Talk:Richard Lynn/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Academic consensus on Lynn

Regarding these edits:

The article should reflect the academic consensus on Lynn's work, and the lede should reflect the body. We should not use the article to subtly brag how many books he has published. This was especially bad since his recent books were published via Ulster Institute for Social Research (which makes them self-published), and Washington Summit Publishers, which is run by a neo-Nazi to publish white nationalist books. Likewise, his many journal articles include those for Mankind Quarterly and similar garbage journals. Instead of using vague details to present false balance, we should summarize what reliable sources say about his career. It is not merely a handful of scientists who have negatively discussed his work, it is most of those who have looked at it. This is already supported in the body of the article.

His "controversial" comments were about race. Encyclopedias should use direct language instead of euphemisms. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• 1. The overall intention of your edits seems to be to turn the article into an attack page, and this is unacceptable for any BLP.
• 2. ResearchGate shows his work has over 9000 citations and has been published in a wide variety of journals including: Nature, Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Personality and Individual Differences, Behavior Genetics, Journal of Social Psychology, Intelligence, etc. The consensus you allege does not exist.
• 3. Enumerating and listing books published is standard on all BLPs and you are only making an unprincipled exception here because you hate the subject of the article. I suggest recusing yourself if you are unable to follow the NPOV policy. Jwray (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• No, encyclopedias should describe controversies in objective, neutral terms and avoid vague snarl words like "racist".Jwray (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• There's really nothing "vague" about "racist". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jwray: Please do not insert your comments in the middle of those of another editor. By doing so you made the conversation impossible to follow, and it had to be re-sequenced for it to make sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• My intention is to neutrally present reliable sources.

The number of citations is telling, but not without context. These raw numbers are not significant just because they are verifiable. When was the last time he was published in a reputable journal? What did reliable sources say about the backlash to his publications? What percentage of his citations are articles specifically challenging or refuting his claims? It's significantly greater than zero, that's for sure. So instead of dropping these numbers as though they were significant, summarize reliable, independent sources.

It is absolutely not standard to list obscure books in the lede of an article, especially when the author is a prolific self-publisher. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Greyfell: none of the listed works are self-published. Ken: Racist has several meanings. One consists of noticing patterns and the other consists of larping as an oppressive hollywood villian. Reality is very racist. There hasn't been a nonblack olympic finalist in the 100m dash in several decades. Jwray (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There are some racialists in science who are not racists... although their numbers are shrinking. Lynn isn't just a racialist. It looks like WP:ANI might be the next stop. I'm pretty sure you are already familiar with WP:NONAZIS, and recycling /pol/ talking points in support of pseudoscience concedes the argument. Lynn's Ulster Institute for Social Research is not a real institute, it's something sounds impressive which he made up himself, presumably to make it easier to get Pioneer Fund money. Don't agree? Find a reliable source which treats it seriously. Grayfell (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

An author's affiliation as president of an institute doesn't make anything published through that institute self-published. It is far from a one man operation. You are just wikilawyering to justify censoring books you don't like from the BLP bibliography.Jwray (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I seem to have struck a nerve. The "Institute's" own website, flimsy as it is, doesn't call it an institute other than in the name, it calls it a "think tank". Probably because of Institute#United Kingdom and Isle of Man. So is anyone seriously claiming that he could submit a book for publication and someone else at that "institute" would have the authority to say no? That doesn't pass the sniff test. The entire point of bringing this up was that the raw number of books he has written is misleading without context. Assumptions about the think-tank's personnel doesn't make this factoid any more informative. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Simply counting how many books the subject has published and putting it in the lead section is common on BLPs of writers and academics. Stephen Pinker: "Pinker is also the author of eight books for general audiences" Malcolm Gladwell: "He has published five books" Noam Chomsky: " is the author of over 100 books". As for the ulster institute, their website shows 7 other academics on the board. You are obviously stretching the definition of self publishing. Is every op-ed Bezos writes in the Washington Post also self-published, since he owns it, and he could fire any editor who objected?Jwray (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Our goal is to describe the article's subject according to the sources, not to censor or omit things that some people may find objectionable out of a sense of WP:FALSEBALANCE. This means that if Lynn is described as racist by many high-quality mainstream sources, or if many say that they believe his research is driven by his racial politics rather than by sound science (as, indeed, they do), we have a responsibility to cover that. Similarly, his broad rejection by mainstream academics and the extensive deconstruction of the many ideologically-driven flaws in his research is well-sourced and belongs in the article. Beyond that, please remember WP:AGF; every editor on a controversial topic is going to have some opinion on it (certainly the opinion on Lynn you seem to be expressing here is far out of line with mainstream coverage), but when possible we need to focus on sources and content, not users - "I don't like how critical you are of Lynn, please recluse yourself" is unhelpful. --Aquillion (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Cold winters theory

Let's start with this source. The cold winters theory does not have "widespread consensus". It has consensus among race realists. This idea is discussed, but not widely, except by the Mankind crowd. It's also not clear that Lynn was the first to introduce this idea, even if he was the first to use the term "cold winters theory". Rushton had the same basic idea, and it's not hard to find the concept going back to Galton. We should not present this simplistic idea as being some sort of "first" without much better sources. If this is going to be included, it must be contextualized properly. Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, nobody is arguing that the theory has widespread consensus. The question is whether it's notable enough to mention in the article. When someone is the main person (or one of the main people) to propose a theory, including controversial theories like this one, I think it's reasonable for a biographical article to mention that.

The Rindermann source credits four people for developing the theory: Lynn, Rushton, Edward Miller, and Michael Hart. James Flynn's book Are We Getting Smarter has a critical discussion of the theory on pages 33-35, and he credits it to Lynn and Rushton, while this paper cites Lynn for it. I would be okay with the article saying that Lynn developed the theory in conjunction with Rushton, if you think that needs to be clarified. 2600:1004:B104:833C:4587:6442:B17:45EB (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

But the theory has gotten almost no attention outside of a tiny circle of fringe biologists with like-minded racial views (Kanazawa, Rushton, etc.) A quick search on Google Scholar shows only a handful of reputable sources even mentioning it. It's not noteworthy enough to go in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Use of "controversial" for description in lead

The opening description of the subject is as follows: "Richard Lynn (born 20 February 1930)[1] is a controversial English psychologist and author." I removed 'controversial' per WP:LABEL, which lists 'controversial' explicitly, but my edit was reverted by another editor. I am bringing the use of the word up here so others can weigh in. I don't think it should be used in the lead. Any thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It's an accurate description supported by numerous reliable sources. Leave it as is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of such words in the first sentence of WP articles. In this case though, the second paragraph of the lede gives a lot of references to support that word, and for once it is based on academic papers, not newspapers (hallelujah!). Alcaios (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 to Beyond My Ken and Alcaios above. Lynn fully merits the label, as demonstrated by the numerous references in the second paragraph. Generalrelative (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Controversial" is vague, and is uninformative by itself without elaboration. On the other hand, if you do effectively elaborate, then it becomes entirely superfluous. Either way, I don't see what useful purpose it serves. This is why WP:LABEL specifically says "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies". 80.3.103.8 (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Lynn is an exception that proves the rule (see WP:IAR), given the numerous sources describing the controversy surrounding his work. Simply describing Lynn in the opening sentence as "an English psychologist and author" would be WP:UNDUE and misleading given the contents of the second paragraph. With the world "controversial", on the other hand, the reader is properly prepared by the opening sentence for what follows. Generalrelative (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Our readers are best served by having that in the description. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there. There's no "controversial" on Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, Satoshi Kanazawa, David Icke, Alex Jones, Garrett Hardin, David Duke, etc. I can't see why Lynn would be singled out. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Point of fact, there is a whole sentence/paragraph in the lead of Charles Murray describing him as controversial. Perhaps these others deserve the label as well, but this is hardly a persuasive argument for excluding it here. Generalrelative (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Would "discredited" be an improvement? It would certainly be more precise. Otherwise, "controversial" is still vastly better than nothing. Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having a whole sentence/paragraph describing Lynn as controversial. Stop changing the subject. The subject at hand is whether he should be called "a controversial psychologist" in the very first sentence. He shouldn't. As I demonstrated, that is inconsistent with the way that Wikipedia handles controversial BLPs. Feel free to pile up on controversy in the lede, but it doesn't belong in the opening sentence. Bueller 007 (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

To the contrary, you haven't demonstrated anything. Generalrelative (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Strengthening and trimming the lede

The lede was far too long and too detailed. I have reorganized it and tightened it up. I want to emphasize that I did NOT REMOVE any of the content or sources from the article, other than duplicated material, which I combined. I did move a large section on his research to later in the article. It might be appropriate to add one or two sentences in the lede referencing terms/theories for which he is particularly well known, but I will leave that to someone else. An extensive discussion is not appropriate to the lede. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you need to slow down, given what a controversial article this is and the extensive discussions that went into the current lead; drastically reordering the entire thing in one go is going to be tricky. In particularly I strenuously disagree with removing his history at Mankind Quarterly from the first paragraph, since it is a major part of his notability. His work on intelligence also needs to lead with the criticism because it is WP:FRINGE; we cannot present fringe views in a way that implies that they have more support than they do. Regarding the individual focuses of his research, there are some parts that could possibly be trimmed, but this is too drastic and removed coverage of major aspects of his notability. --Aquillion (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is one concrete observation: Mankind Quarterly is mentioned in both the first and third paragraphs of the lead, with essentially the same content. Someone interested in trimming the lead could surely begin by condensing those two mentions. --JBL (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

One sided POV

The article starts with the word 'controversial' in it's first phrase, in general it's too concerned with denying Lynn's credibility by adding citations rotulating him and exposing some insults. Two things should be analyzed here: 1. Scientific thesis supporting or contradicting his works. 2. His personal views. He cites IQ tests done in the course of a century, so adding authors who attack him like some conspiracy theorist is dishonest. The descritive side of his work should be balanced or reinforced (I don't think it's pratical due to Wikipedia's general political bias even if it's true) with citations made by scientists, not journalists attacking him. The phrase about one of his adversaries expose this: "He considers his view (Lynn's) dangerous". It's very illustrative. The article in general has an one sided point of view and it happens due to Wikipedia's augmentation of editor's powers when some controversial topic is described here. Like what happens when some politician gain autocratic powers while it's time of war or pandemics. Wikipedia should not try to finish rapidly delicate debates, there is no "suficiently sophisticated person" to deal with some topics, raising your own powers is harmful when the matter is science and journalism, two things that are forgotten to a greater extent here. We do not need to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawyersx (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Dog's breakfast

This article is a dog's breakfast. The lede was absurdly long so I have left it at the first para and merged the rest - unedited - lower in the article under "controversies and allegations of racism". I have removed the negative POV because the whole article is basically a negative POV and its not necessary in the lede. I've also corrected Lynn's present appointment and removed the reference in the lede to the removal of his Ulster appointment - again, this is partly what makes the lede far too long and it is included later in article.

Unfortunately, the article is in very bad shape because of an imbalance created by the (understandable) desire by some editors on the one hand to point out that Lynn is a racist (which he certainly is) and the desire on the part of other editors to point out that he has a long body of scholarly work which is worthy of more respect that it gets here. Lynn is widely cited in the APA's 1996 statement of its (present) status quo on race and genetics; he is widely regarded by many scholars working today; he is even cited, without irony, as a scholarly source in anti-racist books like Rutherford's 2020 "How to Argue with a Racist".

Lynn is still working at 91 and like a lot of people lucky enough to be in that position, he's failed to adapt his views to new times. His views are the epitome of scientific racism, and that's massively flagged in the article, but it's wrong to imply or describe his whole body of work as pseudoscience and simply characterise it all as 'racist' as a blanket description.

If I may, I'll say this too - there's a trend, in my opinion, amongst anti-racist scientists to go overboard on Lynn's whole body of work because much of his work is still orthodox today. In other words, Lynn is used as chaff to distract the eye away from some orthodox ideas within psychology, genetics and anthropology which remain deeply problematic in some quarters. That's all as may be, but here it's spoiling what should be a proper, WP-standard article on a moderately important living psychologist.

I'm going to slowly apply myself to this page over time. Do let me know if you think my points are profound and have altered your worldview. SteveCree2 (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@skllagyook I've reverted your wholesale reversion of my edit. You hadn't actually read any of my points here. I see your points and have already seen them above. I address them in my comments above. I'm happy to discuss, but please don't just ignore them then tell me it's all agreed already. It's quite obvious what's going on at this page - you can't have a lede that length. It's ridiculous. Moreover, there needs to be an accounting for the legitimate citations Lynn still gets. Happy to chat. SteveCree2 (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@SteveCree2:. A lot of that assessment seems to be your own unsourced opinion and interpretation. But imposing our own unsourced opinions and/or WP:Synthesis on articles is against policy. Two RFC discussions (which I linked in my first edit note, and again are here: [[1]] and here: [[2]]) have determined racial heteditarianism to be WP:FRINGE. When dealing with fringe positions it is important to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE. The material you continue to delete gives relevant background information on Lynn and is well-sourced. The issue of how to characterize Lynn in the lede has been discussed here before on this Talk page (I provided two links in my edit note before you reverted me). If you have objections, it is best to discuss the issue with (not only me but) the editors who were involved in those discussions and gain WP:CONSENSUS rather than continuing to reinstate your preferred edit without consensus (i.e. edit warring). Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @skllagyook. My comments are all sourceable and were put here, not in the article, for background. My colloquial references are well known and would be cited properly were they to be included in the article. It is perfectly possible to make it clear that Lynn is a racist while accepting that some of his ideas are orthodox today (he continues to be cited, as am sure you know). The thrust of the article as it stands is to draw the eye away from this latter fact - it is a commonplace practice across scholarship within genetics, psychology and anthropology. The lede is an absurd piece of writing. Your corrections have included outdated information (e.g. Lynn is editor in chief of Mankind Quarterly today but you have deleted my reference). In my view, the consensus position is a lobbying position of interest groups. It is a deeply unhelpful and misleading article as a consequence. Like others before me, I suspect, I will leave you and the consensus to it. best wishes, SteveCree2 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

you’ve massively overstated his academic presence. Most of his presence is because of controversy, not the merit or acceptance of his work. Provide real citations WesPhil (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Which seems to be is what we do. We say he has been "racialist political agenda" (he has).Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikivoice

It is time that we use wiki voice to state that Lynn has been associated with organizations that promote scientific racism — a preponderance of high quality academic sources say so. To shy away is adopting false balance by inserting attribution where it is not needed. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I would support WP:NPOV edits along these lines. Generalrelative (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Article poorly organized

This is my first look at this page. There is unfortunately extremely little biography here, most is early life- I created customary sections which make this clear. I reckon that 90% of the page is his work and reception. Tried to organize everything chronologically, which is difficult because so much reception is packed into each subsection. Wuerzele (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Controversial" again

The existing language in the opening sentence describing Lynn as a controversial English psychologist and author has been stable for quite some time, despite this being a highly watched page and lots of concurrent drama surrounding the race and intelligence topic area. Furthermore, this language quite easily survived challenge here, with those supporting in the clear majority in terms of both raw numbers and experience. Thus, the consensus on the matter appears to me to be crystal clear. And yet, we have a user edit warring to try to remove the word "controversial" yet again, despite being informed of this background on my talk page. Of course consensus can change, but it has not yet done so. I encourage Ni'jluuseger to engage here and try to persuade others rather than attempting to brute force their preferred version of the article into existence. Generalrelative (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, the past discussion you cite seems undecided to me rather than a community consensus in favour of your position. Your reply, at least over there: "Not interested in debating this with you."

In case other editors want to put in their two cents: the question is not whether Lynn is controversial (he is), nor even whether the article should discuss his controversiality (that discussion is already central to both the lede and the rest of the article). The question is whether the first sentence of any encyclopaedia entry on a person should call them controversial, in addition to stating what the person does or did for a living or what they gained notoriety for. While someone or their work can be factually controversial, such a label in the first sentence sets a tone and seems like overkill to me.

Would you want to own a paper encyclopaedia that said in the first sentence of its article on Donald Trump: "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a controversial American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021."? Or would you prefer the body of the article - including the lede, if needed - to address his controversiality? Ni'jluuseger (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything to suggest that the sourcing has shifted since the 2020 discussion. I wasn't involved in it, and I definitely see rough consensus for inclusion; not all discussions require formal closure. Controversy is a major factor in Lynn's notability. I'm not interested in responding to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Gee-whiz, Firefangledfeathers, I'm not trying to sell you my used car, am I? The Trump article hypothetical is intended to illustrate my point that - as I see it - no encyclopaedic article need start out guns blazing by calling someone controversial in the first sentence in front of their job description. Ni'jluuseger (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I give you a 10/10 for brightening my day with a "Gee-whiz". Cheerio, Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Same back for "cheerio"! Ni'jluuseger (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

First off, I would not write " American politician" about Donald Trump, so "other stuff" is not valid. Second, we write about what people are notable for, it seems to be that the subject is notable for his controversial views, as much as the fact he is an academic. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd reiterate that "controversial" is a vage and contentious term. It's best to just describe the facts and let his controversiality speak for itself. But the real issue with using it to frame the entire article is it implies that someone's controversiality precedes their notability rather than being an aspect of it. Margaret Thatcher was notoriously divisive, but however divisive she'd been you'd never have her intro sentence read "Margaret Hilda Thatcher was the divisive Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990". 80.1.114.146 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

IP 80.1.114.146, please desist from edit warring until a new consensus emerges here. As is clear from the above comments, esp. by Firefangledfeathers, a rough consensus for inclusion of this term exists. That will need to be changed before you can remove the term, and the only way to do that is by persuading others. So far you have only repeated the same arguments which failed to convince others before. Generalrelative (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It's truly hard to over-state how bad Lynn's reputation is. Mentioning this basic information in the first sentence is, if anything, and understatement. To restate something I said one of the previous times this came up, "discredited" might be an improvement over "controversial", since it would be more precise. Reliable sources have documented his own actions and statements. He has had his emeritus status revoked. His Ulster Institute probably cannot actually claim to be an Institute so it must call itself a "think tank". He spent over a decade having his books published by the neo-nazi publishing house Washington Summit Publishers (which, incidentally, may not even exist anymore, despite Lynn's prominent promotional links to it on his own website). Grayfell (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, nobody's objected to the label on the grounds that it's an "overstatement". I'll be satisfied that those arguments have failed to convince others when you can state valid reasons why rather than simply stating that they do. So far the only response to the Trump analogy has been to misidentify it as an "other stuff" argument. And even if it were you'd need to explain why it's invalid, since such arguments are not invariably so. I've noticed it's a common tactic on Wikipedia to just drop "WP:OTHERSTUFF" like a bomb when you can't be bothered to actually find fault with your interlocutor's arguments. 80.1.114.146 (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to get wp:consensus. It is clear (looking at the sources) he is a highly controversial figure. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, no it isn't. It is clear per WP:LABEL that there is already a general consensus against such labels; explicit local consensus is required to if the guideline is to be ignored in this case. And I haven't seen anyone questioning the mere fact that he's controversial, only whether it's appropriate to head the article in that way. It would be nice if you engaged with the actual points people have made rather than arguing with the voices in your head. 80.1.114.146 (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

And you need to read wp:npa. With the above I think we can close this. Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

"Excessive citations" template

There has recently been some drive-by tagging with the "excessive citations" template without –– so far as I've seen –– any effort to discuss the issue on the talk page. I removed the tag just now, and that removal was immediately reverted by the user who first added it, FMSky. Of course there are a lot of citations here, but they are necessary to support the rather weighty terms which RS routinely use to describe this individual. Consolidating the refs would be a good solution to render the page (and especially the lead) more readable, but that is work one should simply do if one is able rather than tagging the article, per e.g. WP:TAGGING. See in particular the section on WP:DRIVEBY. FMSky, are you aware of the procedure for consolidating refs? If not, here is a convenient how-to. Or are you actually asking us to remove references from this BLP? Generalrelative (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What is there to discuss exactly? I added an appropriate template to an article that has an excessive number of citations in its lead. Im not "suggesting" anything. Like the template says, these citations should now either be merged or removed. Obviously the former makes a lot more sense --FMSky (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and merge them yourself. If you're not willing to do that I will remove the tag. Generalrelative (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Not helpful at all and against WP:WTRMT but i will go ahead and merge them --FMSky (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Self-described 'scientific racist'"

Does anyone have an actual source for him describing himself this way? It seems like the kind of thing someone is extremely unlikely to say about himself, esp. if he's trying to maintain some air of credibility/neutrality for his work. There are various references cited for "self-described" in the article, but none of them seem to link to him actually saying it. One of the references links to the SPLC page about Lynn, but the SPLC doesn't appear to make the "self-described" claim, nor do they seem to have a quote that substantiates it. Where/when did he call himself a scientific racist? Bueller 007 (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I was able to find this 1996 article in the Mail & Guardian which quotes Lynn as saying "If we are talking about people who believe there are genetic differences between the races, then I am definitely a scientific racist". I think that should corroborate the claim. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Still not sure I'm comfortable with "self-described" in the lede. It needs further qualification. The definition he agreed to would include even banal differences among populations like skin pigmentation, not necessarily racial inferiority/superiority (which is what most people think of when they hear "scientific racism"). I'd prefer that he just be called a scientific racist without the "self-described". There's pretty broad consensus for that and then we don't need to worry about the nuances of whether he meant what we're all thinking when he self-described that way. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that's bending backwards too far to make the subject sound more reasonable than the subject himself bothered to. He knew perfectly well what the words meant and was performatively playing games with them - David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not really an objective way to approach a topic in an encyclopedia. It's not bending over backwards to point out that when he admitted to being a scientific racist he was explicitly defining the term in such a way as to make it mundane. You'll notice he *didn't* say "If we are talking about people who believe that some races are genetically inferior to others, then I am definitely a scientific racist", which is how readers are most likely to interpret him self-describing as such. I don't see what including "self-described" adds to the article other than a potentially misleading claim about what he actually said. In the lede, we should just leave it at saying that he is widely described as being a scientific racist, which is an undeniable fact. His self-description (with the supporting quote) can be used later in the article where it can be shown with full context. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, that is just how other RS describe his views (when he wrote that). Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We are simply following what the RS say rather than supplying our own interpretation here. In addition to the Mail & Guardian piece linked by IntoThinAir above, we have e.g. [3], [4], and [5], which are currently cited. Generalrelative (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bueller: I wholeheartedly agree. In building an encyclopedia, our first duty is to the truth, and we're ill-served in that endeavor when we insist on parroting spurious, unsubstantiated, and/or literally-true-but-misleading claims, simply because they've appeared in an RS. The fact that this is a WP:BLP means we must be doubly scrupulous, and makes knowingly repeating an unfair, or even just confusingly context-less characterization inexcusable.

The singer Madonna has been quoted saying she's ambitious and that "if that makes me a bitch, okay"—but would any editor seriously consider that her Wikipedia BLP should describe her as "a self-described bitch", while deliberately leaving out her words and context? If that were the standard, pretty much everyone who has ever lived is "a self-described idiot"—and, speaking for myself, far worse.

In the same vein, rather than simply characterizing Lynn as a "self-described racist", it behooves us to be clear—which means losing the patently prejudicial label and instead simply including his own words. What possible objection can there be there to that—given that it's equally easy, far more informative, and the exact same price? If the Mail & Guardian quote is the source for the various cited RS—and no one has offered another—their labeling him as a "self-described racist" is more than a bit disingenuous, and blithely repeating it clearly fails our standards.

Leaving out the conditional definition for Lynn's hypothetical "self-description" denies our readers necessary context. His point was that by the specific definition stated, he—along with everyone—could be described as a "scientific racist". His point is crystal-clear: what scientific literate would deny that at least some "genetic differences between races" exist? It's equally obvious that Lynn's (again, wholly hypothetical) description of a "scientific racist" is sharply at odds with a Wikipedia reader's understanding—a person who wishes to "support or justify racism, racial inferiority, or racial superiority"—and so to purposely omit Lynn's definition is, at best, extremely misleading. ElleTheBelle 18:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2023

The article should be changed to reflect the fact that Richard Lynn died in July 2023. 62.167.37.182 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Lynn has died

Seeking RS-quality confirmation we can use. So far there's a tweet from Edward Dutton, and a VDARE obituary based on the tweet. So the tweet is all we've got. I mean I don't doubt it, Lynn was 93, but awaiting something less deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Same here. I see another user has just added his death date without a source. I will remove it. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

11 days Richard Lynn and still not reported. Kinda grotesque D1kiz (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this really the best source we can find? Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

so far, yes it is! I just had a look. Nothing outside white nationalist blogs and media. When these guys finally die, nobody cares except their remaining fellow travelers. See also Talk:Roger Pearson (anthropologist) - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this one any good? It is at least indexed by Google News. David Malone (talk)

As that one was already reverted out no. It may well fail SPS as it seems to have been published in American Renaissance, which is run by the man who wrote the article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

yeah. Written by Jared Taylor from AmRen (which hasn't been found GU or deprecated in an RFC, but really obviously would be) and first published in Unz (which has been deprecated). Roger Pearson's death is cited to AmRen, but I'm quite unhappy about that too - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I went ahead and removed the bit on Roger Pearson sourced exclusively to American Renaissance, a source which should be deleted on sight for obvious reasons. Generalrelative (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It's now been a week, has there been any confirmation from RS? Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Pretty damning evidence that this figure was only ever of marginal notability outside the echo chamber of his racist fans. Might be worth looking over the article for signs of bloat given that fact. Generalrelative (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

yeah. To be clear, he definitely did enough well-documented damage to science to be a noteworthy subject for a Wikipedia article, but race scientists are extremely into the puffery about these guys - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Generalrelative (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep, it does rather undermine the idea he has any lasting notability, as no one gives a damn about his death (assuming he is, and its not another Richard Lynn),. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And what damage to science would that be? Are you a scientist yourself? You're completely unaware of any paradigms within science, especially biology? 84.215.47.58 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC) This is not about what the users view of science is, this is about Lynn's death (or lack of it). The point is this lack of coverage of his death imp[liesd that he is not really notable as a "scientist" in his case psychology, not biology), but because of his controversial views (notoriety as opposed to notability).Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC) He was right about everything he wrote about. He's not going to recieve any coverage because of how controversial he was. 60.241.30.31 (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC) But he did, and plenty of it, so it is hard to see why his death woud not be covered. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC) Yeah, that's definitely not how controversy works. And we already know that the fundamental idea he spent a lifetime pushing was wrong. Simply asserting otherwise is wasting our time. Generalrelative (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC) No, never has been proven to be 'wrong' at all. You are wasting our time saying the opposite. 60.241.30.31 (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC) This is about him being dead, not the correctness of his views. If you can't bring an RS saying he is dead (or at the very least an official notice by his family) this whole thread is a waste of time. This is not a wp:forium or wp:soapbox, about him. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Since there's been ongoing efforts to edit the article to imply Lynn's death, it may be worth simply quoting the WP:BLP policy here:

Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 9 August 1908 [update]) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death.

Note that per BLP:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced–whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Lynn may very well be dead, but we need to wait until reliable sources report it before saying or implying it here. WP:THEREISNORUSH Generalrelative (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be different standards for whether a source can be cited on whether he died (something nobody seems to actually be disputing) vs scientific claims about his work? If no "reliable" source bothers to publish something that arguably qualifies as "old news" (or if they do, that they just cite the sources rejected here as unreliable), does that mean WP waits until 115 years after his birth? 2601:244:200:2680:51BA:8FBB:2B0F:DC8E (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

If anything, BLP claims should be held to a higher standard than scientific claims. Pragmatically speaking, the longer we wait the lower our standards will be, but we would have to wait a very long time before we would imply that VDare or American Renaissance are reliable outlets. Since these sources are unreliable for any specific details of Lynn's death, they are also unreliable for the big picture. As Generalrelative said, WP:THEREISNORUSH. Grayfell (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

As WP:THEREISNORUSH points out, people are being misled now if WP contains inaccurate information (such as it does right now by claiming Lynn "is" rather than "was" a psychologist). I don't see anybody, including you, actually disbelieving the cited sources about Lynn being dead. So how can the sources actually be "unreliable" on that specific claim, when everybody on the Talk page actually does seem to accept their claim? 2601:244:200:2680:21CA:E9A1:E8C5:4719 (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a case of conflicting imperatives. I think it would be reasonable to bring this up at the biographies of living persons noticeboard to get a broader view from the community. Generalrelative (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s quite hard to find a good source. The web site of The Ulster Institute for Social Research claims that Lynn died in 2023, but they don’t mention any specific date. Giffengrabber (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

It's likely one of his former co-authors will write an obituary in a journal friendly towards them. The constant comments suggesting Wikipedia editors are not including it because of 'personal biases' would be better served reading the relevant pages on reliable secondary sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I've inserted a "July 2023" death date now that we have a reliable source (Telegraph obituary). Not sure we should've doubted some of the above sources, but I realise some users are stricter on others when it comes to WP:RS. Anyway, it's now resolved, other than the fact we don't yet have a full date or place of death. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the source and updating the article. Generalrelative (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)