Talk:Linda Gottfredson

Information in lede in violation of consensus and BLP

As discussed at length on this page, consensus was to not include a mention of the Pioneer Fund in the lede of the article. Since this information has no been added (in violation of consensus as well as in violation of both BLP and the arbitration agreement regarding Race and Intelligence articles), it seems like the next step is to file a complaint with ANI. If no one has an objection, I would be willing to do so (although I’d rather not). Alternatively, user:Volunteer Marek can self revert and we can discuss on the talk page. 2600:1012:B011:47C1:2931:C836:4A6:2794 (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

No, there was no such consensus. This is long standing material, well sourced and crucial to the topic. Maybe there's a new consensus - start an RfC. But keep in mind that consensus cannot be achieved with participation of block-evading sock puppet ips.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

2600, if you wish to report him under the ARBR&I discretionary sanctions, the correct place to do that is WP:AE. He was notified of the discretionary sanctions by user:Atsme [1] and there is an earlier warning against him (12 May 2011) logged on the arbitration case page. [2] Here is the text of the warning. [3] His accusations of bad faith on this talk page are very similar to what he was warned not to do, so if you report him, you should mention that in the report. 84.215.112.160 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to assume good faith when IPs show up here with no other edits. Occam's razor assumes either meat or sockpuppets. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Introduction

@Grayfell: I do believe the version of Tbhotch with just one of the two charts is the better one. It is us who decide what is due and what is not. Sources talk about a lot of things. Just because somebody mentions it does not mean it should appear here on Wikipedia. Oh, and I was restoring that version, which has been around for a while till you decided to change it. Nerd271 (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It was around for about a week, and that Tbhotch's edit was to revert an IP's attempt to restore some of the content you removed a few hours earlier. Clearly, there is no consensus for removing this.

As for due and undue, you are basically mistaken. We decide based on policies and guidelines, not based on opinion and whim. As has already been explained on this talk page in tedious detail, a major part of Gottfredson's notability is research on race and intelligence, and per extensive discussions on many pages, Wikipedia consensus is that this is WP:FRINGE.

As for WP:LEAD: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents (emphasis added). If this belongs in the body, as we apparently agree, then it should be summarized in the lead. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations, so it will not work to includ her positions on various boards if we are going to intentionally exclude the larger source of notability. Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not public relations. Nor is it a platform to amplify somebody's point of view. That information is not deleted, only discussed in a less vituperative manner down below. Readers, as always, are welcome to think for themselves. It is not abnormal to list a person's claim to fame and memberships in the introduction.

On what is due and what is not, you are basically mistaken. Our guidelines do not forbid us from thinking for ourselves. Wikipedia is not the news. Just because somebody mentions it does not mean it should be here. Opinions ought to be attributed, and in fact those opinions are attributed, which is why we did not remove them. But putting somebody's opinions about somebody else when that organization is an activist group sounds questionable. Nerd271 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

By volume of independent sources, her "claim to fame" is writing the intensely controversial "mainstream" letter first, being funded by the Pioneer fund second, and everything else third. Wikipedia isn't a news site, so we need to look at the larger history. That history is dominated by the first two items. Since the first two are closely tied (per many, many sources) to scientific racism, this should not be artificially hidden from readers, and should be indicated in the lead per standard practice. As for attributing opinions, the protests and lawsuits derived from her activities exist independent of any opinions about them. Further, these "opinions" are also documented by many third-party sources, so this too should be included.

Excluding material based on how vituperative it is would be a form of editorializing. Downplaying how controversial she is by burying it later in the article would be doing a disservice to readers (who we cannot assume have the time or inclination to read the entire article). We summarize according to reliable, independent sources. The assessment of the SPLC (for example) is reliable since it is overwhelmingly cited as the authority on race-based extremism in the United States, and is obviously independent of Gottfredson herself. Further, this is an encyclopedia. It is against our goal to falsely imply that fringe theories have mainstream acceptance. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, excluding vituperative sources is in accordance with the policy of neutrality. Sources that make too strong claims ought to be viewed with skepticism rather than be allowed to dictate the tone and content of the article.

Before you call her work "fringe," let me inform you that she was one of the experts invited to contribute a chapter to "The Nature of Human Intelligence" (2018, Cambridge University Press) edited by someone whom she disagrees with, Robert Sternberg. These people are professionals, and they acted professionally. How and why did Sternberg invite her? He went through some authoritative books on the topic and selected the most frequently cited authors and invited them to contribute. You see, how the professionals in the field treat one another is rather different from how those activists view them and try to influence public opinion of them.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such should not be turned into a mouthpiece for activist groups. It should only inform people and a manner that is accurate, objective, and neutral, and let people think for themselves. People are not sheep and we are not their shepherds. Nerd271 (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The recently added material has been discussed before ad nauseum. This discussion resulted in strong majority consensus against its inclusion in the introduction. I also oppose its inclusion for the reasons outlined before (WP:UNDUE, source quality, BLP issues, etc), and think that someone should probably revert the newly added material, though perhaps it would be good to get opinions from editors who participated in the previous discussion. user:DGG, user:Atsme? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

We do not include disputed or contentious negative material in the lede. And we do not over-emphasise even non-contentious negative material, especially in the lede. If something is controversial, and the person is in significant degree important because of the controversy, we do say it in the lede, but a briefly and blandly as possible, and then explain in the article text. This is especially true for biographies of living people. So the material added does not belong in the lede, and whatever one thinks about her work, it's a clear BLP violation to put it there, and should be dealt with as such.

Nor does the grant belong in the lede. Grants are a minor issue in academic bios, and I usually remove them. All notable academics in scientific fields get grants, or they wouldn't have been able to do the work that makes them notable . . As this grant appears to be controversial, it should be discussed in the article, and if it is included, other grants if any should be mentioned. It uses innuendo that because she has received a grant from an organization which has made grants to racists, she is a racist. Guilt by association does not belong in BLP, and certainly not in the lede. And certainly that her university opposed her receiving the grant, but was not sucessful in trying to do this is the sort of misrepresentation that does not belong in the lede, where it cannot be fullly discussed.

I think recent discussions at WP:RSN and elsewhere have established that the SPLC is not necessarily a RS for groups that it opposes, or for negative BLP, and certainly a source of questioned reliability can not be used in a BLP lede. And characterising her as " vocal opposition to policies such as affirmative action, hiring quotas, " is based on a NYT article discussing several people , and I do not see in it where it specifies this of her directly. Guilt by association has no place in BLP--certainly not in the lede. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am 100% in agreement with what DGG has written here. This has been discussed ad nauseam and I am rather dismayed that this issue pops up again. --Randykitty (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• I am on the same page as Randykitty and DGG. This ad nauseam discussion is an undesirable worn spot on the welcome mat. Atsme 💬 📧 22:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• What DGG said rings true for me, too. Nerd271 (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• DGG gives sound reasoning. Quadrow (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:1RR now in effect

Template:Editnotices/Page/Linda Gottfredson should now display upon editing. Expiry is set for 6 months. El_C 12:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Context

I know this isnt useful for wikipedia since no citable source, but anyone who sat in her class for a second knows she's just a outright nazi wearing the thinnest of 'just asking questions about IQ and race' veils. It's a shame that the legitimate points about the Pioneer Fund stuff etc. keeps getting shut down by obvious trolls or naive both-siders who seem to legitimately think a career academic could "accidentally" take money from white supremacists to then go on to directly preach white supremecacy and claim that black people are "just naturally aggressive" to students who are paying for the privilege of being indocrinated. 84.56.246.7 (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)