whole thing should be redone as far as i can see; as has already been said, it reads like a 'puff piece'.

NPOV on Controversy

The "Controversy" statement is basically a full-fledged attack on Murray, and does not in any way constitute a remotely neutral POV. Biasedbulldog 20:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section

This section should stay since Murray is probably one of the most controversial sociologists in recent history.

HOWEVER, it does seem to have NPOV, and should be REWORDED, BUT NOT DELETED.

DELETION on entire section will count as vandalism. -- 68.81.229.178

You attribute most of the claims in this section to anonymous critics, and the one citation is for the extremely broad claim that Murray "misrepresented results to support his claims" and cites an entire edited volume. Your edits are a clear and gross violation of WP:BLP, which you should read carefully before trying to reinsert this text into the article. Perhaps you should try to fix this text up here on talk before putting in the article so other editors don't have to keep removing it. Also, you should sign your talk page edits by adding for tildes at the end of your comments. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the previous anonymous poster, but Murray does misrepresent results in both The Bell Curve and in Losing Ground in order to make political points. Such lax 'research standards' should be a part of his wikipedia page. His notability stems primarily from the two books, particularly The Bell Curve, and as such should be discussed on his page. He's not known outside of right-wing think tanks as being a responsible scientist. I don't have the time right now, but when I do I will try to put something together. The problem could stem from the fact that I've not run across much academic or other peer-reviewed work on Murray outside of his work. But I don't believe this puff piece provides enough of a basis for somebody who has never heard of Charles Murray to gain an understanding of his standing in the wider intellectual community. Knightw 16:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization and Cleanup of Material

I did some editing and cleanup today on Charles Murray. I realize that Murray is a divisive figure so I focused on the man and tried to stay away from the controversy which at this point is pretty well segregated to The Bell Curve itself.

I wanted to focus on the facts of Murray's life so in the biography section I divided the material into "Early Life and Education," "Peace Corps Service in Thailand," "Divorce and Remarriage," and "Research."

I added some new material to "Early Life and Education" that shows how Murray first became interested in intelligence testing because he credits his SAT scores with getting him out of the small town in Iowa where he was born and into Harvard.

I also added some material on his six years in Thailand that illuminates Murray's interest in Asia.

Since Murray is best known for co-authoring The Bell Curve I added a very short three paragraph section on the book stating what the book is about and that fact the the findings have been controversial.

I added a section on Murray's op-eds and I plan to keep an eye on his op-eds and update this section as new op-eds appear in the future.

There was some duplication of material in the article so I did eliminate duplicate sentences and clean up the duplicates. I tried not to eliminate any material that was in the previous version when I started. Reservoirhill 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


Losing Ground

This book, _Losing Ground_, should be mentioned. It was very influential. It provided intellectual justification for the welfare reform bill of 1996. He did more than write the Bell Curve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.65.177 (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.186.213 (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Distortion?

I haven't read TBC but have read Human Accomplishment and some articles by Murray and have seen/read some interviews of him. It seems to me that the sentence-

"The major thesis around which all of his written works are based is the claim that intelligence determines essentially all aspects of success in life, and that this intelligence is completely genetic and innate in nature, immutable by any environmental factors such as social circles, family, or education."

is not merely an oversimplicification but a distortion of Murray's views. For instance in the WP article on TBC it says

The Bell Curve argues that:

Intelligence exists and is accurately measurable across racial, language, and national boundaries. Intelligence is one, if not the most, important correlative factor in economic, social, and overall success in the United States, and is becoming more important. Intelligence is largely (40% to 80%) genetically heritable. No one has so far been able to manipulate IQ long term to any significant degree through changes in environmental factors - except for child adoption - and in light of their failure such approaches are becoming less promising.

Now either the sentence in this article is an accurate statement of Murray's views, or the passage in TBC article is accurate, or they're both inaccurate but they can't both be accurate. Perhaps the author of the sentence in this article can provide quotes from Murray to support his/her description of Muuay's views. Failing that I suggest it be reworded to something like-

"A major thesis around which his written works are based is the claim that intelligence significently influences most aspects of success in life, and that intelligence is significently genetic in nature, largely immutable by environmental factors such as social circles, family, or education."Jjc2002 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Jjc2002

A lot of the footnotes seem to be out of order. And why does footnote 2 list his home address and phone number, that has now had to be disconnected. I think this entire page needs to be looked at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricandersen (talk • contribs) 19:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted 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 these 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. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be especially good to update this biography of Murray based on the latest sources now that the ArbCom case decision has quieted down the editing environment a little. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Burning" a cross

According to the source cited in the biography on Murray burning a cross as a teenager, this is what transpired: "...they nailed some scrap wood into a cross, adorned it with fireworks and set it ablaze on a hill beside the police station, with marshmallows scattered as a calling card." Is it really fair to describe what transpired as "burning a cross", with all the racist connotations, when it could be more specifically described as "destroying a cross with firecrackers"? Regardless of the man's racial views later in life, whatever they may be, it's pretty clear, at least from the cited source, that the action bore little resemblance to the KKK ritual. 116.212.152.217 (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Views on SAT

Today, I added a sentence regarding Murray's views on the SAT as per a recently published NYTimes editorial. --Elakhna 14:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010

Whenever someone writes an article on Coming Apart, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/opinion/sunday/when-poverty-was-white.html will prove invaluable. 68.191.166.52 (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of the links for pro side are not really good, it includes blog posts. Perhaps there should be inclusion of academic sources who agree with Charles Murray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.29.128 (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Flynn book blurb quote

I think the quote is essentially about the book, not Murray, and belongs there, not here. But if I'm alone in that opinion, I won't push the point. Barte (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To me, I thought it was also a statement of Murray's state of knowledge (about unspecified issues, alas) before and after reading the book, and thus a sourced biographical statement about Murray himself by Murray as well. I'm still looking for sourced statements about Murray's views on a variety of issues that are more recent in time than that. A lot has happened in the scholarly world since the publication of The Bell Curve. Thanks for your reply. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
A worthy goal. I haven't read Murray extensively, but from my limited sample, his later books are a better source of his post-Bell Curve opinions, including some reflection on that book. The problem with quoting a book blurb is that the format is inherently brief (whereas Murray as a writer is expansive) and the context is lacking: a reader here must know what What is Intelligence is about to understand what Murray was endorsing. Barte (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Azusa Pacific University controversy?

Charles Murray was disallowed from making a speech at Azusa Pacific University (which was "postponed") because of Charles Murray's allegedly controversial writings. He defends himself here. Is this relevant enough to be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wajajad (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your talk page posts. Does any other source think that this is an important issue? Is the occurrence of the event even reported anywhere else? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Many news sites have indeed reported on this issue. A quick google search brings much up, any idea which site in particular would be good to cite?Wajajad (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
This one from a local paper would work. Barte (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. I will soon make the edit.Wajajad (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Ooops--sorry, the above link was about George Will. this one might work re: Murray. Barte (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Murray (political scientist). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Caplan review of the Murray book

The Caplan review of the Murray book, discussed in the article is online at http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/an_optimists_ta.html . Therefore, there could be a link to that url. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.82.0.173 (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Columbia scholars

This statement[3] cosigned by more than a hundred (154 to be exact) professors from Columbia University seems relevant in determinining how accepted Murray's views and arguments are, and how general the view that his work contributes to forms of racism is. I will put some quotes here:

"Beginning with his 1984 book Losing Ground and taken up more fully in The Bell Curve[2] in 1994 and through his most recent writing, the corpus of Murray’s work has amounted to an ideological polemic that justifies the ongoing disenfranchisement of African Americans and other people of color, and more recently, poor and working class white people. Although his writings carry the rhetorical patina of science, Murray is largely regarded in academic circles as a rank apologist for racial eugenics and racial inequality in the United States. Murray has every right to publicize his ideas, but we have a duty to object when he does so by assaulting foundational norms of sound scholarship and intellectual integrity. We offer some important background on Murray’s writings in an effort to stand with those members of our community who are demeaned by Murray’s claims."

and

"The “reality of IQ,” he maintains, shows that the overwhelming majority of young people get “nothing” out of college and thus should be tracked in their education toward a trade where they will live a happy, if modest, life. While Murray rests most of his claims on an analysis of class, it just so happens that Murray’s analysis suggests that African Americans do not enjoy the genetic endowment that would suit them to college-level study or economic prosperity. This is an outrageous insult to a significant part of the Columbia community."

and

"The problem is that the science on which Murray bases these claims has been thoroughly debunked by a wide range of scholars. The scientific veneer of which Murray makes use is made up of references to articles published in and writers associated with Mankind Quarterly, an anthropology journal well known for its racism and anti-Semitism. The journal’s founders were apologists for Nazi eugenics policies and the system of Apartheid in South Africa, and have robustly defended the mental inferiority of African Americans. Furthermore, much of the “scholarship” upon which Murray relies was funded by the Pioneer Fund, an organization with a distinctly eugenicist and racist agenda that funded research like Murray’s that maintained that “raising the intelligence of blacks or others still remains beyond our capabilities.”

It is rare that a biographical subject is also the subject of statements like this coauthored by such a wide range of scholars, I think we should give this statement some weight in determining how to weight material in this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


Agreed. But let's be careful to note which assertions in this Columbia critique are matters of fact, and which are matters of political opinion. The following claims involve matters of fact, which are therefore either true or false: (1) many of Murray's conclusions are rejected in the academic community; (2) the science underlying his arguments comes from a journal known for racist views; (3) Murray received funding from a racist organization. These are very significant claims, and if possible, we should determine whether they are uncontested or whether there are those who deny the truth of these three claims. If they are established as true, then they should appear in this article without weasel words. BLP doesn't prevent established facts from being stated.
The following claims, on the other hand, are matters of political opinion: (4) Murray's work could be used to "justify the ongoing disenfranchisement of African Americans and other people of color"; (5) although Murray writes about class, his analysis "just so happens" to "suggest" that African-Americans aren't suited to college. These are not claims that appear in Murray's books; they are inferences that the authors of this statement have made from his books. (Note, for example, that they directly quote from Murray's claim that only 10-12% of 18-year-olds are suited for college, but then they infer from this that zero percent of African-Americans are not suited for college.) If a police spokesman states that most criminals are males between the ages of 18 and 35, this statement could be used to justify preemptively incarcerating all males of those ages, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should equate the original statement with the ways it might be used. Unless Murray himself has made comments such as those in #4 and #5, we shouldn't hang them around his neck because someone else might say them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.164.13 (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Whether it is fact or opinion is irrelevant, an opinion about a person and their research is significant and notable if held by 154 Columbia professors strongly enough to publish it. It certainly goes to show precisely why Murray is controversial and to substantiate the claim that he is widely thought to have problematic views about race (which some people in the above discussion doubted).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted that many of the 154 Columbia faculty who signed the statement are from departments like Music, Art History, and others which don't give them expertise in evaluating claims about psychometrics or the biology of race so the raw number 154 needs to be considered in light of how many on them have relevant expertise. Of course, it may still be notable the way a statement signed by notable non-expert people. How has the statement been covered in secondary sources seems to be the relevant question. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
No, that shouldn't be noticed unless there is a reliable source noting that. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, the NYTimes and Inside HigherEd covered Murray at Columbia without mentioning the open letter at all https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/03/24/murray-speaks-without-incident-columbia https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/nyregion/charles-murray-bell-curve-columbia.html CHE gives it one quote. The letter could be mentioned if we're going to discuss his Columbia visit. http://www.chronicle.com/article/Subdued-Reception-for/239590
It depends whether we would use the Columbia letter as a source for the assertion "154 Columbia professors said so-and-so", or for the assertion "Murray's conclusions are rejected by many of his academic peers". For the former, it doesn't matter that these folks are in music and art history. For the latter, it matters a lot: if 154 music professors signed a letter denying global warming, it would have very little weight as a reliable source. Per WP:RS, this Columbia letter is neither a primary source (as it's not written by scholars in the relevant fields) nor a secondary source (as it doesn't cite any scholars in his field). If the Columbia writers are correct in their claim that Murray's conclusions are "largely regarded in academic circles" as invalid, then surely there must be at least one academic article that documents this fact. And indeed there are, and they are already documented on Wikipedia (e.g., the Bell Curve article gives a good account of the academic rebuttals it received). — Lawrence King (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
There are written sevceral books and at least a hundred articles debunking the science behind the Bell Curve as well as its central argument (that social inequality is caused by differences in IQ).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
If there are notyable expert signatories then the letter deserves weight/mention. Some of the ignatories are anthropologists and psychologists who can be said to have relevant expertise. The Columbia faculty statement is criticizing The Bell Curve, which we discuss as "After its publication, various commentators criticized and defended the book. Some critics said it supported scientific racism and a number of books were written to rebut The Bell Curve. Those works included a 1996 edition of evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man; a collection of essays, The Bell Curve Wars (1995), reacting to Murray and Herrnstein's commentary; and The Bell Curve Debate (1995), whose essays similarly respond to issues raised in The Bell Curve. Arthur S. Goldberger and Charles F. Manski critique the empirical methods supporting the book's hypotheses.[26]" The wiki article on the book goes into greater detail about statements from detractors and supporters. But the argument Maunus made was that sheer number of signatories of the Columbia letter should colour the way we approach writing the entire article, which is fallacious. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course that is not fallacious, this is highly significant in establishing the weight of the different viewpoints and the degree to which Murray and his work is considered controversial and the reasons why (two main reasons 1. because his arguments rest on data considered both fallacoius and ideologically tainted, and 2. because the arguments policy recommendations he makes are considered to be directly detrimental to racial minorities). When 154 professors at a major research University sign to this, this opinion demonstrably has weight and merits weight in the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"his views are a departure from textbook sociology"

...says a recent edit commentary [4] removing the word "sociologist".

Does that mean every sociologist has to have the same opinion and is not allowed to come to conclusions disagreeing with it? Usually, a science is definied by subject and method. Murray's subject seems to be within the purview of sociology, but I gather his methods are flawed. That is the way other sciences would exclude people like him, but maybe sociology has other criteria? Wouldn't surprise me... --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Murray has specifically said he isn't a sociologist, most sources seem to describe him as PS which is what his degree is in. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Now that is a reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Picture of him

We should find one.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Goldlocks' Effect: Sen suggest that unfreedom diminishes our overall value. Perhaps as important is how 'unfreedom' effects 'Goldlocks and the Three Bears' and the author's three key greatness attributes, 1) trial and error, 2) simplicity, and 3) innovation. Murray's Law is the perpetually declining value of 'give a man a fish' programs is correct and that the ultimate harm is done to its recipients, but the ultimate harm is the disruption of freedom that kills the desire, the passion, the component of human nature to succeed which is what Goldi teaches us. Try and try again. Make decisions simple and be willing to go to step one. And finally, when all else doesn't work, even the age-old criminal intent of breaking and entering can work, even if only temporarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlewellen12 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat esoteric. More practically, one of Murray's chief findings that is difficult to explain away is that high IQ blacks from poor backgrounds tend to markedly "overperform" in the various categories listed ( educational achievement, adult socioeconomic status, etc.) compared with median black performance. Similarly, low IQ whites tend to "underperform" even if raised in advantageous circumstances. The correlation between IQ and "outcome" is strong and unrelated to original socioeconomic status, suggesting that racial differences are real. In other words, despite "white privilege," dumb whites from upper middle class backgrounds still tend to have problems in life-- because they simply aren't that smart. Smart blacks from the bad side of town tend to make it-- because they're smart. The environmental factors are less weighty and heritability more so. It shows up very strong in the aggregate, and if genetics aren't a part of the answer, you have to do some real intellectual gymnastics to find an alternative. 169.252.4.21 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Wildbest

RfC about SPLC identifying Murray as a White Nationalist

Strong consensus opposing the inclusion of the proposed text in the lead.No consensus as to the inclusion of the proposed text in the body of the article.On grounds of BLP concerns, the proposed text shall be kept out of the article for time-being unless a new consensus to the contrary over-rides this RFC.Winged Blades Godric 03:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question: Should the SPLC's identification of Murray as a White Nationalist be included in the article?

Background: The following was removed from this article:

The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies Murray as a White Nationalist who uses "racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women and the poor."[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Charles Murray". Southern Poverty Law Center. Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 23 January 2017.
  2. ^ Weigel, David. "Charles Murray, Public Menace". Slate.com. Slate. Retrieved 23 January 2017.

Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Please note the question is if the information should be included ANYWHERE in the article. To date, it has be deleted both from the lede and the body. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Include, subject to points raised by MShabazz below, namely that it must be present in the body. The SPLC stuff is attributed and therefore legitimate given its authority. Detail, the present heading in the article is "white supremacy", that would be better rephrased since the SPLC criticisms go far beyond WSup. Pincrete (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Include. I fully agree with Pincrete and Malik Shabazz. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude: SPLC is primary (and non-authoritative.) The Slate piece is a blog – not RS for standard claims, definitely not RS for "white nationalist" BLP claims. An outcome of include Include would go straight to WP:BLPN. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Include both in lede and in the body and summarize/mention in the lede (per Maunus below). Despite James' comment above, the SPLC obviously is an authority on these matters, their opinion on stuff like this is notable and regularly reported on in major news outlets, academic books and papers, etc. If it's attributed to them I see no problem. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Include, but not in lead. The SPLC is notable, whether or not it is universally viewed as authoritative, so should be in the article. However, with only secondary reference a blog hosted by a POV publication (Slate), it shouldn't be in the lead. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The same view is noted by other sources as well: [5][6]. Just sayin' Fyddlestix (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
HuffPo and a Charles Blow POV piece. If we're going to cite them, we should also note [7] and [8] NPalgan2 (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Include -- in lead and body. This is normal stuff, appropriate for inclusion with attribution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Include mention of the SPLC in the body (and probably other similar critiques since these are abundant) and include some mention of the prominent view that he supports some kind of racialist worldview in the lead - probably summarizing not only SPLC but also the other relevant critical views.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Include per Maunus's comments. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Include. (Body, not lede) (Copied from BLPN) SPLC is a primary source for its own opinion, but it is a recognised *notable* opinion on stuff like this. If it was the *only* organisation/person who thought this way about them, there would be an argument for exclusion. As it stands even a brief search shows a lot of sources that have the same opinion/view of the subject, published in otherwise reliable publications, so it is useable in the body of the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't find any "lots of sources", could you give us a couple? (Not interested in cites to The Nation or whatever). Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I would also like to see them listed. The only arguably legitimate source I see is the NY Times editorial. James J. Lambden (talk)
  • Exclude. The SPLC is a good organization but it's not an ideologically unbiased organization and they sometimes get a little overenthusiastic and cast too wide a net. The Slate piece is just a blog. Here you have "Charles Murray, a white nationalist..." but that is Media Matters, also smart people but also ideologically biased. What we want is Time or CBS denoting him as a white nationalist. I can't find an instance of that. Also, Murray denies being a white nationalist; he's not out-and-proud like Richard B. Spencer or whatever. That matters some, in a BLP. Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude from lede (From BLP/N) If it is only the SPLC making this claim, and its claim parroted by others like Salon, then it is a small viewpoint that should not be presented in the lede. It can be included in the body obviously along with his counter-claim. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Include - as per Maunus' comments, this is a pretty key feature of his public image and notability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Include - important description from a significant organization; properly given in-text attribution. Weight is appropriate as well, both in terms of placement (in body of article, fairly low down the page) and length (sufficient to establish context, but short enough so as to be proportional to rest of the article). In terms of placement in the lead section, I don't have a strong opinion, but would be inclined to omit. Neutralitytalk 06:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Include per maunus. Additionally, SPLC's views on hate groups are generally reported in the press in the US as a relatively reliable source. Yes, they are biased, but their opinions on such things are generally worth mentioning, so long as cited as their opinion and it is made clear it is just that. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude from lede as reprinting an accusation of racism in the lede when it has only been alleged by a single source violates the principles of BLP.K.Bog 05:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A couple other notes: first, the claim that he uses 'pseudoscience and misleading statistics' is a poor representation of the SPLC's article, which does not evaluate the veracity of Murray's empirical claims. A more appropriate summary quote would be that "Murray’s attempts to link social inequality to genes are based on the work of explicitly racist scientists" for example. Second, I integrated the section into the "human group differences" section before I saw this RFC, as it fit into the same topic and had very little content of its own. I'm okay with discussing it first now that I see that there is a lot of attention here. K.Bog 05:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Include in body, exclude from lede, and don't call it "identifies" - the word "identifies" implies that the SPLC has some sort of special powers of deduction. In reality, they have the same information as everyone else, and form their own conclusions. The body currently uses the words "described" and "labelled" for the SPLC's opinion, which seems a lot better. The SPLC's opinion is noteworthy but not overwhelmingly important; perhaps it says more about them than it does about Murray. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude from lede. SPLC's labeling is basically ad hominem. (At one point they labeled Ben Carson as an "extremist".) Inclusion in the text is problematic in that such stand-alone labeling is prone to WP:UNDUE. Criticisms of Murray ought to comply with Paul Graham (computer programmer)#Graham.27s Hierarchy of Disagreement. – S. Rich (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude Murray is a "white nationalist" is the same sense that Barack Obama is a Muslim, i.e., it's something that unreliable partisan organizations claim in the face of the subject's statements and behavior that refute the claim.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Well there is a significant difference in the fact that White Nationalists love Murray and his work, whereas the worlds Muslims are not great fans of Obama's presidency or policies at all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
That's neither here nor there. Moreover, while white nationalists may appreciate Murray's research, that doesn't mean that Murray shares their politics. Here's a recent denunciation of Murray's politics from a white nationalist/alt-right perspective. Does this sound like something a white nationalist would say:
I am not impressed by worries about losing America’s Anglo-European identity. Some of the most American people I know are immigrants from other parts of the world. And I’d a hell of a lot rather live in a Little Vietnam or a Little Guatemala neighborhood, even if I couldn’t read the store signs, than in many white-bread communities I can think of.
--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I do agree that "white naitonalism" does not seem to be an accurate description of his political views, and I wonder why SPLC uses that label. Regardless the fact that he is well known for views that are widely described as racist should be in the article and the lead.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
As Alice Dreger pointed out on Twitter, "Southern Poverty Law [Center] misrepresents scholars' work in an attempt to inflame passions and get attention." That's part of their (very profitable) business model.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Well I guess there is something to that argument that they might not get as much attention to their cause by labeling him a "garden variety conservative racist with a big microphone". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude from lead, but seems fine to discuss in the article in some place, as per the usual criticism of persons. I could not find any good source for Murray being a white nationalist. This label is generally just used as a smear word from ideological opponents of his research. As such, it seems to violate BLP. The Bell Curve does not contain any instances of nationalist or nationalism. Given that Murray was also married to an Asian, he seems an unlikely candidate for the label. TBC discusses immigration to the US at some length, but generally refrains from taking any strong positions. E.g. "It seems apparent that there are costs and benefits to any immigration policy and that no extreme view, pro or con, is likely to be correct." and "Whether it will be a functioning multiculturalism or an unraveling one is the main question about immigration, and not one we can answer." (p. 358). Deleet (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude (brought here by bot) I don't fundamentally have a problem including this, however, the term "white nationalist" is obviously very deprecatory and should be based on more than the assessment of a single person - corporate or actual - even if it is a generally respectable one like the SPLC. If this label has been applied to describe Murray by 3-4 disconnected, reputable groups or media outlets, I would probably !vote include. Otherwise, I think this is UNDUE. DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude The SPLC is not a reliable source, also shown by the untruths they spread about Majid Nawaz. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude SPLC is not a reliable source, and this a WP:BLP. Instaurare (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Definitely exclude from lede; exclude from article unless there are multiple sources. This can't be justified in the lede at all. I agree with DarjeelingTea that if we can find three "disconnected, reputable groups or media outlets" that characterize Murray in this way, the fact that Murray has been called this name might belong somewhere in the article. However, if we do, I think the term should be explained in that sentence: not "the SPLC calls Murray a white nationalist", but rather, "the SPLC calls Murray a white nationalist because of Murray's public support for X" (where X is one of the tenets of White nationalism, such as opposition to interracial marriage). On the other hand, if the SPLC calls Murray a White nationalism but does not allege that he supports the tenets in the article White nationalism, then the SPLC is making a false statement and it doesn't belong here. Hundreds of people accused Barack Obama of being a Kenyan, but that doesn't mean it should be covered as a fact. — Lawrence King (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Include It is a key part of his public image. Also, "alleged racism" should certainly be included - that is a more general term that is arguably the defining part of his public image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.242.134 (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Incident at Middlebury College

The term "outside agitators" is a loaded term used by one side in the debate about this incident. Might a more neutral term be used? PaulAlanLevy —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • I don't know whether it's an appropriate description of Murray, but I agree with part of the edit summary of the editor who removed it that it doesn't belong at the end of the lead unless there's a discussion of his views and why the SPLC considers him a white nationalist elsewhere in the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll try moving it to the "Research and views" section, and I'll remove it completely if the RfC results indicates it should be removed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't realize the text was present in the article when I commented. I've submitted a request to the BLP Noticeboard. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
This was removed from the body of the article and the lede, but there is some discussion of SPLC in the Bell Curve part. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It appears most editors think this information should be included, but not in the lede. Any thoughts on where and how? The Bell Curve section doesn't seem right to me as 95% of the information SPLC cites in it's claim has nothing to do with the Bell Curve. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Murray (political scientist). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

retirement

He just announced his retirement on 1/7/18 in an interview on the radio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

White Nationalist label seems inappropriate to quote neutrally.

This article neutrally quotes Southern Poverty Law Center as describing Murray as a "White Nationalist". That label is probably incorrect and seems absurd on the surface. Murray co-authored The Bell Curve with Richard Hernnstein, a Jew, and works at the American Enterprise Institute, a neoconservative think tank with some Jewish faculty. Most White Nationalists are Anti-Jewish, so the company Murray keeps would not fit in with his being a White Nationalist, and I've also never heard Murray advocate a white ethnic state, which would be the ordinary definition of a white nationalist, he's never said anything closely resembling the political platform of Kevin MacDonald. Unless significant, mainstream reliable sources describe him as a white nationalist I don't think the SPLC quote should be presented as if correct. RandomScholar30 (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

SPLC identifies all types of hate groups including black-separatists, old-school anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, as well as new-school secular white nationalists. The secular white nationalists are famous for the slogan “a white Jew is white” and call for whites of all religions to unite in the war against brown people. Secular white nationalists hold up the wall in Israel and the reallocation of land from brown Palestinians to white Jews as examples of how white nationalism should work.
I don't think Wikipedia should present the Charles Murray view or the SPLC view as correct, but should present the facts in both sides of the debate. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
"The secular white nationalists are famous for the slogan 'a white Jew is white' and call for whites of all religions to unite in the war against brown people." Nobody is famous for any such slogan, and I am unaware of any call for "whites of all religions to unite in the war against brown people."
"the Charles Murray view or the SPLC view as correct, but should present the facts in both sides" There are facts on Murray's side, but none on the SPLC's side. The SPLC only has racist and political hatred on its side.2604:2000:1580:62DA:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is the Middlebury Protest section so long?

The Middlebury protest section is too long. It is not so important a part of his life to even merit its own section. Doing so suffers from recentism, which is a principle forbidden on Wikipedia by which recent events are given undue weight compared to past events.

I believe the Middlebury protest section should be condensed to two sentences, with lots of external links for those who are particularly interested in this recent minor event in his very long career. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Eric Siegel's Scientific American article "The Real Problem with Charles Murray and "The Bell Curve"" calls the book racist

It's here. You need to read the whole article, but it concludes "With a certain eerie silence on the matter, "The Bell Curve" spurs readers to prejudge by race. Astonishingly, this tome's hundreds of pages never actually specify what one is meant to do with the information about racial differences, and never attempt to steer readers clear of racial prejudgment. That's an egregious, reckless oversight, considering this is a pop science bestseller that comprehensively covers great numbers of subtopics and caveats, maintaining a genuinely proficient and clear writing style throughout. So we must call this book what it is: racist." Doug Weller talk 16:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

While we do have sources which criticize his work as racist, there is considerable debate in the scientific community in this regard. So, rather than using the pejorative "scientific racism" label in the lede, I've re-worded the sentence and provided a link to a link that specifically discusses the Bell Curve. The SR category remains. – S. Rich (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Original wording more closely reflected sources. Volunteer Marek  07:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
But are we (as WP editors) conflating the terms? E.g., the work is based on the science of statics and it involves bean-counting in terms of race. Are the conclusions in Bell Curve "racist" per se simply because race has been considered? Are the data or conclusions or approaches inaccurate? These are points for the peer reviewers. Accordingly, do the peer reviewers say Bell Curve is pseudoscience? If not, it is improper for us to use the term scientific racism, particularly in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
And...? ∯WBGconverse 03:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

GEVAL, Scientific Racism and all that

Murray promotes Scientific Racism - there's no hiding behind the passive voice of that he is accused of such acts. Tens of hundreds of mainstream scholars support his' being a scientific racist. I am interested to hear views of editors, who think otherwise and reasoning behind it. ∯WBGconverse 17:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

"Scientific racism" is an unfortunate term. Wikipedia has an article Scientific racism, the lead of which states, "Scientific racism is a pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority. Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific." So, we use a term that has "scientific" as part of it even though the phenomenon it refers to is held to be pseudoscientific and not scientific at all. See the problem? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Since Christian Science, Scientology, Scientific creationism share that property, I think there is no big problem as long as we capitalize Scientific and Racism, so people know it is just a name. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, drop "accused of". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove extended primary source quotations?

I am writing to see if I can get input from the community on whether we should remove the two extended primary source quotations in the section on The Bell Curve. See for instance the guidance from Wikipedia:Quotations#General_guidelines: "Quotations that presents rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can be an underhand method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles". Thoughts? I wanted to check in before bold editing myself since I am aware that this is a controversial topic. Generalrelative (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is a smear from Francis Wheen quoted in the article and called a "summary"? Wheen is just a journalist, and at best, his comment is a caricature of Murray's views. It should be removed. Longitude2 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it. It's silly to have that in a biographical article of a living person. Sxologist (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Well it's been reverted. There is already a substantial paragraph dedicated to the "current scientific consensus". The statement from Wheen is fine in The Bell Curve article. It would be nice if Wikipedia could keep biographies as biographies. Sxologist (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have restored it. Any summary of The Bell Curve will need to clearly indicate the book's regressive and pseudoscientific treatment of race, and specifically Black people. Any summary which doesn't include this would be incomplete and non-neutral. The exact form of this summary can be adjusted, but whitewashing a WP:FRINGE source is not appropriate. Further, readers will expect the article to indicate to them why this book is controversial. Not just in vague terms, but specifically. This quote may not be the best way to handle this, but we will need something.
Additionally, that this quote is the only mention of Murray's views of Black people is a sign that the article doesn't properly summarize reliable sources about Murray. Many, many sources discuss this aspect of his work. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"His views on race and intelligence are now considered discredited by mainstream science" ...

This sentence is supported by articles from "The Guardian", "Vox", and a paper with only one listed citation. These sources are politically highly partisan and simply cannot be taken seriously. We all know race and intelligence is a political football - the race and intelligence page on Wikipedia is locked. There are a small number of right-wing extremists who would like to use the genetic component of intelligence for racism(although that would be quite hard since racial rankings of IQ place whites in the middle of the pack), but this is countered by a much larger group of authoritarian identity politics following left-wingers who want to pretend genetics and intelligence don't influence society.

When I have listened to academics discussing the current state of race and intelligence the conclusion they have reached is that the jury is still out. Certainly research by Robert Plomin implies a strong genetic component of IQ and that will reflect your biological parents.

Anyway casually dismissing Murray on the basis rants from highly partisan sources completely undermines Wikipedia as a reliable and trustworthy source of information. The sentence should be either removed or should simply state that some people still consider race and intelligence a controversial subject with no definitive conclusion at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.123.82 (talk • contribs)

Please refer to Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_103#RfC_on_racial_hereditarianism and WP:FRINGE. We are required to identify fringe beliefs as such. This will not be relitigated here. Generalrelative (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Murray_(political_scientist)/Archive_1&oldid=1233901462"