Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist)

message: This sentence is supported by articles from "The Guardian", "Vox", and a paper with only one listed citation. These sources are politically highly partisan and simply cannot be taken seriously. We all know race and intelligence is a political football - the race and intelligence page on Wikipedia is locked. There are a small number of right-wing extremists who would like to use the genetic component of intelligence for racism(although that would be quite hard since racial rankings of IQ place whites in the middle of the pack), but this is countered by a much larger group of authoritarian identity politics following left-wingers who want to pretend genetics and intelligence don't influence society.
When I have listened to academics discussing the current state of race and intelligence the conclusion they have reached is that the jury is still out. Certainly research by Robert Plomin implies a strong genetic component of IQ and that will reflect your biological parents.
Anyway casually dismissing Murray on the basis rants from highly partisan sources completely undermines Wikipedia as a reliable and trustworthy source of information. The sentence should be either removed or should simply state that some people still consider race and intelligence a controversial subject with no definitive conclusion at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.123.82 (talk • contribs) 
:Please refer to Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_103#RfC_on_racial_hereditarianism and WP:FRINGE. We are required to identify fringe beliefs as such. This will not be relitigated here. Generalrelative (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "His views on race and intelligence are now considered discredited by mainstream science" ... 

message: If IP 2601:805:8180:2d70:212a:16da:315a:3912 would like to make controversial changes to this page, they will need to persuade others first, since almost everything that is currently written here is the result of a preexisting consensus process. In particular, this edit contradicts the strong consensus of Wikipedia editors which found that the scientific consensus is that racial disparities in average performance on IQ tests are not caused by genetic differences. See this RfC: Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 103#RfC on racial hereditarianism. All Wikipedia pages which deal with this topic must conform to the finding of that RfC, and any WP:FRINGE views which contradict it need to be described from a mainstream point of view. Generalrelative (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There have recently been edits by  and  attempting to change this wording once again. My understanding is that the present wording is required by the WP:FRINGE guideline, and any attempts to introduce ambiguity to the statement run afoul of the prevailing consensus. I invite these editors to make their case here if they would like to see the language changed. Generalrelative (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested edits 

message: I invite  to discuss their preferred text here rather than edit warring. Happy to be persuaded, but at first glance the suggested language appears WP:UNDUE. And contrary to the assertion in your edit summary, the current version of the lead does not fail to mention his promotion of discredited ideas about race and intelligence. With particular regard to including allegations of white supremacy in the lead, see the above RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Some parts of that edit go too far, but I do think that we should describe his views on race and intelligence in the first sentence; it's by far the thing that he's most notable for. Mentioning it only in the very last sentence feels extremely strange.  --Aquillion (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I'd be open to a rewrite that does a better job highlighting what Murray is best known for so long as it comports with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:TONE. In my view, the suggested edit reads like a WP:STRAWSOCK type of argument. I'm not accusing ShirtNShoesPls of this, but we have seen this tactic in the R&I topic area and those accounts made similar types of edits. Generalrelative (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I think second sentence tends to read better if it's a sentence that is long (as this one will be). It's only my personal preference, but putting fringe disclaimers in the first sentence always feels a bit RationalWiki for me (I enjoy a bit of RationalWiki, but still). Zenomonoz (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On topics like [[race and intelligence] or creationism we don't need to "balance" the two perspectives. WP: NPOV doesn't prevent us from taking stances if there's overwhelming evidence for one side of the dispute. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you arguing against here, ShirtNShoesPls? Generalrelative (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to "balance" two perspectives? What is the other perspective here? I'm saying things often read better with a short first sentence and a clarifying second sentence. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

text: If there are RS calling Murray's work pseudoscientific, let's get them into the body of the article. BODYFOLLOWSLEAD is not the way to go. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  More contested edits 

message: Should Charles Murray's insistence that the intelligence gaps between "races" is partially or mostly attributable to genetics be mentioned in his lead? And should this page state that his beliefs on the matter are considered pseudoscientific by members of the scientific community?
: Background: The information has recently been removed from several of the articles surrounding Murray, along with other "racialist" thinkers such as Richard Lynn, due to a recent Quillette article that claims that the notion is a smearjob against him and other "hereditarian" thinkers. Others state that this presents a false balance. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC: Should Charles Murray's positions on race and intelligence be described as pseudoscientific in the lead?