Talk:Michael Levin (philosopher)

message: lkjytjkg?
: Just vandalism, now removed. RossPatterson 04:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Professor Michael Levin has never, as far as I can tell, claimed that homosexuality is immoral. I can find no reference for this attribution, and Professor Levin disputes it in an e-mail I sent to him on 30 November 2007. He has, in "Why Homosexuality is Abnormal" (1985, The Monist) and again in "Non-Euclidean Sex" (Think, Jan. 2006) claimed that homosexuality "homosexuality...is a misuse of bodily parts and is consequently less satisfying that heterosexual sex." If there are no immediate objections I will edit the article to read as above. I disagree strongly with Professor Levin's position, but I think it is important to get the position right. --C. A. Evans, Ph.D. Student in Philosophy, CUNY Graduate Center.
Again, as far as I can tell, Professor Levin has never claimed that white people are superior to black people. He has claimed that white people have an on average higher IQ and that there is good evidence that this difference is genetic as opposed to environmental. I will edit the article to express this point if there are no objections. --C. A. Evans, Ph.D. Student in Philosophy, CUNY Graduate Center  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.53.205 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Shouldn't this article talk about the Michael Levin talked about at http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/israeldiary/Michael_Levin_An_Israeli_Hero_for_Our_time.asp or at http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+levin? (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this Michael Levin 

message: It would be nice to get cites for these, if they are even true. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit? 

message: User:Anthon.Eff: you are dissastisfied with the part of the article saying that the theory that white people score higher on IQ tests than black people due to genetic differences (which is endorsed by Levin) has been has been "widely criticized." I agree that the "widely criticized" wording could be improved, but since you have so far failed to make a convincing case that your version (which states that the theory has been "criticized by Leon Kamin and Robert C. Richardson") reflects the article's sources more accurately, I have again reverted you.
Have you actually read the articles by Kamin and Richardson? If not, then your attempt to change this part of the article is inappropriate. If you have read their articles, then please quote the relevant parts here so that other editors can see what they contain and reach a fully informed judgment about this issue. I haven't read them, so I'd find it helpful if you could do that.
It seems drastically misleading to suggest that Kamin and Richardson are the only two people who have criticized the theory that the difference between black and white scores on IQ tests are due to inherited racial factors, and I'd be much surprised if that is what their articles really show. It's wrong to conclude that simply because someone wrote an article criticizing a theory, that the article must show that its author is the only person to have criticized it. So far as I know, the idea that inherited racial differences explain differing IQ scores has plenty of other critics (Richard Lewontin, Michel Schiff, Stephen Jay Gould, are a few of the names that come to mind). UserVOBO (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So find the specific articles criticizing Levin by Lewontin, Gould, etc., if that's so easy. Point is, you can't dis a living person by saying that lots of people disagree with them--you have to say specifically who disagrees with them (check the policy: WP:BLP). --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthon.Eff: I asked you a direct question, which I will repeat. Have you read the articles used as sources here? I repeat again that if the answer is no, then you should not be attempting to change that part of the article, because you cannot know what you are doing. If those articles do not say that only their authors have criticized theories about IQ like Levin's, then this article must not suggest that they are the only two people who have made such criticisms. It seems more likely to me that the articles would show that many people, not only their authors, have criticized such views. Again, if you have actually read them and know what you're talking about, you should quote the articles here to prove that you are using them responsibly. BLP policy, which you invoke, requires that sources be used properly. You seem to be engaged in POV pushing (suggesting that somehow only two people have criticized the highly controversial view that Levin endorses) under the guise of enforcing BLP, an approach that is extremely unfortunate. UserVOBO (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I checked WP:BLP again and it does not say anything like "you have to say specifically who disagrees with" the subject of a BLP. Anyway, your claim that I must "find the specific articles criticizing Levin by Lewontin, Gould, etc" is misrepresenting the issue - there's no need for articles specifically about Levin, since the sentence under dispute isn't only or specifically about Levin's views. It reads, "Levin agrees with Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn that white people score higher on IQ tests than black people due to genetic differences." UserVOBO (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Supplement to Third Opinion: Since no one has responded to this opinion yet, let me supplement it with another word or two. While the notion that the absence of the word "widely" implies anything does not, in light of Wikipedia's stated position about weasel words, hold water, I would nonetheless suggest doing this: a view that has been criticized by Leon Kamin of Princeton University and Robert C. Richardson of the University of Cincinnati. [continue with existing references] The inclusion of the names of those two critics in the text does tend to imply that they are the only two who have criticized Levin. Since that is not, apparently (I've not checked for others), the case, then relegating those two critics entirely to a footnote prevents any such implication. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you appear to have misunderstood what is at issue here. The disputed sentence is this: "Levin agrees with Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn that white people score higher on IQ tests than black people due to genetic differences—a view that has been criticized by Leon Kamin of Princeton University and Robert C. Richardson of the University of Cincinnati." Note that the sentence is not only about Levin - it is about Jensen and Lynn as well. The problem with the information as it stands is not that it implies that Kamin and Richardson are the only two people to have criticized Levin, but that it implies that Kamin and Richardson are the only two people to have criticized the controversial view Levin, along with Jensen and Lynn, supports. That's certainly not the case, and it amounts to a POV distortion of the article to imply that it is. UserVOBO (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

text: As to the charge that "widely criticized" somehow violates BLP or that it is "unsourced contentious matter about a living person", it's not about Levin himself at all, and nor was it unsourced. It was a sourced statement about a view Levin, among others, endorses, a highly controversial view that is certainly widely criticized. I pointed out some time ago that that wording was problematic and could be improved, but I don't see that it's a BLP violation. UserVOBO (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Leon Kamin is an important academic (Princeton lies very high in the hierarchy). I think his criticism of Levin bears plenty of weight, and there really is no need to bring in Richardson or anyone else. I would support a sentence such as: "Levin agrees with Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn that white people score higher on IQ tests than black people due to genetic differences—a view that has been criticized by scholars such as Leon Kamin of Princeton University." In support, cite both Kamin and Richardson, so that it is clear that someone other than Kamin  holds Levin in low esteem. I think that would satisfy BLP, and still convey the idea that Levin is controversial. What do you think VOBO?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggested version is a clear improvement. It might be a good idea to give slightly more idea why Kamin and others criticize Levin, but that's basically acceptable. UserVOBO (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bueno! Would you be willing to summarize Kamin's arguments? I think it would be best to do that in a section entitled Criticisms. His book review on Why Race Matters would be sufficient, though Kamin is a life-long critic of the concept of race, and one could easily find plenty of other material in his other writings. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by Anthon.Eff 

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the  Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence 

message: I'd like to hear whether the recent editor who is removing sourced portions of the article is reading the sources before deleting them. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot of sourced content seems to be being removed without discussion. 

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the  Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source list of possible use for editing this article 

message: Hahaha the famous "objectivity" of Wikipedia. Only Whites are "evil racist" if they have a different pov on the equality of races. Jews are not. Interesting also that there is no reference to ADL and SPLC. Hahaha what a joke this site is.KevinFrom (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  He is not an "evil racist"? 

message: Are you kidding? What kind of a reference is that? Has wikipedia become a free advertising site for his friends?
"a view that has been criticized by scholars such as Leon Kamin of Princeton University.[7]"KevinFrom (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your reference costs 14 $ ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Levin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100129180016/http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=18054 to http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=18054
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: including the possibility that there is a biologically based dislike of homosexuality
This isn't a sufficient justification, unless all thing biological are inherently moral. (After all, God wouldn't have made us want bad things.)  
Contrary to some feminists, there is surely a biological basis to the sometimes aggressive male pursuit of the sex act, but we hardly give this a free pass, just because God (or Darwin) made some men that way. 
Does Levin actually endorse the "there it is so it must be good" position? That would be pertinent in this paragraph. — MaxEnt 17:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  there it is, so it must be good