Talk:Media portrayal of race and intelligence

message: It is not accepted outside of small conservative circles. More left-leaning people have called it outright racist. It is not the kind of material that an encyclopedia article should use as a source and it is just about the only source for much of this article, which consists primarily of regurgitated findings from a single questionable study. 
If not removed, I recommend out-merging most of the Snyderman and Rothman findings (except for a brief summary) to its own article. After that, this article should be expanded to include the entire history of this debate in the media and more balanced coverage of right wing bias.futurebird 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V and WP:RS are the standards at issue. S&R meets and exceeds them. --W. D. Hamilton 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per WP:RS "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" --This article has only one and it is questionalble. The claims are exceptional. And again too much of the article depends on a single source. futurebird 04:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  the "single source" is a book-length treatment. published criticism of the book should be presented as such. removing verifiable and well cited (has citations and has received citations) is inappropriate. --W. D. Hamilton 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How credible are the people who cite it? When I searched I only found it referenced by David Duke and "stormfront" -- of course, just because bigots have used it does not mean it is a "bad source" but, please tell me which highly credible research has been based on this paper?futurebird 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check google scholar or a scholarly citation index. A simple google search isn't going to be informative. S&R can't be held liable for what racists think about their work. --W. D. Hamilton 04:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the ball is in your court in terms of finding these sources. futurebird 04:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm telling you to check google scholar b/c I already did. You'll find plenty of citations there. Outside of that, the underlying survey data is commented on by Sternberg here. More generally, the RS guidelines are clearly met and exceeded by the S&R(1988) book -- it's a scholarly work, the top tier of quality. Race and intelligence is a controversial topic, and as this article itself demonstrates, looking at nonscholarly sources (like the main google search) isn't going to be informative. --W. D. Hamilton 07:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Snyderman and Rothman (1988) is a dubious source

message: The caption of the image implies a protest, but I only see people talking. That statement needs to be sourced.futurebird 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the source was in the underlying image page. i coped it to a ref. --W. D. Hamilton 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! futurebird 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The caption of the image

message: what is the relevance of reporting that snyderman and rothman have published articles in national review? --W. D. Hamilton
:It relates to their credibility as sources and the potential for political or racial bias coloring their research. Extremely conservative and liberal sources should be identified as such for the sake of clarity and honesty.  The clearest way to do this is by showing the connection these individuals may have to extreme liberal or conservative organizations or press, since then the reader may interpret the potential for bias in their claims. Given the sensitive nature of the material it is the least we can do for our readers. futurebird 04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  national review - relevance? 

message: This article is so absurdly lopsided I would support deleting it. Though, I'm also open to the idea of a massive revision (one that would reduce the current content in to a paragraph and expand in to other areas.) Here are some things to address.
===Mostly Snyderman and Rothman===
*Most of the content of this article relates to the Snyderman and Rothman study, which says that the media are playing down the potential for a genetic basis for IQ that is linked to race. This study is not terribly important or universally respected. It deserves a sentence or two at most not a whole article. 
*The graphs dominate this article and they are from the Snyderman and Rothman study.
*The article gives the appearence of being well researched and backed up by citations, but often these citations reference the same few authors. 
===Misleading title===
The title of the article is misleading. It claims to cover the media portrayal of the controversy over race and intelligence, but in fact, it mostly covers the Snyderman and Rothman study. 
===No historical content or context===
There is no mention of the long history of racial minorities being portray as stupid in the media. No mention of the books and papers of eugenicists which were at one time well respected by the scientific community and the main stream press. 
===Tone, selective quoting===
*The tone of the writing, despite editing supports the genetic hypothesis and the image used attempts to cast "so called Demonstrators" in a negative light. 
*The article was outright misleading before I edited it using tightly cropped quotes to conceal information that might contradict the POV of the author. We need to keep a close eye on this.futurebird 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to concur with futurebird.  This content fork has become unbalanced, due to its emphasis on Snyderman and Rothman - which is not a well respected source.  I would add my voice to calls for an AfD on grounds of WP:N#Rationale_for_requiring_a_level_of_notability--Cailil 15:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major concerns

message: *The tone of the writing, despite editing supports the genetic hypothesis and the image used attempts to cast "so called Demonstrators" in a negative light. 
*The article was outright misleading before I edited it using tightly cropped quotes to conceal information that might contradict the POV of the author. We need to keep a close eye on this.futurebird 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to concur with futurebird.  This content fork has become unbalanced, due to its emphasis on Snyderman and Rothman - which is not a well respected source.  I would add my voice to calls for an AfD on grounds of WP:N#Rationale_for_requiring_a_level_of_notability--Cailil 15:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone, selective quoting

message: The literature does support a genetic model of intelligence:Hulshoff Pol HE, Schnack HG, Posthuma D, Mandl RC, Baare WF, van Oel C, van Haren NE, Collins DL, Evans AC, Amunts K, Burgel U, Zilles K, de Geus E, Boomsma DI, Kahn RS. Genetic contributions to human brain morphology and intelligence.J Neurosci. 2006 Oct 4;26(40):10235-42. 
PMID: 17021179 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Thompson PM, Cannon TD, Narr KL, van Erp T, Poutanen VP, Huttunen M, Lonnqvist J, Standertskjold-Nordenstam CG, Kaprio J, Khaledy M, Dail R, Zoumalan CI, Toga AW. Genetic influences on brain structure.
Nat Neurosci. 2001 Dec;4(12):1253-8. PMID: 11694885 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Baare WF, Hulshoff Pol HE, Boomsma DI, Posthuma D, de Geus EJ, Schnack HG, van Haren NE, van Oel CJ, Kahn RS.Quantitative genetic modeling of variation in human brain morphology.Cereb Cortex. 2001 Sep;11(9):816-24. PMID: 11532887 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
Baker LA, Vernon PA, Ho HZ. Related Articles,The genetic correlation between intelligence and speed of information processing.Behav Genet. 1991 Jul;21(4):351-67. GetAgrippa 17:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is denying that intelligence has a genetic component.Ultramarine 20:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GetAgrippa's sources?

message: It seems to me that most of the time it's black people who are made out to be stupid in the media. I thought this article would be about the ways that black people are made to seem stupid in the press and the whole history of that. I guess it might be important to mention this other stuff, but I don't understand what the point of this article is? The media aren't that liberal, you know. This article could mention things like "Jar Jar" and "Sambo" who make fun of black people for being stupid, why is there no content on this side of the story? JJJamal 18:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay! I made some changes. It looks like they are going to stay and not get deleted! JJJamal 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Race and intelligence in the Media

message: This section gives important background, but since the scope of this article hass been expended to inculde other examples of R and I in media, it's now a little confusing. This isn't just about this one study that showed that there might be a liberal bias-- So how can we edit this page to make it more clear? Ideas? JJJamal 18:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: White supremacists

message: My comment is about style, not content.
:For example, Jar Jar a character from the 2002 Star Wars films has been called "a modern incarnation of racist stereotypes." Many aspects of Jar Jar's character are believed to be highly reminiscent of the archetypes portrayed in blackface minstrelsy.
The endnotes are not enough.  I thinhk one should avoid the passive voice as much as possible.  Using the passive voice functions like "weasel words" - they allow you to make claims that are too vague to be sustained.  NPOV insists not only that we provide multiple points of view, but also that we clearly identify points of view and when necessary provide adequate context.  So, the above passage - and I would ask all contributing to this article to go through it to find all the other examples - needs to be rewritten so we know (1) who has this view of Jar Jar Binks and (2) why this person's view is worth including in Wikipedia (for example, my mom's opinion is not worthy of inclusion.  But the Executive Director of the NAACP or a professor at the Columbia Journalism School would obviously be very appropriate, notable views).  You could say, really, my comment is about policy more than style - but my point is, clear style makes it clear whether this is complying with policies or not.  Assume it is policy compliant - don't hide the fact in endnotes.  I singled out this example but really, there are more in the article and the article will be much stronger I think if you heed my suggestions, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same kind of change is needed for the descriptions of Snyderman and Rothman. That they are (Harvard?) professors who are famous for the analyses of the media is important. --W.R.N. 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current descriptors give a better idea of the kind of sources each of these people are... But, I'm fine with a change, as long as we change both to be fair about this.futurebird 00:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources need to have their importance established in some way. Writing for The Nation or writer for The National Review isn't very important. Being a recognized scholar in the field is important. --W.R.N. 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be a bit prejudiced - non-academic opinions or employment shouldn't be seen as a negative.  Certainly being published in a significant publication is quite important...arguably more important than being a recognized scholar in a small niche field. --JereKrischel 04:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: what is the source of the term "stereotype" in this article. is it merely being used where "description" or "portrayal" would be substitutable? if so, the less loaded term should be used. --W.R.N. 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the sources cited use this word.futurebird 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "stereotype" 

message: Here are some studies that deal with this issue directly... and two books.
*
*Child Sacrifice- Black America's Price of Paying the Media Piper Orange, Carolyn M.; George, Amiso M.
*Darwin's Athletes: how sport has damaged Black America and preserved the myth of race By John Milton Hoberman ISBN 0395822920
*Entman, Robert M. and Andrew Rojecki The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America. 2001
Most of what I have are direct quotes from the sources footnoted. I can't see how you can say the whole thing is OR. This is such an old issue.
futurebird 05:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I am not familiar with this area of Wikipedia, but I am certainly familiar with this area of study. I edited the Irish section earlier and it was changed again. The issue is really the last sentence, which is going between, basically, "irish were seen as 'white' ever since they came to the United States" and "Irish are seen as white today in the United States." The source cited, Alien Menace, is certainly about how they were not seen as white, but at one point states they are today. I am going to change the sentence to how it is earlier, so it properly reflects the source we are citing. abexy 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen, could you not revert the article without even looking at the discussion page, and then make a statement contradictory to the source you are citing, not to mention a statement which doesn't actually make sense. The views of the Irish people in America have changed since the 19th and 20th centuries, and in fact that is exactly what the article is talking about. Perhaps if you found something which supported the idea that the views of Irish have been the same it would work. abexy 06:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the "alien menace" is of course not a published article. It's a class assignment designed to stimulate students. You might want to read the Redfield book (it's online free and I linked to it)--Redfield takes ALL the races of the world and compares their faces to animals. It's entertaining. But for seriousscholarship better start with Eric Arneson, “Whiteness and the Historians’ Imagination,” International Labor and Working-Class History 60 (2001): 3-32. The current sentence actually says what? Nothing at all. Rjensen 07:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: looks good, I just didn't want mis-citing. abexy 07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Alien Menace Article