Talk:James Watson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Geographic ancestry" - is that like being descended from an atlas?

I realise that I am cavalierly reopening a can of worms here, but regarding this phrase in the lead:

when he resigned his position after making controversial comments claiming a link between intelligence and geographical ancestry.

References

None of the cited references include the phrase "geographic ancestry" or anything similar. All but one describe his remarks as referring to race and intelligence, as do dozens of other high quality sources that aren't cited. Let's call a spade a spade here. Neither WP:NPOV or WP:BLP justify us editorializing out the word race and replacing it with the weak, euphemistic obfustication "geographic ancestry".

Amending the phrase to "...a link between intelligence and race" has the benefit of: being a completely accurate summary of what Watson said; comprehensively supported by RSes, often verbatim; clear and to the point; and facilitating a link to our very relevant article on race and intelligence (so readers can get the context of why this statement is controversial). I am sure there is a talk page discussion three archives back that compromised on this wording but really, it reads like a poor attempt at a whitewash and needs to be revisited in light of Watson being in the news again. Joe Roe (proud Mercator-American) (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I considered making an edit similar to this with the wikilink included but opted against it, though I still have little against changing it to "controversial comments claiming a link between race and intelligence" other than maybe that the linked article is shoddy.

The geographic ancestry wording is true to what he specifically said though. ("There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically") Zaostao (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think most people would understood "peoples geographically separated in their evolution" as referring to race and not "geographic ancestry" (an awkward and uncommon jargon used by population geneticists to pretend they're not talking about race). There's also more to the comments than that phrase, and other parts more clearly refer to race (e.g. Africans are less intelligent than "us", people who employ "black people" know this). Luckily, we don't have to interpret it ourselves, because we have many sources that describe the comments. We should stick to their wording. Joe Roe (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As there appear to be no objections, I've made the change. Joe Roe (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You now have an objection, noting prior discussion about accusing Watson of being "racist" implicit in the wikilink for "race and intelligence." The prior awkward wording did not have any such problems, while the new change has a major problem. Collect (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

What is that problem, exactly? Joe Roe (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The question is that once one uses "race" where Watson avoided using the word "race" one is venturing into an area which has been discussed here several times. If the prior discussions are insufficiently clear, read them again. There has specifically been no consensus to inject the word "race" into this biography. Collect (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not up to us to interpret Watson's words. Our sources overwhelmingly describe Watson's comments as referring to race and not one of them uses the phrase "geographic ancestry" (and AFAIK neither does Watson, for that matter). There may be no consensus yet on the use of the word race (you can't say I didn't try – over a week and only one response here), but what is the basis for inserting the editorialised euphemism "geographic ancestry"?

As far as I can tell previous discussions have been about describing Watson as a "racist", which is not what is proposed here. Joe Roe (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that "race and intelligence" is subject to an ArbCom decision, and, as such, any edits imputing such a position to a living person should get a consensus first. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The terms Watson uses are "Africa," something paraphrased as "black girl,"[1] "black employee," and "ours." Now, all of these could be reasonably be taken to refer to race, where just one of them refers to geography ("ours" of course works in contrast to whatever the other term is). Or we could just say that he said "Black people are less intelligent" or "people of African ancestry are less intelligent."--Carwil (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

As soon as we diverge from his wording into wording which appears racist, we are using WP:OR at best. Note that he specifically elsewhere referred to statistical averages, which relate to statements of verifiable fact. Collect (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: Thank you for the reminder but it is not necessary; I attempted to gain a consensus before making the edit, and am continuing to do so now. The Arbcom decision does not mean related articles are frozen in time, or that one editor can obstruct source-based, policy-informed changes because they personally object to them.

What is OR about accurately summarising what is in our sources – in some cases verbatim? I notice you've just purged the article of any reference to race, presumably because you feel they constitute an accusation that Watson is "racist". Nobody (as far as I know) is suggesting we describe Watson as racist. If readers (rightfully) conclude that Watson's statements look like those of a racist, that's not really on us. To reiterate, we can only summarise what reliable secondary sources have said about what Watson has said. Attempting to interpret Watson's words ourselves is WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR and has clearly led to the current, whitewashed and POV version.

I'd support with either of Carwil's alternative wordings, they are much closer to the sources and, by extension, Watson's actual words. Joe Roe (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

And, again, they run perilously close to OR as they take comments not directly related to his actual claims and present them as though they were his central point. His thesis is that intelligence is linked to genetics, and is not absolutely orthogonal to genetics as shown by statistical IQ tests. I note you state that you believe that Watson is a racist, but we must be careful not to take what you personally know to be the truth and implicitly state the "truth" to the reader. Do you see where that problem is? Collect (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please drop the condescension. Carwil and I are both arguing for a straightforward and source-based summary of the comments and their ramifications. If there is anyone trying to push their own interpretations here, it is you and others insisting that we must editorialise out any mention of race, even though it is the word used in pretty much every source that discusses this issue. I find it incredibly ironic that you are quoting Wikipedia:Wikipedia only reports what the sources say while arguing that we reject what the sources say, apparently in the name of an elusive false consensus on this talk page that we should euphemise all of Watson's comments on race. How are articles in reliable news sources exclusively devoted to these specific comments by Watson "not directly related to his actual claims"? Joe Roe (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Collect on this. Also, all of this has been discussed at length above. Zaostao (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that it has been discussed "at length" does not mean a satisfactory consensus has been reached. I fully agree with Carwil's assessment of the last discussion: '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."' It seems to be that a group of editors have decided that they WP:OWN this article and are reverting any attempt to properly cover Watson's long and dubious history of comments on race, and then filibustering good faith attempts to resolve the conflict by loudly repeating a misinterpretation of WP:BLP. That uninvolved editors keep stumbling upon this article (first Landerman56, then Carwil, then myself) and finding it a complete whitewash should be a clue to you that all is not well, but I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I think a wider, outside perspective is sorely needed. Joe Roe (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLP and WP:RS before making any charges of "ownership" of a biography of a living person. We are just following the non-negotiable Wikipedia policies as best we can. Collect (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I support reporting the content of the sources as simply and accurately as possible, and in this case it seems that it is about race and intelligence, to use the most simple and direct common language that explains what's in the reliable sources about this. We are not here to demonize nor to protect Watson but simply to report what the reliable sources say. SageRad (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view noticeboard

I've started a discussion about the sentence in the lead on the neutral point of view noticeboard to try and seek a broader range of opinions. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#James Watson. Joe Roe (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so. This is how i have come to be aware of this. SageRad (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Why remove the NY Times source

Why in this edit would someone remove the NY Times article about the subject of this article? Seems like a basic no-brainer source for an article on the person. We're not here to sanitize reputations or to slander anyone. We're here to get articles right based on the best reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And oh, look, the article supports the text that was changed in the same edit with this passage:

James D. Watson, the eminent biologist who ignited an uproar last week with remarks about the intelligence of people of African descent, retired today as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island and from its board.

SageRad (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the words "parenthetical comments" are alien - but where the article is not about the parenthetical comments, it is not a reliable source for such parenthetical comments about a living person. The goal is to find articles making statements of fact specifically as statements of fact. This has nothing to do with whitewashing, it has to do with what reliable sources can be used for, and that is generally reserved for statements of fact made as statements of fact. Collect (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The above comment including its edit summary "stick to direct statements of fact is a good rule" makes little sense to me. In Wikipedia we typically use reckonings from reliable sources to describe the topics of articles. I think the New York Times is a very good reliable source to support clear statements about Watson's unfortunate series of racist comments. Why should it not be included? Please explain your concern more clearly, Collect, and do so with direct reference to policy, please. I have no idea what you're saying above except to hear that you don't like what i've said. SageRad (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can not use the fact that you know Watson is a racist as a source. See WP:RS and WP:V. I trust the policies will make this clearer. Collect (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Nor did i say that we should use my reckoning about Watson, so your comment is making a false implication. Please retract that implication. Secondly, i know RS and V policies very well and that is exactly why a New York Times article that makes that statement is relevant here. Can i clarify anything else for you? Will you "allow" the New York Times article to be used as a source in this article? Do you object to it being used to source a reckoning about Watson's statements? If not, why not? Let's keep this on track and let's not use straw man arguments. SageRad (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm finding it extremely difficult to WP:AGF about your conduct here, Collect. Multiple editors have pointed out that statements like "Watson linked race and intelligence", "Watson said people of African descent were less intelligent" and "Watson made racist comments" are directly supported by the sources currently cited in the article. These are the "facts". You reply to them with the unfounded and nonsensical accusation that they are trying to insert their own opinions into the article, while quoting back to them the very same basic policies they have cited as if the revelation that these policies exist should erase any dispute. Do you seriously believe that Carwil, SageRad and myself are not familiar with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc.? Or are you attempting to game the system (again) by filibustering and refusing to engage in an honest discussion? Joe Roe (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have noted many times that opinions must be used and cited as opinions and ascribed to those holding the opinions. What part of that is not clear? If you have a notable person calling him a racist, the usage is "In XYX, NotablePerson called Watson a racist." That is how one ascribes and cites an opinion as an opinion. "Watson is a racist" is making a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice, and, as such, does not belong in a biography of a living person. Now again - is this clear? As far as I can tell, Watson essentially stated that the average result on standardized IQ tests was lower for people of sub-Saharan African origin. https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country Lynn's work. Collect (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that the numerous descriptions of Watson's comments as referring to race, or as racist, are opinions. They are straightforward, factual descriptions of what he said in reliable sources. And to clarify, I have never argued for stating that "Watson is a racist" in the article, nor has anyone else, as far as I'm aware. The issue is how to accurately describe Watson's comments. To use your favourite phrase, we cannot simply call interpretations of Watson's words that you agree with "facts", and ones you don't agree with "opinions".

However, in the interests of moving things forward, can I suggest one of the following wordings, which clearly mark the description as an opinion:

...when he resigned his position after making controversial comments that were widely interpreted as claiming a link between race and intelligence.

...when he resigned his position after making controversial remarks that were considered racist by many commentators.

Or this one, which is perhaps less in line with the sources but closer to Watson's, and your own, words:

...when he resigned his position after claiming that people of African origin have lower than average intelligence.

—Joe Roe (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ascribe the opinions as opinions to the persons holding them. I suggest you start an RfC with the exact sources you wish to use and the claim you wish to ascribe to them, as that is the easiest way forward. Collect (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that we discuss it more, and make completely clear our thinking about this matter, and make sure that we adhere to the policies of Wikipedia and do the best job we can as editors before going to RfC. We haven't exhausted the realm of good dialog yet. SageRad (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I like the latter as it's simplest and most direct to the facts. As for how Wikipedia works, it does indeed use reckonings about social issues, and issues of interpretation, and goes with the general consensus of good reliable sources, if there is one. If there are multiple viable points of view on an issue then Wikipedia represents all that have a substantial support in terms of reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. I've offered numerous suggestions, as has Carwil, in a good faith attempt to accommodate Collect's constantly shifting objections, and so far got nothing but "no, I don't like it" back. Posting to WP:NPOVN only brought one outside opinion (though it is greatly appreciated!), and apparently Collect views this as forum shopping. This should be a cut and dry discussion―the sources are clear―and yet it has dragged on for weeks. It's time for an RfC. Joe Roe (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then. I'm not really a fan of the RfC and we ought not to determine content by "voting" but rather by what sensibly fits the policies. But if we do an RfC, then how would you recommend it be framed? SageRad (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add back the New York Times source in any case, and for the article to summarize what it says. That seems like a no-brainer to me. SageRad (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, there's no reason to remove an RS. Joe Roe (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC on comments leading to Watson's resignation

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

---

How should the lead section describe the comments that lead to Watson's resignation from CSHL in 2007?

Background

The current stable version of the lead of James Watson describes certain controversial comments that led to Watson's resignation in 2007 thusly:

He was then appointed chancellor, serving until 2007 when he resigned his position after making controversial comments claiming a link between intelligence and geographical ancestry.

Over the past months several editors (most recently myself) have attempted to change this wording to one which they argue more accurately represents third party coverage of Watson's comments (diffs: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]). Suggestions have included:

• ...after making controversial comments claiming a link between race and intelligence.
• ...after making controversial comments about the intelligence of Africans and people of African descent.
• Watson resigned this position and was widely shunned after making comments implying black people are less intelligent than others.

These changes have been reverted by others who argue that they are not supported by the sources; or that they imply Watson is racist, and that this violates WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and/or WP:ARBR&I. Lengthy discussions on this talk page have failed to resolve the dispute, and we think a wider discussion amongst uninvolved editors is sorely needed. Joe Roe (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Proposals

Race and intelligence

Amend the sentence in question to read:

...after making controversial comments claiming a link between race and intelligence.

This wording is very close to the current version, but substitutes "geographical ancestry" for "race" and includes an appropriate wikilink. Almost all the sources on this incident describe Watson's comments as referring to race:

• "...until he resigned over the controversy surrounding his racist comments." [12]
• "...uproar over racial comments he made recently." [13]
• "...painful decision to retire in the aftermath of a racist statement he made" [14]
• "Watson was promoting 'personal prejudices that are racist, vicious and unsupported by science.'" [15]
• "Nobel prize-winning biologist resigns from his job after making racist remarks" [16]
• "He also asserted there was no reason to believe different races separated by geography should have evolved identically" [17]

By contrast, not a single source has been produced that uses "geographical ancestry" or similar, nor did Watson himself use this phrasing. Its use appears to be an attempt to shield Watson from the implication that he is racist, or to provide a description that is closer to 'what he actually said' than our sources', but in my opinion this is misguided. Both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP require us to give a neutral and balanced summary of the available reliable sources, not to protect a person's reputation or 'correct' perceived inaccuracies in secondary coverage. Joe Roe (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• What is all the counterproductive and unnecessary pussyfooting about? Courtesy of Collect we have the original remark, and we have no good-faith justification for the discourtesy or dishonesty of unnecessarily augmenting, deleting, or mutilating Watson's remarks or expression of his intent. I say quote his actual words, which are clear enough for each reader to interpret as he pleases without our insulting anyone's intelligence with our kindly assistance. The effect on the size of the paragraph would be trivial, though if WP cannot afford the extra storage, we could cut the second sentence, but I prefer not to. The text then might read something like:
  He was then appointed chancellor, serving until 2007[13] when he resigned his position after making the following statement, which some interpreted as being racist in intent: 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. Between 1988 etc...
  I do not insist on our precise wording, just his. The rest of his elaborations on the point are in the body of the text, so IMO they do not belong in the lede. However, as they are more explicit and are justified in context, there is no need to Bowdlerise the lede. JonRichfield (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any "pussy footing" except those who don't want a simple statement in the lede. We're talking about the lede in this RfC and so it's not suitable to include multiple quotes. There are multiple quotes, not just one. They have been summarized by reliable sources and summary is what we want in a lede. SageRad (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

!Votes and Comments

• It is not clear where to support this proposal, but when a section to support/oppose arises move this comment there. I oppose use of the word racist in the WP:LEAD but support the precise proposal above linking to race and intelligence. The word race actually tells the reader what the issue was in an understanable way.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Insofar as a more artful and precise description of his comments can be constructed than that which currently appears in the lead, I am convinced. That said, there's a mishmash of issues and proposals mentioned in the kind of atypically-organized RfC inquiry, so I'll just try to isolate and provide my feedback on some of the general issues here as a part of responding to the particular proposal.

So then, having reviewed the sources, I would start by saying that I would be opposed to language which specifically labels Watson as "racist" (or even labeling his comments explicitly as such in the lead, without proper context), per WP:WEIGHT concerns. Yes, we do have six sources presented (at least five of which are certainly decent-quality WP:RS) which use exactly this language. However we have a whole lot more than that out there which refer to Waton's comments through more couched and reserved language. Whether this trend in the sources is a result of a calm, empirical study of what he actually said or awkward deference to the man for his reputation and contributions is not really for us to decide here--though I for one certainly have an opinion! But rather we should just faithfully relay what we find in the sources. And because space is particularly of a premium in the lead, we need to be careful about how we qualify the claim while remaining neutral.

That said, I would support the proposed wording cited at the head of this subthread ("...after making controversial comments claiming a link between race and intelligence.") It's a good way to describe the situation that balances the weight of the sources, and incorporates a useful internal link, to an article that, by necessity, gets a lot of oversight. I would have also supported one of the other proposals mentioned above, for being particularly specific and thus allowing it to stand apart from any interpretation on our part, to the maximal feasible amount: "...after making controversial comments about the intelligence of Africans and people of African descent." I would oppose the remaining proposal ("Watson resigned this position and was widely shunned after making comments implying black people are less intelligent than others.") for being too subjective in some assessments that are rarely made in the sources, particularly regarding the statement that Watson has been "shunned". His comments didn't do his standing any favors, but I would say--especially when one considers just exactly what he said--that he has not been treated as much as a pariah as one might expect, so that implication is arguably untrue. And, in any event, the other three options (if we include the current wording) are all more encyclopedic in tone. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Watson made racist comments and resigned with shame over them. Say that. Be honest and represent sources simply. SageRad (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can be certain the emotion was shame. It could have been annoyance at all the virtue signalling social justice warriors smugly telegraphing their feel good scientific "facts" at a distinguished scientist who stated his opinion. Wouldn't you find that annoying? So basically we can't document his feelings. My Happy Safe Space (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that we cannot be certain his emotion was shame but we can better describe the context of his resignation. We can document according to reliable sources their reckoning about the context and dynamic of his resignation. By the way, i indented your comment. SageRad (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think moving forward at this point the best thing we can do is precisely ascertain James Watson's feelings when everybody said he was a bad person. Let's try to be honest here people, for all our sakes. My Happy Safe Space (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I sense sarcasm there. If you cannot be real and genuine in a dialog then please cease. Sarcasm is not welcome. If it's not sarcasm then please explain further. Anyway, sources do speak to the context of his resignation. [18] [19] [20] [21] "The circumstances in which the transfer is occurring," he wrote, "are not those which I could ever have anticipated or desired."; World-renowned geneticist James Watson today resigned as a top officer of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), in Long Island, N.Y., culminating a rapid fall from grace triggered last week by racially charged statements he made during a newspaper interview.; But the damage was already done: CSHL immediately distanced itself from Watson, issuing a statement stressing that his views were his own and not those of the institution where he had served for decades... such text is in sources about the events. Anyway, this is not the most pressing question here, but i find it relevant. Please, no sarcasm. It's unproductive here. I really don't understand why but i sense contention from your words. Please be civil and kind and discuss content without overtones or insinuations or slights. SageRad (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I have struck through (and deleted the last post) comments by a sockpuppet of Tiny Dancer 48 who was almost certainly a sockpuppet of Mikemikev. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive which will be updated later to show that My Happy Safe Space is a CU confirmed sock. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you, kind sir. SageRad (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: in the lead, write "for a statement widely regarded as racist". In the body of the article, quote the full statement. Maproom (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep something like the current version, with zero grandstanding of any kind. It isn't actually geographical, however, but about large-scale ancestry (gene pools), and often boils down to the rather loose concept of "ethnicity" in the phenotypic sense, and which doesn't really correspond to the increasingly useless concept "race" (e.g. there are numerous very distinct genetic groups in Africa, often defined as ethnicities). That there looks like a geographical component is purely coincidental; like most gene pools in any species, historical human ones tended to be somewhat geographically constrained. But only a little, given how mobile and adaptable we are. Ultimately, everyone on earth is genetically from Africa.

  It's the place of the detailed article body to explain (correctly!) the nature of Watson's comments. The fact that genetics affect intelligence (to a minor degree) is a now well-known and demonstrated, but unpopular idea, and always controversial in public discourse, and socio-politically dangerous. The idea that anyone who acknowledges anything about it can be branded "racist" in WP's own voice has to be dropped per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX / WP:GREATWRONGS. The actually reliable sources need to be contrasted with the populist sources in this article. It is true that populist sources have accused Watson of racism and/or the research he commented on of racism (generating a controversy that is itself notable but not well-grounded in facts) but this does not make them so at the scientific level. Distinguish the science from the politics. Similar work has shown certain groups, e.g. Ashkenazi Jews, as (in the aggregate) having slightly higher than average intelligence (when measured particular ways). This variability is what we would have to expect – our brains are developed organs, not magic – and it is not dramatic, any more than it's a huge shock that certain gene pools produce, on average, somewhat taller or shorter people, and others have a statistical propensity for certain medical conditions (often as a result of ancient localized trade-off adaptations, e.g. resistance to malaria, which evolved differently in different parts of the world with distinct trade-offs that differ between the populations that developed separate adaptations, or northern Eurasians' light skins, developed for increased vitamin D production also making them statistically a bit more vulnerable to skin cancer from solar radiation, and so on). The real "story" in this stuff is what nonsense the actual racists try to extrapolate from these statistical blips, and detailed coverage of that belongs at Race and intelligence and other such articles, not Watson's bio.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Agree 100% with JonRichfield - he nailed it. Quote the speaker and cite it. This should not be an issue. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

We're talking about a lede, and there are multiple relevant quotes, and they've been aptly summarized by any reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

All the more important to quote his exact words instead of depending on editors to cite whatever they interpret to be the best interpretation of what he said, which as demonstrated here, may prove controversial. Quoting the person in the lede of their own bio is not unusual, especially if it serves to eliminate misinterpretations and controversy. Why argue over such an obvious statement of fact? It's what he said so let the readers decide how they want to interpret it. The lede comprises statements of fact, and I can't think of a more encyclopedic way to state fact than quoting what the man actually said. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The Man actually said many things over several different interviews and it has been adequately summarizes sources so we are not relying on editors to summarize or characterize Watson's beliefs but rather on reliable sources to do so. We could also quote large sections of some of his writings but instead we summarize them. SageRad (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This RfC is about his original remark not a thousand other quotes. I provided my response and prefer to move on to more productive things. Let the man's own words speak for him. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support 'links between race and intelligence' for reasons expressed most succintly by Tony the Tiger. While 'geographical ancestry' may be more accurate, the adaption seems legitimate and not judgemental (as 'racist' is). This is the lead and exactly what he said is presumably explored in the body, along with accusations made by others. Pincrete (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Use Watson's actual words

Watson's statement:

""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."

would seem to be neutrally worded, and avoids the contentious "racist" label which is an opinion which should be cited and ascribed as opinion. I note also that using "headlines" from articles where the claims are not found in those articles expressed as a statement of fact qua fact is iffy. I see no reason why we should not restrict "racist" which is a contentious claim if made in Wikipedia's voice to be labeled as opinion. Stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice requires actual sources stating it as fact. "Geographically separated", by the way, does seem to use the word "geographically". Collect (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Watson did say other words as well:

Watson has said that he is “not a racist in a conventional way”. But he told the Sunday Times in 2007 that while people may like to think that all races are born with equal intelligence, those “who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. Call me old-fashioned, but that sounds like bog-standard, run-of-the-mill racism to me.

and also this:

Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that 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".

SageRad (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And the fact you know that a person is "racist" because he said "whereas all the testing says not really" and since the statistics seem to bear out his claim as a claim of fact, for whatever reason, does not compute. He made a specific statement about the statistics, and that is insufficient to call him a "racist" in Wikipedia's voice. The most you can do is use opinions cited and ascribed as opinions, and Watson's actual words. Nations and intelligence gives Wicherts' and other more recent studies, and gives a number of other potential causes for the real statistical differences. In short, if we use Wikipedia's voice to call Watson a "racist" we should call all of the authors of these studies "racist" as well. Statistics are not opinions, sad to say. Collect (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Ha! As someone who works with anthropological statistics every day, I would say even "opinions" is a charitable description. Regardless, it is not up to us to assess the veracity of Watson's claims―far more qualified people have already done that―only to report them accurately and from a neutral point of view. Please stop trying to bait other editors into a debate on race and intelligence, and please address the proposals that are currently up for discussion, rather than this "Watson is a racist" strawman. Joe Roe (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am "baiting" no one at all. I simply believe that actual quotes better serve the readers here than your conviction that Watson is a "racist." Wikipedia's voice should only be used for statements of fact, as a rule. And I am totally disinterested in the "race and intelligence" arguments as, to me, what counts for any person is their own intelligence and competence in the matters at hand. (You cited above "Watson was promoting 'personal prejudices that are racist, vicious and unsupported by science." which I took as your supporting calling his positions "racist") Collect (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am indeed getting ill-tempered with you repeatedly misquoting me. Nowhere on this talk page or elsewhere have I described Watson as a racist. Nowhere. It's absurd to suggest that citing a source means I agree with it – summarising sources (not 'facts') is what we're supposed to be doing here. Joe Roe (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My point is that when you present a quote as a basis for a claim you wish to have made in Wikipedia's voice I appear to have mistakenly thought that you wished the material to be used as a source for a claim of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Mea maxima culpa. In BLPs, contentious claims which are opinions should be ascribed and cited as opinion. That is my simple and straightforward position. Collect (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the appropriate approach here lies in a position between you two gentlemen. We absolutely should (and in fact do) directly quote Watson, regarding both his more (psuedo-)scientific quotes on race and intelligence and his more general social commentary on "black employees". But this RfC is specifically about the wording of the lead, so let's stay focused on that. We can't put those direct quotes in the lead; it would take to much space to fully attribute and contextualize them, and they would subsume too much space that is necessary to cover the topics from which Watson's main notability extends. Neither can we go too far in the other direction and "simplify" as another editor has put it above, that he is seen as a "racist"; that would be too interpretive of the sources we have here, and would just generally look insufficiently neutral and encyclopedic in tone for Wikipedia's voice. But I feel two of the four proposals on the table balance those interests quite. Perhaps an !vote on those proposals would be more helpful than trying to parse Waton's words for meaning; especially when each of you has acknowledged that it is the weight of the sources that prevails, not personal evaluations. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Very strong reliable sources have parsed his statements as being racist statements. There's nobody here wanting to call the man "racist" as far as i know, but his comments have been reckoned as being racist by many reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a few sources have (quite reasonably) dropped any pretense at dissembling and just classified his comments as blatantly racist--and by the way, if my personal opinion were a factor here, I'd agree with that assessment. But only six such sources have been put forth here, out of many hundreds which evaluated his comments and chose to use more reserved, couched or intermediate descriptors. So there is clearly a WP:WEIGHT issue with using that particular description in the WP:LEAD--where space does not exist to appropriately attribute and contextualize that statement, and balance it against the manner in which the large majority of sources have treated the comments. I have no objection to including the exact statements made by Watson (per Collect), nor in including attributable statements that Watson/Watson's statements have been described as racist (per your arguments), but both of those things are only appropriate in this instance in the main body of the text, because of the WP:WEIGHT issues. The lead has to reflect a more general tone, consistent with the balance of the sources.

Believe me, I'd like it if that balance were otherwise; if the majority of the sources called Watson's comments out as "racist" (which they clearly are!), I'd endorse that approach in a heartbeat. Having a man of his standing put these kinds of views forward is incredibly dangerous. And as someone who has spent a considerable portion of their life studying the evolutionary underpinnings of human cognition and behaviour, I assure you that I agree that Watson's statements are a misrepresentation/perversion of the consensus science on the matter. I'd go even further to say that the sources (both as regards individuals/primary sources and the secondary sources of the press) generally failed to press back against these comments with the force they should have, apparently in deference to the man's historical stature. Which is, frankly, an embarrassment for the scientific community and the press.

But all of that said, the sources are what they are and it's not our role to stamp our personal impressions on top of the topic; we need to faithfully represent the sources--and where the lead is concerned, go with the more common assessment. So, I think "racist" is out as a possibility for the lead, but those sources which use that language should continue to be a part of the dialogue in the prose of the main body of the article. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Snow, i agree with most of what you say, but i wish to trouble your numbers about sources with different approaches. There may have been 6 sources by your count put forth on this page that call the comments "racist" but there are many more such sources. I just spent 5 minutes and found this, this, this (all three from Wired). However, i do see that Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker did not use the word "racist" and neither does this New York Times opinion piece by Richard Nisbett. This article in New Scientist calls it a "gaffe". I'd say the ways that reliable sources write about the topic is mixed. I am not confident that the ratio is what you supposed above, though. All that said, as well, i was not advocating for "racist comments" to be in the lede, but if i were writing the article solo, i would say that in the body as it's the simplest expression for the comments and is used by a good many top-tier reliable sources. Anyway, i do share your empathy with Watson's ability to misunderstand the relation of race and intelligence as measured inadequately by IQ tests, and his ability to put his own foot in his mouth so badly. I respect his scientific achievements greatly. On the other hand, i think it's important to represent whole persons with their flaws and strengths, for the readers, as well as to elucidate that even very smart people can be mistaken, and to be honest about these harmful flawed ideas that continue to appear periodically within science because they resonate with some peoples' prejudices. IQ testing is a culturally-specific measure of intelligence and therefore doesn't truly measure an "objective" intelligence, and there are many conflating socioeconomic factors as well. SageRad (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

There also we are in agreement. IQ is a highly problematic topic, born from an era when psychometrics as a field was dominated by confirmation bias and weak empirical rigor. Even with the efforts made to try to rescue it with modern statistical methodology, I think most serious contemporary cognitive scientists (operating with the benefit of the last 100 years of development in the field of understanding the modularity of the mind), will tell you that it's an anachronistic notion. I will tell you honestly that I've forgotten exactly what Watson's comments were with regard to IQ, but I will also say that it's never surprising when IQ gets pulled into racist controversy--it's a big part of the model's legacy, after-all. In any event, there's no doubt that Watson's comments on race collectively are beyond the pall.

Anyway, as to your suggestion of mentioning "racist comments" in the body of the article, but not in the lead, that seems like a reasonable balance to me; the WP:WEIGHT may not be enough to satisfy placement of that language in the lead, but it certainly passes muster for mention in the article somewhere. As to the language for the lead, I like "...after making controversial comments about the intelligence of Africans and people of African descent." the most out of the four proposed options. I feel like it lets people reading the lead know the basic gist of what Watson said immediately, without the need to go into more detail until a later section. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

His statements are not just "controversial" though -- they're wrong. And they're racist according to many sources. Anyway, i am not stating my opinion or agreement on where or what to write in the article. If i were writing the article solo i'd use the simplest language and keep it short and direct and i would say "comments that many called racist" or something in the lede. I wasn't really advocating for a specific text or placement but working through this to be accurate about what i see sources saying. SageRad (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding: I'd go even further to say that the sources generally failed to press back against these comments with the force they should have, apparently in deference to the man's historical stature. Which is, frankly, an embarrassment for the scientific community and the press. A Nobel laureate was forced to resign and later sell their Nobel Prize due to some off-hand remarks, and this is not enough punishment? The immediate association with any comments on biological determinism to something "incredibly dangerous" is why the vast majority of R&I articles on here are so poor, and, on a larger scale, why many divisive topics on WP are usually terribly biased and the talk page discussions caustic. The desire to use—or insinuate—contentious labels like "racist", especially in the lede, hurts the project hugely.

I apologise if that is a tangent or if I inadvertently assumed bad faith on your part—not my intention, a general complaint, but I feel quite strongly that in controversial topics you should always err on the side of caution in order to let the reader decide where possible. To topic, I support the current wording, although "controversial statements claiming a link between race and intelligence" without the race and intelligence link in the lede to avoid opening that can of worms would be an alternative, then direct quotation and media responses being in the body as you suggest. Zaostao (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The desire by some to not include obvious and sourced content hurts the project hugely. The goal should be accuracy without bias. The premise of biological deteminism is dangerous to promote as true, and it is not true. The defense of these fringe ideas on Wikipedia is a problem. If you wish to let the reader decide, then include the hyperlink to race and intelligence. This is not about "punishment" but about accuracy for readers. 96.236.120.114 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you may have drastically misinterpreted my stance. I'm actually arguing against utilizing "racist" in the lead, not for it. The only reason I made reference to my own views on Watson's comments (which run somewhat in the other direction), was to make clear to the other editors that I was sympathetic to the "say it as plainly as possible" argument, even though I didn't think it could carry the day against the WP:WEIGHT issues in this particular case. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't share my personal perspectives at all--because they really shouldn't matter in an editorial decision that is based on faithful interpretation of the sources. But sometimes it helps in making an argument for neutrality if you make it clear that you share a perspective on the topic. But no one here is arguing for inserting their personal bias into the article (or at least, I'm not--just the opposite, I'm arguing a position that runs counter to my personal views). Most everyone here seems to understand the need for neutrality and the discussion (insofar as I've observed since responding to the RfC bot) has been impeccably civil, not withstanding the controversial nature of the topic.

I'm self-collapsing the middle section of this post because my comments run rather long here and these two paragraphs are not particularly relevant to the content matter in question and can be safely skipped for those reading for those purposes. Nevertheless, I want to set the record straight on my perspectives on the factual matters here, as they seem to have been misinterpreted.

But you've also taken my observations on Watson and extrapolated them to more general arguments that I never forwarded and would not support. I don't take a dim view of Watson's comments because I think we should chill all research or discussion into all forms of "biological determinism". Please believe me, I'm all too aware of the problem that the cognitive and behavioural sciences are a mine field for those who want to test a scientific thesis in a controversial area, and that such researchers risk having assumptions made about their motivations. But that's not the situation we are looking at here, not even by miles. Watson is a molecular biologist--he did absolutely zero work in the area of race and intelligence, nor in any other area of psychometrics or psychology. So you and I might take his opinions with a grain of salt and view him as not really substantially different from any other curmudgeon sharing his opinions on the "problems with black people", because we know that the fact that he did seminal work on the biochemistry of DNA says almost nothing about his ability to speak cogently or insightfully on the nature of race and intelligence. Other scientists can appreciate that this is like expecting a famous translator of Chinese works to speak fluent Russian--there's a common thread of a field, but their expertise are very different, and don't really translate at all. But for the average racist lacking in basic scientific literacy, comments on race from someone like Watson represent a serious source of fuel for hate-mongering. That person can go to any number of forums where racist thinking is encouraged and say "Look, the guy who 'discovered DNA' says that black people are inferior!" And that's a compelling "scientific" argument in those circles, one that can prop up racist ideology for those inclined to embrace confirmation bias. So, yes, I absolutely stand by my assessment that his expressing these opinions is deeply problematic. And one doesn't have to be for stifling scientific exploration of these topics in order to think so; the scientists who want to do research in these controversial areas that he inserted himself into want him to be quiet more than anybody, I dare say! Nor were his comments "off-hand"; he repeated them on several occasions over several years and in different forums. He made a choice to make his thinking on these issues a matter of public record. Which is, of course, his right, but if he faces financial consequences as a result of the fact that people don't want the involvement of someone who has said something of a racial/racist nature in their public interest organizations, then that's on him and no one else. But James Watson was never going to be out on the street. He sold his Nobel Prize, yes. For $4.1 million dollars. And if he needed anything near that to cover his cost of living, he's living quite comfortably. But that was his choice to auction off the medal--which, by the way, was then promptly returned to him, leaving him four million up. So I'm not shedding any tears for him there, and I'm not really sure I agree with your assessment that society chose to "punish" him for his comments, because he's looking a lot better off than most major scientific figures would be, had they said what he said.

But the editors here are neither going to try to punish Watson, nor insulate him from further criticism because "he's faced enough of a backlash". Our role here is neutral, notwithstanding the strong feelings some of us have about what the man said. I've !voted not to include the word "racist" in the lead because I feel that this was required by our policies and a reading of the weight of the sources. I think many of those sources handled the man with kid gloves, but that's neither here nor there; the sources are what the are and WP:NPOV requires me to !vote to faithfully represent what they actually said, not what I would have said in their place. But there's no question that he made "controversial statements concerning the intelligence of Afticans and people of African descent", so that language is fair play for the lead, insofar as I'm concerned. We are here neither to be an implement of public outrage against Watson, nor to be his shield against it. That's true no matter how much or how little we think Watson has suffered consequences for his comments, and regardless of whether we think the backlash was justified, excessive, or insufficient. We'll represent what he said faithfully, we will represent what reliable sources said about him neutrally, and we'll represent what we (the editors) think about the whole sordid affair not at all. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I respect this comment greatly and agree with Snow on all points. SageRad (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologise, I made that comment rather hastily and, having re-read this section, it seems that it was influenced by factors unrelated to this discussion as you've been nothing but reasonable in this. I do believe though that the media's reaction was sensationalist and that, in general, there should be very few if any restrictions on what one can say. I also don't think the possibility of some mindless bigots using an appeal to authority argument is something that should be factored in when assessing the remarks made by a Nobel laureate, but this is another digression and frankly I shouldn't have made the original comment at all as it appears as if I'm trying to start a R&I or academic freedom discussion here. Apologies for any inconvenience caused in writing out a response.

On topic, the only full sentence given in the interview that caused the backlash ("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.") supports the current wording, and giving his comments about Africa or employees of African descent specific mention in the lede is in my opinion UNDUE and carries a "Watson is anti-xyz" connotation compared to "geographic ancestry." So I'd still !vote status quo, with "controversial comments claiming a link between race and intelligence" being my second choice, then the rest of the details of the incident in the body. Zaostao (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

As follows from clarifications by Watson, he actually meant not a link between intelligence and race, but between intelligence and genes/genetics: In finding out the extent to which genes influence moral behaviour, we shall also be able to understand how genes influence intellectual capacities. [22]. But I do not see any way to fix this in lede. My very best wishes (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems clear to me he clearly meant differences in intelligence varies by race with genetic differences being the mechanism. That interpretation is backed by numerous excellent reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Did he tell "race"? Even his initial comment can be reasonably viewed as about African population, but he clarified this latter (ref above). Saying that, the controversy is notable and probably should be noted in lede, although my personal inclination would be to remove it from lede. My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

No inconvenience! It's a nuanced topic--easy to get people's positions mixed up, and I could tell from the tone of your comments that you had simply misread, and were not looking to assume bad faith. :)

Concerning the WP:WEIGHT issue, I have a different read than you. I don't see how we can say that the statement you are focusing on there is "the only full sentence given in the interview that caused the backlash"; that seems like a significantly WP:OR assumption to me. Point in fact, it's the other comments ("inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa", "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really" and "[his hope is that everyone is equal, but] people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”) which are mentioned in pretty much every source we have on this issue, and it's pretty obvious in these comments that he is talking about Africa and Africans specifically. More importantly, that's the interpretation found in our sources, by and large, and where they put their focus. In my opinion, transmuting this to a general "geographic ancestry" would not truly be reflective of our sources. What's more, the "geographic ancestry" wording, fixed as it is in that sentence, is awkward and stilted as a result of the effort to try to refer obliquely to what he actually stated.

But all of that said, I for one am not married to the third of the three proposals ("...about Africans and people of African descent."); I could also easily support the second ("...regarding race and intelligence"). I will say though, that should we go that route, I don't see the argument for omitting the internal link to "avoid that can of worms"; the entire reason that we have internal links is just this scenario. As a matter of standard practice and principle, we don't hide our own articles from readers because we are worried that they won't be able to parse how they are related to the article they are currently reading; we're in the business of providing knowledge and context (so that the reader can integrate it and come to their own conclusions), not avoiding it. Just my two cents, anyway.

Since I may not get another chance to comment at length again in the next few days, here, for the record is my !support for each of the proposals forwarded (including the status quo version), in order from most to least favoured: 1) "...after making controversial comments about the intelligence of Africans and people of African descent." 2) "...after making comments implying black people are less intelligent than others." 3) "...after making controversial comments claiming a link between race and intelligence." (with link, preferably) 4) "...after making controversial comments claiming a link between intelligence and geographical ancestry." (status quo version), and 5) "...and was widely shunned after making racist comments." (by far my least favourite; per my comments above, I would oppose anything for the lead that explicitly labels Watson or his comments as racist or makes the claim that he is a pariah, per WP:WEIGHT concerns). Good luck guys and gals! Snow ^{let's rap} 03:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we should focus on a proposed re-wording of the lead and not all of these side arguments. We cannot simply choose one quote over another from Watson so it's best to summarize what he said that ultimately led to his widespread condemnation and forced resignation. Those things are what really is the facts as they pertain to the arc of watsons' biography not the validity of his comments. Landerman56 (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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

personal attacks in edit summaries

Are contrary to Wikipedia rules. Kindly avoid such. Collect (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Edit summaries should describe the edit. Any extended reasoning should be worked out on the talk page. SageRad (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

However, i am not sure what "RC-challenged" means. Any idea? And, user Collect has given me some kind of request/warning here to self-revert so what i did was to roll back the article to the old (and in my opinion very bad and inaccurate) version, which really feels wrong to do, but i have to go to work and don't have time for this right now.

We could use (1) clarification from Steeletrap about what "RC-challenged" means in the edit summary of this edit (which i agree with fully by the way, the edit not the edit summary).

We could use explanation from Paul Keller about this edit -- does Paul Keller mean to claim that it's an established fact that there is a link between race and intelligence? If so, that would not fly in my opinion here. That would be taking a side on this controversy and it would be taking the wrong side if anything. They are claims, not a fact.

And then we have user Collect reverting the word "race" back to "genetics" which is a very poor edit in my opinion, as the controversy and the comments were both definitely about race. Nobody denies that genetics has much to do with intelligence, but the really controversial question here is whether there are large racial differences in intelligence due to genetics and i do not believe there are, nor do most reliable sources i've seen. And the edit summary of Collect's edit was "and do NOT make attacks in edit summaries please - this is beyond absurd" which is not about the edit -- doesn't give a reason nor even description of the edit. So we could use that as well.

Thanks. Let us all be civil and speak clearly without personal attacks (and this does not mean to imply personal attacks were made). SageRad (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A lot of time has passed and still no response from any of the three editors whom i pinged, so i am going to change the text to that which makes the most sense to my mind, and what i read as the most common response to the ongoing RfC above. Let the record show that i attempted discussion here, and in fact responded to the request to self-revert by Collect at my user talk page, even though i do not think it is justified by policy. Let's see if the RfC gets any more action. Currently the article still reads "geographic ancestry" in the lede, while many think that "race" is more direct and accurate. SageRad (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

My position is clear - if we use anything in the lede, we should use Watson's exact words. Is this understood? Collect (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither block quotes nor anything remotely that detailed are typical for a lead--nor very appropriate, imo. We need a very brief summary here, or else this element of the article will overwhelm the lead, when it's just a small portion of Watson's notability. I think we can faithfully summarize the situation with prose without putting spin on the matter. There's really no question as to whether Watson was talking about race (rather than geography); his own words make that clear, and I don't think the man himself would view that statement as mis-representative. More importantly, that's the take of our sources, almost to a one. In short, I'll support SageRed's proposal as a reasonable middle ground solution and a fair reading of consensus and will not oppose the implementation he suggests, unless there is further commentary in the next little while. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not suggest "block quotes", only that Watson's own words are a clear indication of what he actually said. You are certain that Watson was speaking about race and saying Blacks are inferior, when his words say nothing of the sort. Further, I note that the amount of walls of text trying to keep anyone else from actually talking about the gist of the BLP issue is keeping others from giving opinions at all. Collect (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

There are many quotes from Watson regarding this topic, including what is reported as he told the Sunday Times in 2007 that while people may like to think that all races are born with equal intelligence, those “who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. in The Guardian. We use reliable sources to interpret things like this. The reliable sources generally seem to agree that he was talking about race, which may have evolutionary origins in geographic ancestry, but in the modern world is more accurately summarized by the word "race" as has been done by the sources that reported on this matter. SageRad (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Collect: A) Again, whatever the format (block or otherwise) we cannot include all of Watson's quotes on this topic without overwhelming the lead and making his comments seem like a larger part of his notability than is the case, which would run directly counter to your own BLP concern. Choosing just one comment as the "main" comment reflecting his views on these issues, when our sources almost all comment on them collectively, would be pure WP:Original research, which would not just allow bias into the article, but do so in the lead, which to some degree shapes how readers will parse the issue throughout the article. B) No one is advocating for wording based on "what they are certain Watson said". If you re-read the post you responded to (and just about every post of everyone who has responded to the RfC so far) you will find we are discussing how to represent what THE SOURCES say about Watson's comments, these being the only relevant impressions that we can predicate our content on. Even the most cursory review of available sources will demonstrate for you that they almost all refer to Dr. Watson's controversial comments as being about race; not a single one of them refers to "geographic ancestry". Also, and please don't take this too personally, but your observation that Watson "has never said anything of the sort" regarding comments that blacks might be inferior to others suggests that you have not yet bothered to investigate the material presently in the article, because one of quote's covered by the article (which SageRad has supplied in his post immediately above and which has been in the article for a long while) says literally exactly that, more or less word for word.

All of that said, if you are opposed to that wording, then we can wait for further comment. Definetly no one is trying to stifle discussion here nor run away with the process; my interpretation of SR's comments is that he was only going to institute that change because discussion seemed to have stalled here, but there's no rush here, ultimately. Snow ^{let's rap} 16:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Snow_Rise and Collect, i have not made an edit. I decided to hold off to work toward a consensus here on the talk page. We also have the RfC still in progress.

One thing i note is that i think that Collect is not advocating for block quotes in the lede, but rather i think Collect is saying that to their mind, one of Watson's quote supports the "geographic ancestry" wording. However, i pointed out that there are many quotes by Watson, and more relevant is that Watson's statements have been parsed by many relevant sources, so we can use these instead of interpreting or quoting Watson himself. Is that a fair assessment to both of you? SageRad (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

My point is that the words of Watson himself are "best evidence" for what Watson said. All else is interpretation or opinion regarding what he actually said specifically. "Parsing" is "opinion" no matter how you "parse" it. Wikipedia prefers facts over opinions in biographies of living persons. Collect (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I wish I had a more nuanced and diplomatic way of saying this so as not to make this situation confrontational, but that is simply fundamentally wrong with regard to the longest-standing and most basic of Wikipedia policy and procedure on WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. We don't insert ourselves into the process of determining what "proper evidence" for a claim is. We merely evaluate what the WP:reliable sources say on a matter, measure the WP:WEIGHT issues involved between those sources, and tailor our content to accurately reflect the sources, attributing in detail where we can (main body of the article) and summarizing where necessary (as in the lead--where, in this instance, we can't discuss Watson's comments at length without making them seem like a larger part of his notability than is actually the case). The approach you are suggesting would have us arguing in circles from our own biases, which is one (of a huge list) of reasons why the Wikipedia community rejected that as a valid editorial process almost fifteen years ago and never looked back.

Wikipedia routinely relays opinions in addition to facts, so long as they are well-attributed and not presented in our voice. When there is disagreement about how to characterize an event or circumstance, we go with the weight of how our reliable sources define it, not the perspectives of our editors, no matter how many "facts" we think we are armed with and no matter how superior we BELIEVE our knowledge is to that of the reliable sources. Maybe I've just massively misinterpreted what you intended to say there--if so, my apologies--but on the face of your comments, you seem to be advocating for an approach that turns several of Wikipedia's pillar policies completely on their head. Not only that, but in this case you will actually undermine the very content you are trying to advocate for, because if the editors were left to their own opinions as to what Watson "actually said in his own words" (as opposed to the RS evaluation of his comments) then we will end up with a lead labeling his comments as explicitly racist, which is not a result I think either you or I view as appropriate, albeit for different reasons. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I do agree with Snow about the way Wikipedia works, in terms of how we edit based on reliable sources for interpretations and weighting of content. I think this is well documented in the policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV. SageRad (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the wording of the lead has never had consensus and sorely needed to be changed so as not to mislead our readers. Editors should never try to whitewash the statements made by Watson but merely summarize the reliable sources. A very good job here from the editors who have contributed to making needed changes! Landerman56 (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment What on Earth is going on here? Since when has interpretation or attribution of intent taken precedence over actual statement, when there is no question of irony or other forms of rhetoric in the original? As I write this the text in the lede reads: "...after making controversial comments claiming a link between intelligence and race...". Supporters of such or similar wording justify their preferred hermeneutics by similar interpretations of other quotes. That might be defensible where one's job is hermeneutics, but here our job emphatically is reporting in proper context, not explaining to any readership what Watson meant or what his friends or critics thought he meant, or what he felt, or what they felt, or what readers of the article should feel or think anyone else should mean or feel. Look at the wording: "controversial" is loaded for a start; the reason he (necessarily?) resigned was that what he said had given offence, or was feared to have given offence, or exposed the institution to criticism, not that its content was factual or counter-factual, or that he was starting a controversy, nor that any controversy might have been about what people might have thought it was about. For example, the evolutionary effects of allopatric descent are not in general controversial, though their application to racial questions might be. And "claiming a link"? Watson's wording does not claim a link, whether he had any such intention or not. The author of such an attribution of intent is of course free to infer or interpret as he pleases (always bearing in mind that in the lede there are constraints on ones freedom to expand on topics that belong in the body) but in WP he is not free to impose his inferences on his readers or colleagues, either in defence or criticism either of Watson or of his views. Watson bloodied his nose, not by his views, but by his words, and his words were brief enough and comprehensible enough for direct quote without comment or paraphrase. I repeat what I said before: his wording 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. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." No one here has the right to gloss over, elaborate, paraphrase, condense, expand or connive at any of it as a favour to anyone or an attack on anyone. If it had been spoken in Aramaic there would have been grounds for interpretation for purposes of translation, but it was English. Now would someone please explain why there should be any basis for substituting evaluative periphrases unasked, for Watson's original words? If so, please remember that your personal views are not what our readership is seeking, whereas they easily might want to know what Watson had said, irrespective of whether he said it well or poorly, heinously or virtuously. JonRichfield (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:LEDE. We have to summarize; if we were to take two paragraphs in the lead to directly quote Watson and/or fully discuss those comments, then this one aspect of Watson's story, which arrived late in his very influential career, will appear like a much larger part of his notability than it is, which would be a horrific violation of WP:WEIGHT. I think we would all like to keep mention of this aspect of the article to a sentence or two, insofar as the lead is concerned. Neither the claim that Watson's comments were "controversial" nor the claim that they connected race and intelligence are coming from editors trying to interpret Watson's comments utilizing their own standards... We're summarizing the weight of how WP:reliable sources describe his comments, not how we'd describe them ourselves. That's not just 100% appropriate in a content discussion, it's Wikipedia 101. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Summarise????? For the sake of summarising 46 words, less than 240 letters, in a lede of about 287 words, we are to foist our deathless prose and inarguable assessments on readers who reasonably might wonder what Watson himself actually had said? If our wording is so definitive, then how does it come that disagreement in the RFC now exceeds 8000 words? The proposed change to the lede did not include the entire interview, nor even the quotes already in the body of the article, just the fully adequate, balanced verbatim quote as Collect supplied it. The brief quote in the lede plus the two only slightly longer quotes in the body are fully in context and enable the reader to assess for her/himself which construction to place on them and whether to follow up the sources if desired. Paraphrases, however gracefully worded or sensitively interpreted are not the same thing, either functionally, professionally, or ethically. Such minor quotes in a major article could not possibly be any violation of WP:WEIGHT whatsoever, let alone horrific, so let us not descend into dramatisation.
To suggest that everything is in order because the quote came from editors in the throes of ... "summarizing the weight of how WP:reliable sources describe his comments, not how we'd describe them ourselves" is like pleading farce in extenuation of blunder; in an article on Watson, where it would be questionable to replace Watson's words with our own disputable paraphrasing, you urge that instead we replace the perceptions of what we perceive as "reliable sources" with our (still equally) disputable paraphrasing?
Wikipedia 101? Wikipedia 101 would suggest that the place for that sort of thing, if anywhere, would be in an article on Views of Reliable Sources on utterances of James Watson, or perhaps on Wikipedia editors' views on views of Reliable Sources on utterances of James Watson. They certainly have nothing to do with James Watson, the topic of this article. Whether we all would like "a sentence or two" is not the issue; what we need is a proper, adequate, compact, ethical and encyclopaedic product, and we even might like it.
As an example we could say: "...after publicly having said: 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."
To argue about that snippet as inflating the lede beyond endurance would be nitpicking, as I would be sure you would agree, but if it really bothers you, I could in double compensation remove more than twice as much material already present, that does not earn its place in the lede and already is adequately and more suitably covered in the body. JonRichfield (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem there is that you are engaging in a blatant exercise of WP:Original Research by deciding, on the basis of your own perspective (and subject to your own views on the matter), what the "the most important part" of that quote "really is"--when, in fact, Watson said much more than that and even a cursory review of the sources reveal that the furor over his comments extended to the entire context, not that one little bit you're cherry-picking to represent his comments in their entirety. Do you honestly not see how that introduces far, far, far more editorial bias into the article than simply relaying what reliable sources say on the matter (as policy unambiguously requires of us)? Of course if you are allowed to selectively quote the man, his comments don't seem that controversial, but here's the full quote which we would have to introduce in order to accurately reflect the circumstances under which people reacted to his comments:

He says that he is “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”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “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”.

And I'm sorry, but that's just too much for the lead. It would be a massive violation of WP:Weight to talk at that length about this aspect of Watson's notability in the lead. But it would be even more a violation (of not just our policy on weight but also WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Original research) to select just the portion of the quote which you feel is most important, even though all of the sources which the article currently relies on make it explicitly clear that they are taking Watson's comments together. And to the extent that there were real world consequences to Watson's statements (career impacts, people viewing him differently) that we need to verify, even a cursory look at the sources shows that they view those consequences as being a result of his comments broadly, not the little bit you are choosing to focus on in your proposed wording. Point in fact, if there is any one portion of the quote that the sources emphasize less than the others as having sparked outrage, it's the portion you've chosen to embrace as being the "heart" of Watson's comments and the reactions to it. Nor is this the only quote/occasion which the sources rely upon for discussing the fallout of Watson's comments.

And it's not surprising that the sources don't focus on that little bit, for the same reason you seem to be focusing on it exclusively: it's by far the least controversial part of what he said. Taken in isolation, it's only barely controversial at all: he's basically just saying that the evidence might yet bear out a reality that currently goes strongly against the conventional view. That in itself would not get the scientific community up in arms and attract the attention of the press. It's everything he said before that which generated the condemnation, and you can't just try to hide all of that controversy from the reader because you feel like Watson got a bum wrap--that's not how Wikiedpia works. You and Collect both want us to focus on "the facts". Here's the problem with that: reasonable people can reasonably disagree on just what "the facts" are. Which is one (of many) reasons why Wikipedia adopted a standard for editorial decisions that is based on verifiability (as established through reliable sources), not on any one editors argument about "the truth". And here there is no question that the sources overwhelming (that is, pretty much every single last one used in the article now and which I have seen since researching this discussion) classify Watson's comments as controversial and as linking race and intelligence.

I'm also confused by your aversion to any kind of use of summary in the lead. WP:LEAD, representing community consensus on these issues has this to say on exactly the matter we are facing here:

"The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

Summarize the controversies. Not, "throw everything there is to be said about the issue at the reader", not "present one tiny aspect of the story which can lead the reader astray if they never see the rest of the context". Summarize. Nor is this atypical for the Wikipedia process in general--it's a big part of our editorial job here. I'm certain that if I went back and looked at the last twenty articles you had worked on, I'd find scores of examples of where you did exactly this. Of course you did, of course we all do.

Your argument here seems to be "Yeah, but this is 'really' controversial". And fair enough, but we have safeguards in place for keeping out bias that work a lot of better than allowing our editors to choose what the "important bits" are from their own idiosyncratic standards and then put them in the lead as supposedly "representative" of the issue. Our actual safeguards, endorsed by actual policy and actual community consensus, involve faithfulness to the reliable sources--the very mechanism you want to toss out on its ear in favour of your narrow appraisal of what Watson "actually said", as based on your one selective quote. But I think I'll stay with our standard process, rather than blatantly ignore everything WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD all tell us to do in this exact situation. A short statement summarizing what our reliable sources say on the matter (as established by a WP:Consensus discussion as to what that means in this particular case) is not only the prescribed solution to this situation under policy, it will also clearly lead to a more neutral and reliable article than one in which we try to apply the impressions of our editors as to which quotes represent what "Watson really meant".

Apologies for the length of this response, but there was a lot to unpack in what you said. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Given the walls of text so far, I do not take the length question seriously; I am far more concerned by the content. To characterise quoting as OR is so unrealistically illogical that I cannot accept it as good faith. To suggest that summary beats compact quotation, when a biologically unambiguous (whether controversial, offensive or not, which is not the point of the article) first-hand quotation is available, and the proposed second-hand summary is assailable on grounds of either spin or ill-considered wording, is ridiculous. For example, to trust your assessment of what makes a proper, honest, unassailable summary is beyond me when I read the likes of 'Your argument here seems to be "Yeah, but this is 'really' controversial"'. And not much better is "we have safeguards in place for keeping out bias that work a lot of better than allowing our editors to choose what the "important bits" are from their own idiosyncratic standards". Thanks for telling me. Is that the standard of subjective summarisation that you are touting? Editors are not allowed to quote, in case they choose "important bits"? But they are allowed to summarise because their perceptions and wording, unlike first-hand quotes, or anyone's choice of first-hand quotes, will neither be OR nor POV? We actually can read and some of us resent being patronised with nonsense. You haven't even hinted at WHY the quotes mentioned are unsatisfactory, whereas I plainly pointed out where what you characterise as a "summary" was unjustifiably worded. You will notice that I did not suggest how to improve it, because no summary in that context could outvalue a suitable quote. Here we have wasted about 10000 words in arguing about some 10--50 words in a lede, and you speak of "safeguards in place for keeping out bias that work a lot of better than allowing our editors to choose..."???? You insult our elementary competence and good faith. I refrain from returning the compliment. JonRichfield (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we should focus on a proposed re-wording of the lead and not all of these side arguments. We cannot simply choose one quote over another from Watson so it's best to summarize what he said that ultimately led to his widespread condemnation and forced resignation. Those things are what really is the facts as they pertain to the arc of watsons' biography not the validity of his comments. Landerman56 (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Possibly I missed some of the proposals in the walls of text. I didn't notice any rival selections of quotes and do not feel strongly as yet about any. The one that Collect proposed for the lede, plus those already in the body, in combination and context, seem to me at once adequate, concise and balanced. They would require neither further summarisation, justification, nor, possibly above all, interpretation. JonRichfield (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. I've tried to express the neutrality and other broad policy issues as I see them (and as I think most who have commented here see them) for Collect and Jon, but I'm doubtful we are going to come to a meeting of the minds there. At this point, the best approach to establishing consensus may be to just let the !vote on particular proposals proceed. I'd encourage Collect to add his proposed wording to the RfC above, if he is satisfied with the wording, and Jon to !vote in support of it accordingly. Hopefully we will thereafter have more voices contributing, so that the consensus may be made more certain. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the current wording is far far more accurate than the misleading "geographic ancestry" nonsense. Can we at least get consensus that "geographic ancestry" is dead? Also as I said above, the lead should attribute the relevant comments which lead to his widespread condemnation and forced resignation. Landerman56 (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think "geographic ancestry" is not good content as i think it's euphemism and we ought to be direct. I like the simple word "race" as that is what Watson meant according to reliable sources.
I would also point out that it's completely fine to have long discussions on the talk page, including about the content and source and policies. In fact we'd be negligent if we did not have such discussion. It is good that these things are being discussed. Let us not curtail the discussion. SageRad (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is fine if it's focused on the task at hand. Filibustering is not okay. I think the term "geographic ancestry" never had consensus and I agree should not make a return to the article. There will be those that will try to change this so I am stating this for the record. I know I will fight it's return and I agree the article should be as direct as possible using reliable and credible sources. Landerman56 (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Watson did refer to geography in his precise wording. By saying you do not like it, you may be making Watson appear to say something he did not say. Collect (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing the very important meta-point here, which is simply that we editors do not make the conclusions. We use reliable sources that make those conclusions and summarize them. Understand? Reliable sources have stated that his statements are racist and refer to racial groups. Words of his own make this clear to me, as well, though my conclusions are not what's important here. It's pretty clear to me. Geographical ancestry is a euphemism for race, one that's been used by many, and it's related to race and part of a definition of race within history, but what it refers to is racial groups, as confirmed by reliable sources that speak about this topic. SageRad (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree completely with SageRad on this. The term "Geographic Ancestry" is simply misleading and not used by any of the reliable sources. We keep repeating this yet some editors have a different view of reality. It stays out of this article until said editors present a majority of reliable sources that use this term as related to watson's comments. Landerman56 (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

[23] is a revert which reinstates a claim that Watson never referred to geography, and manages to add material not salient to this BLP in the first place. " "geographically separated in their evolution". " is a specific direct quote, as a "citation needed" "reason=The term geographically isolated is not supported by reliable sources as being attributed to Watson while the words used by Watson were geographically separated. I find this nit a bit much to stomach. This edit also uses and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. which clearly inserts material not uttered by Watson in the first place. I had thought we had a consensus that Watson's own words are accurate to state what Watsons own words were. I thus find this edit improper. It says "separated" and "isolated" are not close (Watson said "separated" and that is the word I used) and that the interpolation of editorial commentary is part of Watson's position. Collect (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are proposing. I did see that you deleted the quote in question which is very widely attributed to Watson. Please go back to the article to see exactly what the citation needed reason is. A citation is needed when referring to Dr. Watson's "hypothesis." Again reliable sources say that there is no scientific basis to his claims. A claim is not a hypothesis. Also a citation is needed which explains the background of the interviewer and the interviewer's stated motivation which led to her questioning. This is completely uncited material and tends not to be NPOV. My hope is we can come to an agreement to the rewording of the section in question without wholesale deletion like you did. Sneaky but not okay. Please refrain from this in the future. If you don't understand anything I have written please contribute to the discussion by asking specific questions or making specific proposals. I am happy to help you become a better editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I used Watson's exact words which were delimited in the source with what are called "quotation marks." Material not delimited by those strange marks are not "quotations."

and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that

is not a quote from Watson. I had thought you understood that Watson's words are in "quotation marks" and stuff which Watson did not say is not in "quotation marks". Collect (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The quote you deleted is well sourced and in fact is cited in the article. It stays as is unless you can find an overwhelming number of reliable sources that refute that the quote was not Watson's. Again your deletion is unwarranted and not going to fly. If you have a particular question or a proposed change to make then I am happy to discuss with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Clue that the material is not a quote of Watson

and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that.

Unless you assert that people routinely refer to themselves in the third person in that manner, that part is not a quotation of Watson. Collect (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have a specific question or proposal please discuss it here. Landerman56 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)