Talk:James Watson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Introductory Paragraph

"James Dewey Watson (born April 6, 1928) is an American molecular biologist, best known as one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA. Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins were awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".[3]"

Considering the length of his career and the scale of his achievements and the fact that he is still alive, the above is far too short; just compare it to that of Francis Crick for example:

"Francis Harry Compton Crick OM FRS (8 June 1916 – 28 July 2004), (Ph.D., Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, 1953) was an English molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist, and most noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".[2]

His later work, until 1977, at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, has not received as much formal recognition. Crick is widely known for use of the term “central dogma” to summarize an idea that genetic information flow in cells is essentially one-way, from DNA to RNA to protein. Crick was an important theoretical molecular biologist and played an important role in research related to revealing the genetic code.[3]

During the remainder of his career, he held the post of J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. His later research centered on theoretical neurobiology and attempts to advance the scientific study of human consciousness. He remained in this post until his death; "he was editing a manuscript on his death bed, a scientist until the bitter end" said his close associate Christof Koch[4]."

The first paragraph needs to be expanded, especially in the light of recent events, but mainly to do justice to such a world famous/'infamous' (media-wise) scientist; any comments please?

91.108.16.49 (talk)nitramrekcap91.108.16.49 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

added to the introductory paragraph

...He studied at the University of Chicago and Indiana University and subsequently worked at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory in England where he first met Francis Crick.

In 1956 he became a faculty member of Harvard University's Biological Laboratories until 1976, but in 1968 served as Director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, New York and shifted its research emphasis to the study of cancer. In 1994 he became its President for ten years, and then subsequently served as its Chancellor until 2007. Between 1988 and 1992 he was associated with the National Institutes of Health, helping to establish the Human Genome Project. He has written many science books, including the seminal textbook "The Molecular Biology of the Gene" (1965).

91.108.50.27 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, 91.108.50.27. Can I call you 91? There's no requirement to mirror the edits you make on the article here in the talk page. Otherwise, the talk page would duplicate the article. Just a note that you're, for example, editingthe intro to add a little more detail, would be fine. You don't even need that unless you think your edits may be controversial or for some other reason being worthy of discussion. TJRC (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi TJRC, point taken! The introductory paragraph was long overdue for expansion (see above) and I had no great desire to get involved in yet another war of words like the one over Rosalind Franklin. As far as I know there is nothing to dispute in the additional material! Yours "91". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.190.55 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Theintroductory paragraph states that "After reading Erwin Schrödinger's book What Is Life? in 1946, Watson changed his professional ambitions from the study of ornithology to genetics.[10]". Actually, in "The Double Helix", James Watson states that it was Francis Crick, not he, who was influenced by Schrodinger' book.OPragai (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

For some reason which I can only guess at, some Wikipedia users are trying to sugarcoat what Dr Watson said that led to his regignation. His comments were not in any way related to some sort of scientific study or debate. They were his personal views on a topic which he obviously feels strongly about yet apologized for. His comments are not justified under some sort of scientific freedom since frankly they are not scientific at all. In fact all science has disproved ANY notion of race what so ever. Race is purely a socio-political term and has no scientific definition. Landerman56 (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Current work ?!

I just found an article on Nature: Watson is the first human whose personal DNA was completely sequenzed. I have no idea how this could be added to the article, but I think it is worth mentioning it. Here is the reference: NATURE, 452 (7189): 872-U5; APR 17 2008 and the corresponding abstract (the full article is not free, sorry)

Abstract: The association of genetic variation with disease and drug response, and improvements in nucleic acid technologies, have given great optimism for the impact of 'genomic medicine'. However, the formidable size of the diploid human genome(1), approximately 6 gigabases, has prevented the routine application of sequencing methods to deciphering complete individual human genomes. To realize the full potential of genomics for human health, this limitation must be overcome. Here we report the DNA sequence of a diploid genome of a single individual, James D. Watson, sequenced to 7.4- fold redundancy in two months using massively parallel sequencing in picolitre- size reaction vessels. This sequence was completed in two months at approximately one-hundredth of the cost of traditional capillary electrophoresis methods. Comparison of the sequence to the reference genome led to the identification of 3.3 million single nucleotide polymorphisms, of whi ch 10,654 cause amino- acid substitution within the coding sequence. In addition, we accurately identified small-scale ( 2 - 40,000 base pair ( bp)) insertion and deletion polymorphism as well as copy number variation resulting in the large- scale gain and loss of chromosomal segments ranging from 26,000 to 1.5 million base pairs. Overall, these results agree well with recent results of sequencing of a single individual(2) by traditional methods. However, in addition to being faster and significantly less expensive, this sequencing technology avoids the arbitrary loss of genomic sequences inherent in random shotgun sequencing by bacterial cloning because it amplifies DNA in a cell- free system. As a result, we further demonstrate the acquisition of novel human sequence, including novel genes not previously identified by traditional genomic sequencing. This is the first genome sequenced by next- generation technologies. Therefore it is a pilot for the future challenges of 'pe rsonalized genome sequencing'.

Any suggestions?

Janina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.50.153.36 (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he was first, but his sequencing is covered in James D. Watson#Genome project, no? He became the second person [27] to publish his fully sequenced genome online, after it was presented to him on May 31, 2007 by 454 Life Sciences Corporation in collaboration with scientists at the Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine. TJRC (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Error?

It appears there's supposed to be a picture in the "Double Helix" inset, but judging from the Wilkins article, it's a duplicate. Mr. Raptor (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Organization

This is horribly disorganized. Did it grow that way, or did someone vandalize it? ~ MD Otley (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll find he said something disagreeable and the waveform collapsed in on itself. Only the direct intervention of a future Stephen Hawking travelling back through time and space in a souped-up Camaro was able to save the day.--Koncorde (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A son suffering from schizophrenia

James' son, Rufus, has schizofrenia. I think could be mentioned somehow. Best regards, CopperKettle (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

From an article in Independent:

But those answers may not be easy, for, as I know all too well, genetics can be cruel. My own son may be one of its victims. Warm and perceptive at the age of 37, Rufus cannot lead an independent life because of schizophrenia, lacking the ability to engage in day-to-day activities. For all too long, my wife Ruth and I hoped that what Rufus needed was an appropriate challenge on which to focus. But as he passed into adolescence, I feared the origin of his diminished life lay in his genes. It was this realisation that led me to help to bring the human genome project into existence.

CopperKettle (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It finally got added but note that it is under "personal life", even though he claims that it effects his current work emphasis.--75.36.189.192 (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV: Racist comments?

I have a problem with this sentence.

In 1994 he became its President for ten years, and then subsequently served as its Chancellor until 2007, when controversy over several racist comments forced him to resign.

Describing these comments as "racist" appears to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. A significant number of people, both inside and outside the relevant fields, consider Watson's comments to have been a valid interpretation of the Data that exists about this topic. One noteworthy viewpoint that goes against the idea of his comments being racist is expressed in this entry from the well-known science blog Gene Expression.

This is not merely a "fringe" viewpoint, as it has also been expressed in peer-reviewed publications, which cannot by definition be fringe. I would like to edit this sentence of the article to something more neutral, such as "when he was forced into retirement by controversy over several comments about the relationship between race and intelligence", with the last three words a link to the Wikipedia article about that topic.

Captain Occam (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

""racist" appears to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy" how so?

Even Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, a position inherited from Watson[50], said

I am deeply saddened by the events of the last week...in the aftermath of a racist statement...that was both profoundly offensive and utterly unsupported by scientific evidence.

The scientist Francis collins called the statements racist. Hardyplants (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In the relevant field (psychometrics), there are significant points of view which do not consider it racist to interpret the data on this topic in the way Watson did. The peer-reviewed article I linked to in my first post contains an example of this in its last section, titled "Conflicting worldviews". It also quotes what the biologist Edward O. Wilson has said about this topic:

We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm freedom and dignity.

And then quoted from Bressler:

An ideology that tacitly appeals to biological equality as a condition for human emancipation corrupts the idea of freedom. Moreover, it encourages decent men to tremble at the prospect of ‘inconvenient’ findings that may emerge in future scientific research.

One of the two authors of this paper is Arthur Jensen, who is considered by Haggblom et al. to be the 47th most eminent psychologist of the 20th century. The journal in which this paper was published, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, meets Wikipedia’s standards as a reliable source.

According to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, articles must objectively represent all notable points of view which have been published by reliable sources. Since there are notable points of view published by reliable sources stating that it is not inherently racist to conclude that a biological difference in intelligence exists between races, the article should not ignore these points of view by making this accusation.

Captain Occam (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Where do they talk about Watson's comments? Otherwise you have the wrong Article. Hardyplants (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You’re missing my point. What are people saying was racist about Watson’s comments? Of the people who have explained why they’ve made this accusation, the explanation that’s been given for it is that they consider it racist for someone to draw the conclusion he’s drawn about race and intelligence.

There are two conflicting points of view about whether this idea is racist or not, and I’ve demonstrated how the idea that it isn’t meets Wikipedia’s standards as a significant view. However, by making the claim that Watson’s statements were racist, this article demonstrates bias against the view that the idea of a difference in intelligence between races is an acceptable scientific conclusion. It is also stating an opinion as though it were a fact, when this opinion is subject to dispute. The contradiction to a significant point of view doesn’t have to be direct for it to be an NPOV problem.

Captain Occam (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your point is irrelevant, even Watson acknowledged that his statements conformed to what others called racist, he said he could not even believe he said them. NPOV means we present the facts the way others have presented the information - you have not provided any sources that relate directly to Watson's statements and the event that is reported on in the article. I am sure the topic of race and intelligence is covered somewhere on wikipedia, that is were your information belongs. Hardyplants (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"even Watson acknowledged that his statements conformed to what others called racist"

This is wrong, and it shows that you haven’t researched this topic in very much depth. You need to read the Gene Expression article, and possibly also what Watson said about his own comments. Watson specifically stated that he does not consider it racist to say what he did:

To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief...

The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity....

To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers.

I can’t understand why you’re saying that I haven’t provided any sources that relate to the event described in the article; the article I linked to at Gene Expression is about that and nothing else. And like Watson himself, this article disagrees with the Wikipedia’s article's assertion that his statements were racist.

This is not a claim of racial 'superiority' or 'inferiority', either in terms of legal worth or even in terms of overall talent - since groups all have different strengths and weaknesses. It is simply the recognition that people of different genetic heritage, on average, reveal different talents wherever they are found in the world, and there is one explanation that best accounts for these observations: evolution.

In other words, Watson was thinking like a scientist. Which is exactly why he was punished.

Are you going to acknowledge any of this information, or address the point I’ve made about bias? If not, I don’t see how it will be possible for us to resolve this, and one of us will have to get in contact with other editors about it.

Captain Occam (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't appear to have any more objections about this, I'm going to edit the article now. Please don't revert my edit without discussing it with me here first.

Captain Occam (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Watson was thinking like a scientist huh?

"The 79-year-old geneticist said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.". He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

Yeah, that is real scientific. That quote should be added by the way and I think I will do so.

Savagedjeff (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for not reading the debate so far on this, but I would note that the article mentions the racism controversy in about four different places with then other aspects of his life discussed in between. I would prefer it to be in the lead if necessary, and then dealt with in full at some point. But at the moment the article is sort of peppered with the racism controversy, and inevitably this means some content is repeated. I have no devotion to this article and I'm now going to scuttle off to look elswhere, but I leave my observation with you. --bodnotbod (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why worry? You've won. He's 16% African and has 2 X chromosomes which makes him a woman; what white nationalist will march to his lead while giving him a 'Heil Hitler' salute now?72.201.19.165 (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Other controversies

Didn't this article have mention of some of his other controversies?, for example in May 1973, the Times reported some of his statements in which he supported that a child should "not [be] declared alive until three days after birth." And was reported as saying "The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering." (May 28, 1973)[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theruteger (talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Last line

I'm sorry, but I really laughed at the last line of the article. Isn't patience supposed to be a virtue? --MoebiusFlip (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling "War on cancer" a bunch of shit ?

Did he made this comment?

Google books ("war+on+cancer"+%2B"bunch+of+shit"&btnG=Search) turns up a couple texts that says he did; one (Bathsheba's Breast) has a footnote, but the text of the footnote is not included in the preview, so I can't assess the veracity of the claim without seeing the cited source. A plain old google search turns up many more web pages asserting this, but the few I sampled don't include any good sourcing. TJRC (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Atheist?

Why does it matter that he's an atheist? It says nothing in the body of the article to suggest that he himself gave a damn about his being one--no books, articles, or lectures on the topic--just a footnote about some rabbi making an issue of it and an incidental anecdote. Shouldn't the infobox also mention whether his second toe is longer than his big toe, and whether he likes cheese or not? This strikes me as religious POV-pushing, to go around tagging all atheists. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Good argument I'm removing it as it is totally unimportant and irrelevant to the person and the rest of the article.207.172.166.181 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the reasoning behind that old 1-year edit was because some think that because he is an atheist, he must automatically be anti-religion or have views on religion. I doubt the edit was done for POV pushing from a religious side, as I think religious editors would not want to automatically call someone an atheist, rather, fight that the person considers himself as such. The time period of the edit was a time here on this Wiki where people argued extensively on whether or no to put Dawkins on pages where he had no bearing (I.e., his comment on a historian's page or a journalist's page just because they mentioned religion, when he's a biologist and says things like that all the time). I hardly think that he even cares what he is, as I hardly ever see interviews where he discusses it. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

An observation

The "Controversies" section is longer than the "Biography". A real encyclopedia would have treated the controversies in a few sentences. We're beating up on a dead guy. Even Cotton Mather let up once the witch had been hanged. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

He was as notable for his statements as He was for his work; this seems to be a common problem on wikipedia, especially for political and religious figures. Hardyplants (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"He was as notable for his statements as He was for his work" What's with the use of past tense here, the man (as of November 2010) is still alive. His mortality status aside, it's no less appropriate for an encyclopedia article to mention controversies concerning the deceased than those implicating the living. Does the biography of Joseph Stalin say "he was a real nice bloke, that Georgian with a mustache"?

67.142.172.26 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are confusing verifiable with notable/important. A statement like "He was as notable for his statements as He was for his work" suffers from recent-ism and electronic mass media (as opposed to, say book reading) and an underestimation of the significance of what he did produce in his career. This emphasis on this recent recent scandal (of little historical importance) is not a pathway to becoming "better than Britannica".--76.199.103.199 (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Some anon deleted two important sections in January 2009 dealing with Watson's main discovery. Now that those are restored, some semblance of balance is returning.--Aspstren (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The quotes are fine over at Wikiquote, so I am going to move them there.--Aspstren (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is much better. We should not be picking apart the paragraph of the article for this or that "Gotcha". Watson has already gotten Gotcha! to the max and we should not be adding to that silly media blowout because it is not NPOV. Let the reader read the whole paragraph and get the whole context over at Wikiquote because including that whole paragraph would take up too much room in a section that is seems oversized compared to man's obvious historic importance.--Livingrm (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Gates' evaluation of Watson

I think that section should be eliminated. Exactly what relevance does Gates' evaluation of Watson have in this article? Who declared Gates the expert on racialism, and BTW, where is Gates' Nobel Prize in anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.142.241 (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

External links

I notice that there are a number of external links on this page, e.g.

1. James D. Watson Collection at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Library
2. MSN Encarta biography (Archived 2009-10-31)

Please consider adding this link to an in depth video of James Watson telling his life story. The video is freely available on the Web of Stories website (http://webofstories.com):

• James Watson video at Web of Stories

Fitzrovia calling (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

One controversial turn in Watson's life relates to his comments on human intelligence in different groups. 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. It is especially important to get these issues right in the biography of a living person. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

ForMemRS

It seems a little strange to put that right after his name, given that he isn't British, and has received a ton of other honorary titles/memberships. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision 402159057 looks fine to me

Revision 402159057 looks fine to me. It is a good summary of the collaborative effort that went into the discovery. The citation is a high-quality source and back up the edit. Watson's "Double Helix" also acknowledges what discoveries he built upon. This is a critical part of how science actually works. Javaweb (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

Pauling's DNA/alpha helix structure

"In 1951, the chemist Linus Pauling in California published his model of the amino acid alpha helix, a result that grew out of Pauling's efforts in X-ray crystallography and molecular model building. Watson found out about Pauling's model quickly because it was communicated to him via Pauling's son, Peter Pauling, who had a copy of the manuscript. Watson claimed that such a model (with three central phosphate chains held together by hydrogen bonds) was easily recognized as incorrect because in an aqueous environment the phosphate groups would be ionized thus would not display hydrogen bonding and would repel each other"

This makes it sound like Pauling described the alpha helix as having three central phosphate chains etc, when it was of course Pauling's model of DNA that was described thus. Page 159 "The Double Helix". The alpha helix and Pauling's DNA structure were not announced at the same time. Revise? 139.80.123.2 (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life

I found this way too short for its own good. The guy is a genius; why should he get a flimsy two sentence description of his personal life? I've lived on Long Island for most of my life, and I've met him twice; I can say more about him from pure deduction than that weakling of a section does. Somebody who knows him well should make a major edit to that part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.109.7 (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

28th February 1953

James Watson said (quote) "Francis winged into The Eagle to tell everyone within hearing distance that we had found the secret of life." (Page 111, Chapter 26, "The Double Helix)".

Why does this quotation from James Watson need to be taken with the proverbial 'pinch of salt'?

The fact that the person said to have made the statement could not remember having said it!

In his book "genes, girls, and gamow", James Watson states (quote): "During my absence, the first newspaper article that reflected an interview with Francis Crick came out. It was in the Sunday Telegraph and reached a large audience." (from page 21, Chapter 4: Cambridge July-August 1953.)

The only problem being that the Sunday Telegraph did NOT exist in 1953, and repeated searches of the newspaper archives have NOT found any trace of such an article, with a Crick interview!

So Watson may not be an entirely reliable source for this quotation, even when repeated by the BBC; I suggest that the text and the BBC reference need to be qualified to reflect the above?

IF ANYONE CAN CONFIRM DETAILS OF THE JUNE 1953 BRITISH SUNDAY NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, DO PLEASE ADVISE THEM ASAP! Martin Packer 213.120.97.230 (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

This section is too long, in terms of an overall biography. Yes, there was much media attention, but we dont' have to repeat it all here. Apparently at one time, his extensive quotes in the Sunday Times article were put in Wikiquote; that is better than including them all here.Parkwells (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Watson is an English surname

of Anglo-Saxon origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.66.152 (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

THAT 'BRITISH' SUNDAY NEWSPAPER!

In his book "genes, girls, and gamow", James Watson states (quote): "During my absence, the first newspaper article that reflected an interview with Francis Crick came out. It was in the Sunday Telegraph and reached a large audience." (from page 21, Chapter 4: Cambridge July-August 1953.) The error was repeated by Victor K. McElheny in the biography "Watson and DNA" published in 2003.

The only problem being that the Sunday Telegraph did NOT exist in 1953, and repeated searches of the newspaper archives have NOT found any trace of such an article, with a Francis Crick interview! So Watson may not be an entirely reliable source for this quotation, even when repeated by the BBC; I suggest that the text and the BBC reference need to be qualified to reflect the above?

IF ANYONE CAN CONFIRM DETAILS OF THE JUNE 1953 BRITISH SUNDAY NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, DO PLEASE ADVISE THEM TO ME ASAP! Martin Packer213.120.97.230 (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How the story got to America

This part is important because it tells when and what the general public heard of one of the great discoveries in human history. Before I add it back, any thoughts?
--Javaweb (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

RE-INSTATED!

"The news reached readers of The New York Times on Friday, May 15, 1953; Victor K. McElheny, in researching his biography, "Watson and DNA: Making a Scientific Revolution", found a clipping of a six-paragraph New York Times article written from London and dated May 16, 1953, with the headline "Form of 'Life Unit' in Cell Is Scanned." The article ran in an early edition and was then pulled to make space for news deemed more important. (The New York Times subsequently ran a longer article on June 12, 1953)."

213.120.97.230 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

NEW YORK TIMES (U.S.A.): Saturday, June 13, 1953

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/science/dna-article.pdf

CLUE TO CHEMISTRY

OF HEREDITY FOUND

______________________________________

American and Briton Report

Solving Molecular Pattern

Of Vital Nucleic Acid

____________

TESTS BY X-RAY PLANNED

___________________________

Work Done in England, If It

Is Confirmed, Should Make

Biochemical History

_______________

Special to The New York Times

LONDON, June 12 - A scientific partnership between an American and a British biochemist at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge has lead to the unravelling of the structural pattern of a substance as important to biologists as uranium is to nuclear physicists.The substance is nucleic acid, the vital constituent of cells, the carrier of inherited characters and the fluid that links organic life with inorganic matter.

The form of nucleic acid under investigation is called DNA (desoxyribonucleic acid) and has been known since 1869.

But what nobody understood before the Cavendish Laboratory men considered the problem was how the molecules were grooved into each other like the strands of a wire hawser so they were able to pull inherited characters over from one generation to another.

Further Tests Slated

The two biochemists, James Dewey Watson, a former graduate student of the University of Chicago, and his British partner, Frances H.C.Crick, believe that in DNA they have at last find the clue to the chemistry of heredity. If further X-ray tests prove what has largely been demonstrated on paper, Drs. Watson and Crick will have made biochemical history.

Dr. Watson has now returned to the United States, where he intends to join Dr. Linus Pauling, of California, who has done most of the pioneer work on the problem.

[In Pasadena, Calif., Dr. Pauling said that the New Crick-Watson solution appeared to be somewhat better than the proposal for the structure of the nucleic acids worked out by Dr. Pauling and associates at the California Institute of Technology. The California solution was published in the February, 1953, issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.]

Dr. Crick may leave Britain, too, when he has done more work on the problem. Right now, he said "it simply smells right" and confirms research in many institutions, particularly the Rockefeller Foundation in the United States and at King's College in London.

The acid DNA, Dr. Crick explained is a "high polymer" - that is, its chemical components can be disentangled and rearranged in different ways.

In all life cells, including those of man, DNA, is the substance that transmits inherited characteristics such as eye colour, nose shape and certain types of blood and diseases. The transmission occurs at the mitosis or cell division when a tangle of DNA containing chromosomes becomes thicker and the cell separates into two daughter cells.

Forming of Molecular Chain

Although DNA has never been Drs. Watson and Crick knew it was composed of horizontal hook-ups of bases (sugars and phosphates) piled one above the other in chain-like formations. The problem was to find out how these giant molecules could be fitted together so they could duplicate themselves exactly.

By a method of scientific doodling with hand-drawn models of the molecules, Drs. Watson and Crick worked out which molecules could be fitted together with regard to the fact that some molecules were more rigid than others and had critical angles of attachment. Some months ago they decided that the only possible inter-relation of the molecules was in the form of two chains arranged in a double helix - like a spiral staircase, with the upper chain resembling the staircase handrail and the lower resembling the outside edge of the stairs.

New evidence for the double DNA chains in helical form now has been obtained from King's College Biophysics Department in London, where a group of workers extracted crystalline DNA from the thymus gland of a calf and bombarded it with X-rays.

The resulting X-ray diffraction photographs showed a whirlpool of light and shade that could be as the components of the double helix.

Dr. Crick emphasized that years of work still must be applied to the helical carriers of life's characteristics. But a working model to aid in the genetical studies of the future now has been paid out by Drs. Watson and Crick - or so most biochemists here believe.

Looks Good, Pauling Says.

Reached by telephone in Pasadena, Dr. Pauling said last night that the Crick-Watson proposals for the structure of the nucleic acids "looks very good". Dr. Pauling has just returned from London where he talked with Dr. Crick and with Dr. Watson, who was formerly a student at California Institute of Technology.

Dr. Pauling said that he did not believe the problem of understanding "molecular genetics" had been finally solved, and that the shape of the molecules was a complicated matter. Both the California and Crick-Watson explanations of the structure of the substances that control heredity are highly speculative, he remarked.

2.27.127.232 (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_D._Watson&action=historysubmit&diff=438125553&oldid=437220401 User:64.194.218.183 said, "NYT is not a science journal. What one particular newspaper publishes is not relevant to this article."

It is there to show how the discovery was understood and disseminated to the American public. A scientific journal does not do this. Anyone have a better alternative? (BTW, thanks for the explanation for the edit. It helps the discussion)--Javaweb (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Protest in Greece

Read the second paragraph of the protest in Greece section... That is definitely not neutral point of view, constantly stressing how awesome the Greek university hosts are when it's really not relevant... I would edit it myself except that I don't know anything about the event in question and have never edited Wikipedia before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.80.25 (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: this text was removed as copyvio Jebus989^✰ 22:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:James D. Watson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jebus989 (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 19:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to take this review. I've given the article a preliminary going over and will provide comments shortly. Jebus989^✰ 19:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments Overall, this article will need a lot of work to bring to GA standards. Referencing is the primary concern but the overall organisation could also be improved, as could the weighting of certain sections.

Specifics:

• Use of King's College Results has a large unreferenced section about Franklin's work, if this is verifiable through Judson (1996), it should be cited as such. Other references may be found from Franklin's article, but be sure to check them before inclusion. Examples of sentences in this section which certainly require a citation are found from "Franklin personally told Crick and Watson that the backbones had to be on the outside." up to "Franklin's experimental work thus proved crucial in Watson and Crick's discovery"

• In fact, this is a very long section which potentially places undue weight on Franklin's involvement. This is Watson's biography, after all. A heavily trimmed version could be favourable, perhaps with a link to the respective section in RF's biography.

• References are also required in 'Career in molecular biology', such as in the paragraph starting "At Harvard University, starting in 1956..." which contains no references and makes claims such as his start/leaving date, unattributed negative opinions of subjects and that he "discouraged their study"

• Another unreferenced paragraph immediately follows (the one starting "In 1968, Watson became the Director of..."). It makes several assertions of dates and facts ("Watson served as the Laboratory's Director and president for about 35 years,") as well as provided quotes from Bruce Stillman which are unreferenced

• The Career in molecular biology section could do with reorganising. You may want to consider a date-specific approach (as seen on Francis Crick). I added the 'Later career' heading to seperate two running paragraphs with did not run together chronologically... "He left the school in 1976. <p> In 1968...". This also claims he was both a full professor at Harvard (MA) and a permanent resident at CSHL (NY) for two years, which is possible but needs fact-checking
• The last paragraph of the lead needs minor clarification with respect to dates. It currently reads "In 1994, he started as president and served for 10 years. He was appointed chancellor, serving until 2007, when he resigned due to a controversial comment made during an interview". It implies he was promoted in 2004 to the level of chancellor, if this is the case, the sentence could read "He then was appointed chancellow" or they could be concatenated (e.g. served for 10 years as president and became chancellor in 2004. He resigned in 2007...)
• Some statements have excessive references (~10) of which some, on closer inspection, can be better placed after the sentence they directly verify. This issue is mostly confined to the UK book tour section

• This section could also be renamed, the focus and importance is on the 2007 interview/controversial statements etc., the book tour itself is not the focus of the text

• There were several peacock terms. Main offenders are "Watson's first textbook, The Molecular Biology of the Gene, set a new standard for textbooks, particularly through the use of concept heads—brief declarative subheadings. Its style has been emulated by almost all successive textbooks" (which also requires a citation)
• The checklinks tool found 5 dead links, which have been tagged here

There are other issues, mostly lack of references, but I will continue if/when points begin to be addressed. As more general commentary, I think the article is generally well-written, and handles difficult sections without bias. However, similarly to the Crick GA assessment, it is a solid B-class, but some way off a GA at the moment. Jebus989^✰ 20:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Due to the serious lack of references and other issues above, I have failed this nomination and the article will not be promoted to GA at this time Jebus989^✰ 11:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

May I add something to this? What you say about the "Use of King's College Results" section is precisely correct, and yet this piece of history continues to be incorrectly reported in books and in the press.

In this article, one could start with a sentence like "...before this both Linus Pauling and Watson and Crick had generated crassly non-illuminating models". The story seems to be quite misrepresented here (Watson had misunderstood an essential item of data from a talk Franklin had given), but worst of all is the description of models as being "crassly non-illuminating"...How about describing them as "incorrect"?

You can see a sort of desperation in the writing of those who are trying to 'protect' Franklin's reputation. Too much is made here (and in the article on Crick) of this one event where Franklin corrected W&C, as if that was vital to their solution. This is ignoring all the details of the fascinating story of how this discovery was made. In fact (according to Crick in 'What mad pursuit') when W&C discussed model building with the chains in/out, and Crick said "why not try [with the chains outside]?" which put them on the right track.--109.144.226.127 (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Francis Crick and James Watson

Being a Wikipedia editor does not give you the right to vandalise the FRANCIS CRICK and JAMES WATSON articles; the late Rosalind Franklin was not a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. Please desist P.Schrey!

Martin Packer, U.K. Researcher for "Francis Crick: Hunter of Life's Secrets" by Professor Robert Olby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.32.42 (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The reverted edit was not vandalism but was not supported by the reference. The Nobel Prize citation in the article does not mention Franklin. Editor Schrey, if you think her role is being slighted, please provide reliable sources to back up edits. In the meantime, the James_D._Watson#Use_of_King.27s_College_results section covers the controversy quite well. --Javaweb (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Thanks 2.24.32.42 and Javaweb for your contributions.

• First to 2.24.32.42: I can understand that you are upset if in your eyes wrong information is added to an article, and that you like to resolve this situation. The suggested flow is in that case to revert and to discuss on the talk page, see WP:BRD. However, be careful when to consider an edit as vandalism. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism.
• To Javaweb: It all started with the edit from 97.88.36.106 on article Francis Crick on 3 March 2012; reverted by user 2.27.131.155 with the edit summary "Vandalism deleted". Looking at the article Rosalind Franklin I saw that it was well referenced and describing her contribution to the discovery of DNA. So this edit was clearly no vandalism as defined by Wikipedia, but rather a content dispute. I reverted the edit of 2.27.131.155 on article Francis Crick, and the comparable edit on article James D. Watson, with the edit summary "No vandalism, Rosalind Franklin co-discovered". The next day user 2.24.32.42, same editor or related to user 2.27.131.155 (both from Birmingham UK), reverted my edits again with the edit summary "Vandalism" and left notes on several talk pages. My assessment is still content dispute instead of vandalism, but I didn't want to revert again. I'm not an expert in this matter, and I have not to all used references the access to provide a proper reply. I hope that another editor has, to describe the correct involvement of Rosalind Franklin to the discovery of DNA.

Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 22:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record ROSALIND FRANKLIN had no involvement in the "discovery of DNA" either; the structure of DNA was elucidated by JAMES WATSON and FRANCIS CRICK. No other editor will be able to prove otherwise. The suggestion that ROSALIND FRANKLIN was involved is not supported by the facts. M.D.P.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lead section

It looks like the comment preceding his resignation is a contentious topic, but can't we at least agree that that last sentence doesn't belong in the lead section? It looks like it's a definite case of undue weight, and just because the news received digital coverage doesn't mean that it takes precedent over the coverage for the long and distinguished career. (Someone reading this would presumably be familiar with the subject matter, so no need to list things out.) Unfortunately there was no Guardian or Associated Press to digitally pick up many of these stories when they broke, so the coverage is in print. The body of the article still goes over these comments. Dreambeaver(talk) 21:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Eugenics Views

I see nothing in this bio that covers the following -

In May of 1973, just four month after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion, James Watson (who won a Nobel prize for his work in discovering the double helix design of DNA) expressed his views. Writing in Prism, a publication of the American Medical Association, Watson stated, "If a child were noI t declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.96.4 (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the article or just an excerpt on a web site?

Quotes must be in context. Was he talking about ALL babies, anyone with disabilities, or just those born with terminal conditions destined to live for weeks in agony and then die? In that case, his article was advocating euthanasia not eugenics. If his views were mentioned without distorting his meaning and in context directly taken from the actual publication, it is a fine addition. However, depending on a website quoting the article as a source is a problem. Polemic websites manufacture outrage by quoting out of context to promote their worldview all the time.

--Javaweb (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

First item on provocative statements list

I removed that item because there is no source saying it's provocative. It's simply a quote from a book written by Watson. We can't use the encyclopedia's voice to assume a statement provocative. We need someone else saying it is, or commenting on it in some shape or fashion. As it stands, there's no justification for cherry picking that particular quote above any other in the book. I am removing it again per WP:BLPSOURCES specifically. This is a contentious, unsourced opinion about the book quotation. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Nobel

He's just another jerk who got the Nobel. God, what else is new. It'd be great that after these people won their "prize" everybody just quit paying attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What was this? Completely irrelevant rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc2467 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

16% African?

There was some assertion about genetic testing showing that "James Watson is 16% Black": http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/watsons-black-dna-ultimate-irony/?_r=0 can that be confirmed and should it be worked into the article? --41.150.200.56 (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What difference would it make? If he's 16% African, then he's 84% not-African. His African genetic component only comprises a minor fraction of his whole genome. Also keep in mind that, as obnoxious as he tends to be, he doesn't hold the position that, without exception, nowhere in the {Black, Female, Obese} population can there be found individuals of high intelligence. Any large population of humans is going to have a spectral distribution of intellectual abilities. If Watson is 16% Black, then even in his own estimation there's a finite probability that he's partially descended from a Negro-genius.

Visible evidence shows that any non-European percentage is much less than 16%. It would have to be about 1% to be invisible at a glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.84.93.132 (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The 16% is not possible exactly, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.255.30 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on James Watson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100910182221/http://www.cshl.edu:80/public/releases/07_statement2.html to http://www.cshl.edu/public/releases/07_statement2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100607061641/https://www.cshl.edu/public/releases/07_genotype_viewer.html to http://www.cshl.edu/public/releases/07_genotype_viewer.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110628201051/http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WireStory?id=3743042&page=1 to http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WireStory?id=3743042&page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Descent

He is in the category "American people of African descent" but I cannot see any African or African-American ancestors mentioned in his "early years" section. But see above on genetic testing (16% African?) Hugo999 (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears he's still very much the chancellor of coldspring harbor

He did retire publicly around the 2007 controversy, but I remember him being reinstated soon thereafter. He is still listed as chacnellor emeritus to this day. http://www.cshl.edu/gradschool/Non-Research-Faculty/james-d-watson 168.7.235.141 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)bdg

"Emeritus" means former. Javaweb (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

"Emeritus" means out of merit CharlesKiddell (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

File:James D Watson.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:James D Watson.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 6, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-04-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

James Watson (b. 1928) is an American molecular biologist, geneticist and zoologist, best known for discovering the double helix structure of DNA in 1953 jointly with Francis Crick. Watson, Crick, and Maurice Wilkins were awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material". Educated at the University of Chicago and Indiana University, Watson met Crick at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory in England, where they were still working when they deduced the structure. Watson wrote of the discovery in his book, The Double Helix (1968), and promoted further study of molecular biology while serving as director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) on Long Island, New York.Photograph: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; edit: Jan Arkesteijn

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on James Watson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130524143755/http://www.cshl.edu:80/gradschool/Non-Research-Faculty/james-d-watson to http://www.cshl.edu/gradschool/Non-Research-Faculty/james-d-watson
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131211150032/http://www.cshl.edu/gradschool/Non-Research-Faculty/james-d-watson to http://www.cshl.edu/gradschool/Non-Research-Faculty/james-d-watson
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150206010032/http://www.ucc.ie/en/news/newsarchive/2010pressreleases/fullstory-105821-en.html to http://www.ucc.ie/en/news/newsarchive/2010pressreleases/fullstory-105821-en.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080705140214/http://jimwatsonsequence.cshl.edu/ to http://jimwatsonsequence.cshl.edu/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071205230609/http://www.cshl.edu:80/public/releases/07_genotype_viewer.html to http://www.cshl.edu/public/releases/07_genotype_viewer.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070324005652/http://www.publico.clix.pt:80/shownews.asp?id=1288894 to http://www.publico.clix.pt/shownews.asp?id=1288894&idCanal=35
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131212182230/http://www.algarveresident.com/39699-0/algarve/cutting-edge-cancer-research-centre-opens-in-lisbon to http://www.algarveresident.com/39699-0/algarve/cutting-edge-cancer-research-centre-opens-in-lisbon
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061018060941/http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=-6927851714963534233 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6927851714963534233
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071024075358/http://www.02138mag.com/magazine/article/1488-3.html to http://www.02138mag.com/magazine/article/1488-3.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100531191720/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1424386236177531815 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1424386236177531815#28m0s
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090721042414/http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/1960basic.htm to http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/1960basic.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101229180532/http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_carty to http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_carty
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150206011311/http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-02/chf-jdw022305.html to http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2005-02/chf-jdw022305.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070207145444/http://chem-faculty.ucsd.edu:80/joseph/CHEM13/DNA1.pdf to http://chem-faculty.ucsd.edu/joseph/CHEM13/DNA1.pdf

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No "racist" in the lead

I just reverted the latest edit by Landerman56, which he seems to have originally made here. This issue was discussed at great length:

• On the talk page
• On RSN

And the consensus was that it does not belong in the article. Klortho (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't support calling the comments racist as it leads to WP:NPOV issues. People in the academic world are allowed to say hugely controversial things as long as they can produce evidence to back them up. Calling a person a racist is fine for a student protest placard, but it can be seen as an attempt to shut down debate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This scientist provided no evidence. In fact this is what led to his resignation. The referenced material clearly agrees his comments were racist. If you personally disagree then you should edit the article and provide sourced evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Landerman56, it looks like you made the changes in question on May 20th, here, but it doesn't seem that they were discussed on the talk page. The fact that no one noticed them doesn't equate to consensus. I checked the five references after that sentence and none of them support your description of his statements as "suggesting a link between human intelligence and skin color." According to this source, the LA Times article, what he actually said was "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically." So, clearly, that's closer to "geographical ancestry" than "skin color".

You are strongly pushing your own POV here, but I'd suggest you get a little more familiar with the subject matter, and some of the discussions that have gone on before -- start with the ones I linked to above. Another great source for background information might be this well-known gene expression blog post.

I'm going to put it back the way it was. If you want to make changes like that, the onus is on you to get consensus. Klortho (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to put it back since in the article it clearly states his comments were about skin color. Read his quote which is referenced in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Read the article that is referenced already. If that reference is invalid then please change it if you have substantial supporting documentation that it is wrong. If what he said was scientifically sound then please show the references to support his statements. Otherwise the reasoning for his comments is clear as the article states. If you disagree then that's your POV which is not based on fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think Watson had a serious foot in mouth moment over this, but it is important to stick closely to what he said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I reported Landerman56 for edit warring here, but haven't heard anything yet. Klortho (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Landerman56, please stop edit warring. I've reported you, as I mentioned, but I guess they are short of volunteers, otherwise I'm sure you would have been blocked. Both I and ianmacm have reverted your edits and requested, respectfully, that you try to work out consensus here before making your changes. I've tried to explain to why it's you who has the burden of getting consensus, not us. Here it is again, in a nutshell: this page existed for quite a long time in the state it was before May, which, because this is such a controversial page, is implied consensus. Just look back through the talk page archives and you'll see that just about every phrase has been discussed to death. Please, your efforts to make genuine improvements to the article would be appreciated, but here it just seems like you hate what Watson said, and want to slant the article that way. Rather than fill up the article with emotion-laden words, in the cases where there's controversy, as ianmacm said, let's just try to be as factual as possible. Klortho (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Landerman56 shows a campaign is in progress and edits like this are edit warring, against consensus, and unencyclopedic editorial commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus

The consensus for quite some time from the referenced material is the lead is fine as is. If you have further concerns you can source reputable references to back up your claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 July 2016

False accusation of Disruptive edits

Follow up from the discussion above: it appears that this user, Landerman56, has been making disruptive edits to this page since 2007, and has often been suspected of being a sockpuppet account. I added more information about this to the complaint on the Admin noticeboard. I've never encountered this situation before -- any advice or help would be appreciated. Klortho (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no shortage of disruption at Wikipedia and dealing with it will take time. Monitor the edit warring report and respond to any questions, but it would be best to not add more there because too much activity tends to drive away anyone who might take an interest. There is no problem—we just have to wait. I removed the user name from the heading as an article talk page is not the place for that. In principle a report about a user could be made at WP:ANI but that would be unlikely to help at the moment. Let's wait. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! Klortho (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no disruption. I will continue to make good faith edits to this page. If anyone disagrees with the long established sourced material then I implore you to find new creditable sources. For example the term "geographic ancestry" was never used in any sourced material however the word "black" was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence: "racist" vs. "controversial"

I've altered the sentence in the lead discussing Watson's 2007 remarks, for reasons described here Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive241#James_Watson. I presented background facts and arguments there and waited a considerable pause for responses from @Ianmacm: and @Landerman56:, frequent editors of this page who were engaged in discussion there. Now @Klortho: has reverted my edit.

For reference, here is the new text:

…after making racist comments claiming Africans and black Westerners are less intelligent than others.

With regard to the word racist, the comments are unambiguously racist, and this description is brought up by numerous RS (e.g., The Root and Henry Louis Gates, Slate The Atlantic, the Los Angeles Times). Prior discussion by @Captain Occam: argued that "racist" is controversial because of have a blog post by Jason Malloy, identified in a New York Times article as: "Jason Malloy, 28, an artist in Madison, Wis., who wrote a defense of Dr. Watson for the widely read science blog Gene Expression."[2] Malloy is neither an expert on the psychology of intelligence, nor on what constitutes a racist remark, but he is an avid amateur researcher in the WP:FRINGE viewpoint of "human biodiversity," and runs a blog called humanvarieties.org.

With regard to the meaning of the comments, Watson himself acknowledged the implications of the remarks and apologized: "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways that they have. To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief." [3]

Racism is a political position, among other things, and it's completely possible for a statement to be objectively racist, just as a remark can be pro-abolition or anti-clerical.--Carwil (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please, stop disruptively editing this page with the same unfounded smears. Next time it happens, I'll take it to ANI.

Why were you discussing it over at BLP, picking up a thread there that was six days old? I didn't know about that discussion, and there was no link to it either from here or from my talk page. Landerman56 has already been blocked for editing this part of the lead, which, I pointed out above, was discussed at length in 2007, NPOV: Racist comments?. The consensus reached way back then was to keep it out of the lead. It was a long discussion, but key points that won the day, plus some of my own editorializing mixed in:

• "Racist" has a very negative connotation, and therefore, ceteris paribus, violates NPOV.
• Watson was giving an interview as a scientist on a topic, construed broadly, within his field of expertise
• Other experts agree that his statements were true -- references are given not only to the GNXP blob but to this review paper.

It definitely should not be stated in Wikipedia voice in the lead, but if you want to inline-quote it somewhere in the body, using, for example, Francis Collins, that would make sense to do.

Calwin, perhaps you didn't know that we had an established consensus for the lead, but Landerman56 certainly did. This is a monumental waste of my time. If you want to make a similar change, discuss it here first. Since you've wasted over an hour of my time today, I'm going to take the liberty, at the risk of seeming uncivil, and ask: don't you have anything better to do? Why is it so important to you to besmirch this Nobel Prize winner's reputation? This incident has already destroyed his career, isn't that enough? Have you no decency, sirs? Klortho (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The word racist is not inherently controversial. In the case of James Watson's comments it is a simple fact that they were racist. There is zero credible scientific evidence to back any controversy over this matter. James Watson himself has admitted they were and his views have been widely condemned as being racist. To say otherwise or to hide this does a disservice to our Wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't really deserve a response, but I can't help it. Watson never admitted they were racist. That's a lie, and it's been pointed out before. Klortho (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Klortho: First, I appreciate being called by my name, not "Calwin."

Second, I picked up an active conversation on BLP, three days after the prior post, and assumed that involved editors were aware of the conversation. Following some conversation there, I waited two more days for any response before editing the text here.

Now, opinions may differs as to whether intelligence testing is outside Watson's scientific expertise, but "people who have to deal with black employees find[ing]" that they are not intellectually equal to non-blacks is straight up prejudice. No way around it.

I'm comfortable with the current text ("saying Africans and black Westerners are less intelligent than others") since this summarizes his three points (gloom re: development, testing as measure of present and future intelligence, Black employees), but just saying their are "controversial" comments about "a link" buries the lead. I'd also be open to "widely repudiated" in lieu of "controversial."--Carwil (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I put it back to the "reference" version -- the state it was in for quite a long time (I'd have to double-check, but I think at least a few years) before this past May. Klortho (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The main phrase we've been fighting over is currently worded, "making controversial comments claiming a link between intelligence and geographical ancestry". I'm not particularly happy with that, because I don't think it's an excellent summary of what he actually said, but I'm dead set against using pejorative descriptors like "racist". Those are clearly pushing your point of view, and you should be able to acknowledge, no matter how crystal-clear it might seem to you, that others disagree. He said what he said, and has been pointed out in comment threads before, his "apology" was not a retraction, meaning, in all likelihood, he stands by it. They were statements and speculations related to an important area of research, and it is not for you (or me) to second-guess a Nobel prize winner, by smearing his statements with a highly charged pejorative. Klortho (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to withhold other arguments for a minute and suggest an improvement. I think perhaps we can agree on: "widely repudiated comments saying Africans and black Westerners are less intelligent than others"? (Obviously, I'm repeating myself, but I would stand down on "racist," which is attributed in the main text, if we go with this.)--Carwil (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding reasonably on the talk page. It really is a nice change. I think you've put your finger on the heart of this edit controversy: you say it has been repudiated, but it hasn't been. I can understand that anyone who believed that it has would feel that the narrative in the article should be woven around this crucial point. I think that's why I and others ofter make reference to the gene expression blog post even though it's not used a source -- because it's the best clear deconstruction of the core issues, and provides plenty of data and references that show that what Watson said is not only true, but comports with the consensus science in the relevant specialties. A lot of people, like me, who understand this, feel that the central theme of this story is an unjust persecution of one of our leading scientists. Regarding what should be in the article, I understand it needs to comport with WP:UNDUE, but at the very least, it should not perpetuate myths (and esp. not in WP voice) that led to this travesty in the first place.

So, in what way can you justify describing this as "widely repudiated"? Keep in mind that we're not even talking about the radioactively hot-button nature-nurture question. Your suggested edit implies that somehow, the hundreds of studies that have documented a gap in IQ test scores either are all fatally flawed, or else that IQ test scores have nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Klortho (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm always hesitant to intervene in these sorts of discussions, but I feel obliged, given Klortho's apparent reliance on IQ test scores as unimpeachable support for Watson's statements. I don't have the time or room to enumerate the many difficulties with IQ testing as a reliable measure of intelligence (the Council for Reliable Genetics has assembled a nice bibliography here, for those interested), but briefly, Binet designed his tests to identify students who would need help in school, and to this day there is no conclusive proof that they do anything more than that -- certainly none that they accurately measure overall cognitive ability. On a broader scale, Watson bases his conclusions on the assumption that intelligence is all about genes, and nothing else matters; and this is quite contrary to a huge body of scientific evidence that intelligence is way more complicated than that. Genes are one part — an important part, but not the only part — of a vast web of influences, from the food we eat to the games we play to family stress to whether you grow up in Beverly Hills or Harlem to what sort of access you have to high-quality schools and teachers.

I hasten to add that this is not about political correctness. Just because we don’t like what Watson said about "all the testing" saying that the intelligence of blacks is "not really" the same as "ours" doesn’t make him wrong; it's the science that makes him wrong. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, these discussions often get derailed by side topics. If we're going to have this discussion, could we all try to be as precise and specific as possible in our assertions? I will do so.

Your main assertion, DoctorJoeE, seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) "to this day there is no conclusive proof that [IQ tests] ... accurately measure overall cognitive ability." I don't know what you mean by "conclusive proof". If you mean anything weaker than, say, a climate-change denier means when he says "there is no conclusive proof that our climate is changing", then I don't think your statement is supported by the literature. The concept of general intelligence is well defined. It's as valid a quantitative trait as many others and, while there are many different IQ tests, and each one has its own correlation to g, they all measure g to some extent. Could you provide specific references for your assertion that no IQ test accurately measures cognitive ability? I glanced through your bibliograpy and didn't see anything.

You also wrote, "Watson bases his conclusions on the assumption that intelligence is all about genes, and nothing else matters." Here, precision in our language would be really helpful. There are two absolutes in this sentence: "all" and "nothing", that render this invalid and misleading. In my experience, usually scientists who suggest a genetic component are always careful not to use absolutes, and I haven't seen any quote of Watson using them.

Furthermore, I think the nature-nurture question is a side-topic. He brings up evolution later, but the comment that "all the testing says not really" doesn't refer to genetics. In my comment above, I was trying to separate the nature-nurture question out, because it's a much more thorny and difficult, whereas the gap itself is comparatively cut-and-dry. Do you disagree with that? Klortho (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes. I think one is part and parcel of the other, in Watson's world. In order to accept his hypothesis, as I understand it, you have to accept both of his assertions that (1) genes rule, intelligence-wise, and (2) IQ tests are a reliable measure of overall cognitive ability. I was merely pointing out that objective science doesn't support either of those assumptions. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

But I think it does. How familiar are you with the latest literature? I looked over your bibiography site again, and I'd suggest that it's very problematic. They state plainly that what they do is to "provide educational resources to racial justice advocates", which clearly implies an ideological bias. For the discussion of the cold hard science; i.e., what statements are and are not supported by the research, since there is so much conflicting literature, it's crucial to evaluate sources based on their scientific quality alone. So I think that would disqualify most of the references from the Race and Genetics page you linked to, because they are from periodicals intended for lay readers (Newsweek) or by lawyers or the like that don't discuss science, but rather politics and ethics. Klortho (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The field of genetics, which is what I assume you mean by "objective science," does support the notion that genes are important and cut through other variables when it comes to, among most everything else about an individual, intelligence and educational attainment. The frequency of certain alleles leads to higher degrees of educational attainment and IQ in the same way that the frequency of certain alleles leads to increased height. You could argue that IQ tests are a white invention and tailored for the the white intellect or racist against non-whites, but that falls down slightly when you consider that asians generally outperform whites in those tests. Chess is a good test of intelligence too, and it is also dominated by whites, asians and ashkenazim. Zaostao (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I said I was hesitant to enter this discussion, and as usual, I regret doing so. Let me just repeat what I said: Genes are one part — an important part, but not the only part — of a vast web of influences on overall cognitive ability, from the food we eat to the games we play to family stress to whether you grow up in Beverly Hills or Harlem to what sort of access you have to high-quality schools and teachers. The science supports that. Further, there is wide disagreement about what intelligence consists of, precisely, and how - or even if - it can be measured in the abstract. So anyone who says that IQ test score data - or chess (how many rural or inner city kids, no matter how smart, have 6 hours/day to devote to chess, or the disposable income to travel to tournaments?) - somehow settles this issue per se does not understand the issue nearly as well as he or she thinks. That was my only point, and I'm outta here. You're welcome to the last word if you want it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I intended "widely repudiated" to describe Watson's comments, rather than all investigations of racial differences in IQ. (I'm willing to acknowledge that there's a WP:MINORITYVIEW on hereditary explanations for group differences in IQ as evidenced by the review article Klortho cited, although it isn't so far from being WP:FRINGE. Whether that view exists really does not address whether it is (a) correct, or (b) driven by racist prejudices and an overwillingness to ignore confounding variables. But that takes us directly away from RS commenting on James Watson's words.)

Now "repudiate" means two things: "to refuse to accept or be associated with," and "to deny the truth or validity of." Many people and institutions did one or both of these things: the Science Museum in London said Dr Watson had gone "beyond the point of acceptable debate" and cancelled his talk;[4] Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory asked him to resign as director;[5] we can read that "The comments effectively ended Watson's public career. He was denounced by eminent colleagues and stripped of his post as chancellor of New York's Cold Spring Harbor."[6]

I've cited several sources describing the comments as racist, and more say it is inaccurate and scientifically baseless. Since Watson himself describes the episode as leading to his ostracization as an "unperson" and the end of his public lecturing and his invitations to serve on corporate boards,[7] I think it's clear that the repudiation was carried out by a wide variety of people. Unlike "racist," "widely repudiated" presumes a verifiable set of people who did the repudiating (whom of course we would reference in the article) and does not put the judgment in the voice of Wikipedia. It is in that sense alone that I meant that the comments were "widely repudiated."--Carwil (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, given that definition of "repudiated", it's impossible to deny that indeed, he was widely repudiated. But if we focus on the repudiation, then surely the real story is how those people all betrayed science, isn't it? Even if they didn't agree with what Watson said, other scientists (esp. the Nature editorialists) had a duty to defend one of the pillars of scientific process: the right of every scientist to freely and openly express his ideas. I just discovered three more references that we could use to expand the article, and make it more balanced:

First a hero of science and now a martyr to science: The James Watson Affair – Political correctness crushes free scientific communication, editorial from 2008.

James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: Faces the consequences - editorial by Jason Malloy, 2008. I haven't read this closely yet, but it looks like it's mostly a rewrite of his GNXP blog post. This looks to me like it meets the threshold of including in a BLP.

James Watson’s most inconvenient truth: Race realism and the moralistic fallacy - Rushton & Jensen, 2008.

Klortho (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

So, it's widely repudiated, then.

I am still baffled on how we if person X "apologizes unreservedly" for a remark and say "there is no scientific basis for such a belief" that we dredge up people who do think there is such a scientific basis for it and put them in the article about person X. There's ample counterargument on these issues, for example (from Steven Rose, Stephen Jay Gould, the Council for Responsible Genetics), but the bulk of this argument belongs on Race and intelligence and not here.--Carwil (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Watson never apologized, and that's the whole point. There's no need to dredge people who agree with it, the burden is on the editors who want to change the article to be inaccurate and perpetuate the anti-science slanders that have dogged him since that event. Klortho (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If you think the quoted statement above (which ends with "I can only apologize unreservedly") is not an apology, I don't know what to say. If you think the quoted statement from Watson endorses a scientific position for which "there is no scientific basis," you need RS saying that Watson didn't mean what he plainly said. And if you can't live with the proposed modification ("widely repudiated comments") because of these concerns, then we need a Wikipedia:Third opinion.--Carwil (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Carwill on this and I think this change should be made immediately. I'll wait for further discussion however the personal opinion of a single editor will not further delay this very important update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Disagree, and note that the language is a "contentious claim" which needs consensus for inclusion at this point. Alas - as far as I can tell, consensus for the claims as worded in the edit essayed today fails. Collect (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The edit is completely reasonable change based on consensus on this page. Please do not revert thoroughly discussed edits. You may suggest an edit and we can then talk about it. The article as it stood was clearly misleading and a disservice to wikipedia readers. This change is more in line with other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If you wish the edit, then have an RfC. So far it appears to everyone else that you are in the minority on pushing the "the man is a racist" angle. Collect (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC) --> 

Reported user for edit warring again

I reported Landerman56 for edit warring again, here. Klortho (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That blocked user seems to think that numerical tests do not result in statistics. See his last edit. Collect (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence part two

So, after the above discussion, acknowledgment from @Klortho: that Watson's comments were "widely repudiated," and a week of silence, I made the edit inserting this phrase:

"when he resigned his position after making widely repudiated comments saying Africans and black Westerners are less intelligent than others."

Now, @Collect: has reverted with the unsatisfactory (to me) explanation "not. this is a clear overstepping at this point" and the rather limited argument above "consensus for the claims as worded in the edit essayed today fails." In short, there are editors who don't like this change. (Collect doesn't come out and claim to be one of them. But perhaps this will happen.) If there is an objection to the text, it had better be based on something more than "I don't like it."

Our BLP policy limits "Contentious material about living persons … that is unsourced or poorly sourced" but there is no question of sourcing here. There's as best I can tell no question that Watson's comments said that Africans and black Westerners are less intelligent. If anything, I've gone out of my way to not say "us" (his word) describes whites or Europeans. That this is verifiable can be seen by reading any of the sources writing on the controversy. Indeed, Klortho's argument above about why these comments are scientific (despite Watson's disavowal of their scientific merit) is precisely about the comparative intelligence of Africans and white Westerners.--Carwil (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Then find a specific reliable source for the claim as worded saying "Africans and black Westerners are less intelligent" . Until then, it looks like very non-neutral language is being used here. As far as I can tell, he was referring to statistical averages, perhaps you can show where he did not refer to statistical averages on standard IQ tests? And the claim was not "repudiated" (disproven) as much as criticized for being misused by racists. Collect (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggested wording

when he resigned his position after stating that different racial groups showed differences in statistical averages for standardized IQ tests.

Which is in accord with his statements. The controversy about that statement is fully covered elsewhere in the biography. Collect (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)--> 

Yes, how do you get from what he actually said,

...all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really

to

making widely repudiated comments saying Africans and black Westerners are less intelligent than others

Those are worlds apart. And, I agree with Collect that "repudiated", although technically, by the dictionary, correct, has a strong connotation that the statements were in wrong. I like his suggestion of "criticized" -- it's more precise, and more neutral. Here's my suggestion:

when he resigned his position after making widely criticized statements that suggested that Africans have lower average intelligence than other groups.Klortho (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Klortho:: You can't reduce Watson's claims to a fragment of a sentence and then restrict all interpretation to that little fragment. We actually have several claims from Watson:

1. "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"
2. Because of this, Watson is "inherently gloomy about the prospects of Africa"
3. In the paraphrase of his undisputed interviewer (who includes a direct quote): "His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that ‘people who have to deal with black employees find this not true’."
4. Finally, we have clarification from his book Avoid Boring People that he is addressing "the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated." (The Gene Expression blog that Klortho likes as a source calls these comments "more euphemistic, but still obvious, comments on race and intelligence.")

Now, if Watson were only talking about "statistical averages for standardized IQ tests" (Collect's preferred phrasing, then the first clause of 1, the argument in 2, and his generalizations in 3 would not make sense. Rather, he is clearly talking about which groups are more and less intelligent. Now, does one of the groups involved include Black Westerners? Comment 3 is entirely about Black Westerners, so yes. As Klortho's preferred blogger source James Malloy correctly infers, the groups involved are racially defined.

Moreover, Malloy (who I still don't think is an RS) also summarizes Watson's remarks in this way: "James Watson implied a belief that the uniquely low intelligence of both continental Africans and African-Americans are probably related to familiar genetic causes." I don't see how you can embrace Malloy as a source and dispute my plain reading of Watson's comments.

@Collect:: The specific reliable source is the Independent article cited on the page already. Entitled "Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners" it reads:

One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

This Independent article also verifies his repudiation:

But towards the end, the journalist, Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe, included a few disjointed quotes from Watson that effectively ended his career and his standing among many of his peers.

Malloy also describes widespread repudiation: "he was not immune to immediate expulsion from the very lab he created and built up over 40 years of his life, and excommunication from the scientific establishment that celebrated him."

So does this Guardian article which says Watson was "shunned for the past seven years for his comments linking race and intelligence."

After his remarks, Watson was (1) "shunned"/"excommunicated"/"expelled"/and lost his "standing" and (2) had the validity of his remarks denied by a long list of scientists and media outlets (cataloged, for instance in Malloy's blog post, but I can add sources if you want). Both meanings of repudiated apply here.--Carwil (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

First: Headlines are not news articles. They are written by "headline writers" to get readers. Second, you do not have consensus here for your insisted-upon claim. The article you cite says "He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade." He also said that geographically separated groups will not have identical DNA. He does not say Blacks are inferior to others. Thus your source does not support your attempted claim. He does refer to testing statistics - but statistics are not "racist" as far as I can tell. So finally - if you want an RfC, try for one. Until then it is clear that WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS do not favour your crusade. Collect (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Re your first point, I'd be happy with the text from within the RS news article I cited: "he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people."--Carwil (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not use his words from that article?

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

Rather than the inflammatory language which appears to insist he is anti-Black? He says the evolution in different places produced different genetics, which is borne out by the recent and uncontested discoveries of multiple "extinct species of man" being found in "modern DNA." Or were you unaware of the Neanderthal, Denisovan and other posited factors in human evolution? The topic is way more interesting than any simple claims of "racism" allow for. Collect (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm familiar with both the recent and shared origin of the vast majority of our genetic inheritance and the measurable (<3% except in the case of Australian and New Guinean indigenous peoples) contribution of archaic lineages to regional genomes.

None of that knowledge helps make this remark any less about Black people:

His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”

It's. A. Statement. About. Black. Intelligence. That's the clearest and most honest way to summarize it. It's extremely verifiable since it's actually what he said, and what multiple reliable sources characterized him as saying. I don't care if the article says he's anti-Black. I've given up on the plain reading that it's a racist remark, or even a racial remark. Just summarize it accurately and let Wikipedia readers draw their own conclusions.

Side point: Now, this conversation probably seems infuriating to Collect and Klortho because I'm not debating their underlying point, a minority view among scientists that genetic differences in populations explain differences in a test scores among socially stratified populations living in highly racialized societies. They don't like the majority view, that intelligence might not be an easily quantifiable thing, that tests of intelligence reflect education and social stratification rather than biological, and that knowledge of genetics is grossly inadequate to explain different capacities for complex abilities, and that dozens of hypothesized explanations of racial biological differences have turned out to be baseless products of researchers projecting their biases onto their data. Given the time, I would happily have that conversation but this talk page is not a forum for that debate. Rather it's the place to verifiably describe why James Watson became (in his words) "an unperson" in the scientific community after a 2007 interview. Let's do that without burying the lead.--Carwil (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

A geocentric model of the universe was the majority view just a few hundred years ago, that view was also held up to preserve the authority of a certain group of people. Galileo's article (if wikipedia existed in this time) would likely also say Galileo made "widely repudiated comments saying the Earth is not the center of the universe," as the educated laypeople (mainly journalists) would strongly disagree as they had bought into a different view for all of their life up to that point. The fact that the scientific community disagrees with them would also have been irrelevant as if something is not reported does it really exist?

So just like Galileo Galilei's article states his comments as having been "controversial during his lifetime", I believe Watson's article should be similar. –Zaostao (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh please, there's nothing especially novel in hypothesizing Black intellectual and biological inferiority, racialist claims which were a lynchpin of nineteenth and early-twentieth century anthropology and psychology before they were overthrown by extensive evidence and argumentation.

(FYI, You can read summaries of that process in

• Caspari, Rachel (2003). "From types to populations: A century of race, physical anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association". American Anthropologist. 105 (1): 65–76.,
• Baker, Lee D (1998). From savage to Negro: Anthropology and the construction of race, 1896-1954. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-92019-4. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help), and
• Gould, Stephen Jay. (1996). The mismeasure of man. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-31425-0..)

But if you want to believe that Watson is some modern-day Galileo offering inegalitarian heresy to a disbelieving church, fine. Just don't have him make "controversial comments on orbital mechanics." Be clear: Galileo was positing heliocentrism. Watson was positing Black intellectual inferiority.--Carwil (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Watson's statements weren't about any race in particular; look into his comments on the very non-black Irish. He's not anti-black or anti-whatever, he merely supports the notion that someone's genes are very important, and his statements were specifically about the differences between people of differing geographic ancestry due to genetic factors. You're right that racialism is not a new thing by any means—neither was heliocentrism, even the application of eugenics based on racialist facts was very popular until some guys in Germany went a bit off the rails with it.

Genetic differences between peoples has not been "overthrown", they have simply been ignored by the media and anyone who brings them up, even someone as famed and as accomplished such as Watson, or someone totally obscure who does so privately such as Stephanie Grace, has their life set back if not ruined by the cabal. But as you say, this is not a forum and I see there's a fundamental disagreement—arguing with people at my university who believe race is a social construct has never been fruitful—so there's nothing else to say other than to add my opinion along with the others that controversial should be preferred to widely repudiated. Zaostao (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

My sense is that we're reaching a loop where arguments end with "well, it's not required by policy, but I don't like it." On the other side we have WP:LABEL (which discourages "controversial") and WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

I think that a WP:RFC may be the only way out of this. However, here are two more tries. Both would place a period after "2007." In both suggestions, I'm open to either "white people" or "others" being the text we use:

• Watson resigned this position and was widely shunned after making comments implying black people are less intelligent than (white people|others).
• Following his comments to an interviewer implying Africans and black Westerners are less intelligent than (white people|others), Watson was widely criticized and resigned his position at CSHL.

Patiently yours,--Carwil (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Still no and for the same reasons that you have failed to convince editors that this is a proper edit about a living person. What we could have is him noting that IQ statistics show some groups with lower average IQs than other groups, nut he did not say anything really more than that. Statistics are a matter of objective fact. "when he resigned his position after making controversial comments claiming a link between intelligence and geographical ancestry" meets the requirements of being reliably sourced and phrased in NPOV language. Which is why consensus arrived at that wording. Collect (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)