Talk:Mankind Quarterly

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

History of Science

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view.

Gmeisenberg (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article.
Anamika1988 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
Deleet (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article. This user has declared a connection. ([1])

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Mankind Quarterly, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Archives

Archive 1

Editor-in-chief

This is a minor point, but it bugs me. The article (as of this writing) lists Richard Lynn as the editor-in-chief as of 2023. He's clearly not the current editor-in-chief (since he died last year.) I'll probably change it to something else. But I'm not sure he was even the editor-in-chief in 2023; according to archive.org, it changed to Gerhard Meisenberg in 2022. Simple enough, right? We can say Meisenberg is editor-in-chief and list Lynn as a past one, cited to... archive.org, which is not great, but it's not that exceptional of a point and we can probably find a better source. Except that today, Meisenberg is just listed as "editor". What does that change mean? Are there any secondary sources tracking the ins and outs of Mankind Quarterly's editor-in-chief? --Aquillion (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs to differentiate this from the various Mankind publications

You ought to differentiate between this journal, the English "Mankind Magazine" and the longstanding publication "Mankind Magazine" which is American and which has been publishing popular history articles since the 1960s. Those are quite popular, many are available via various sellers, and have nothing to do with this one. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more, lurking hither and yon. 70.48.36.39 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I invite Wumhenry1 to discuss their preferred content here rather than edit warring. My view is similar to that of Polygnotus, who also reverted you, that this content violates our core policy WP:NPOV. See in particular WP:DUE. Would you agree that this is not how the other reliable sources cited in the article describe this journal? Or do you have alternative, reliable secondary sources which describe it in this flattering way? If so, please present those sources for consideration. Generalrelative (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also how is the perceived ethnic diversity of the current editorial board relevant in any way? Polygnotus (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The board's editorial diversity is plainly obvious from the listed names and nationalities of its members. And this diversity -- 10 of the board's 20 members are indigenous Asians or Africans and one of the remaining ten is Hispanic-surnamed -- clearly has some bearing on the credibility of the contention that Mankind Quarterly is "a white supremacist journal," which is mentioned in the article's lead sentence and embroidered upon in similar terms in subsequent paragraphs.

PS My preferred pronouns are he/him. Wumhenry1 (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The board's editorial diversity is plainly obvious from the listed names and nationalities of its members. And this diversity -- 10 of the board's 20 members are indigenous Asians or Africans and one of the remaining ten is Hispanic-surnamed -- clearly has some bearing on the credibility of the contention that Mankind Quarterly is "a white supremacist journal," which is mentioned in the article's lead sentence and embroidered upon in similar terms in subsequent paragraphs.

PS My preferred pronouns are he/him. Wumhenry1 (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OR. Do you have a reliable source that states that Mankind Quarterly is not white supremacist because of the perceived ethnic diversity of its current editorial board? Polygnotus (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made no dogmatic assertion that the patent ethnic diversity of Mankind Quarterly's editorial board proves that it is not white supremacist. But it does suggest that describing it as a "white supremacist journal" may be unduly tendentious. I didn't say that in the disputed edit, however, which merely takes note of the fact and leaves it to readers to assess its significance. Perhaps it's also worth noting in this regard that articles published in the Quarterly freely acknowledge that the median IQ of people of northeast Asian ancestry -- who of course are non-white -- is higher than that of Caucasians. Mentioning the "white supremacist" charge in the article's opening paragraph without acknowledging readily ascertainable facts that seem at odds with it is hardly neutral. Wumhenry1 (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of statements on Wikipedia that my gut tells me are incorrect. But because my gut is not a reliable source according to some, who shall remain nameless because their parents lack creativity, I find myself in the awkward position of having to rely on so-called reliable sources, who, to me, are obviously less trustworthy than my gut. It sucks. If reliable sources say that the perceived ethnic diversity of its current editorial board mean that it cannot be white supremacist someone will probably update the article. Fun fact: there are white supremacists who believe that "Asian" people in general have a higher IQ than "Cauc-asians". Polygnotus (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's possible for someone to acknowledge that the median IQ of northeast Asians is higher than that of Caucasians yet believe that whites are somehow better, on the whole, than people of any other race -- but if there's evidence that any of Mankind Quarterly's editors (let alone those who aren't white) are of that persuasion I don't recall having seen any mention of it in the Wikipedia article at issue here. 2601:147:C200:86A0:A1CF:B096:4428:ADB4 (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumhenry1: Do me a favour. Please read this. Ewan Birney, Jennifer Raff, Adam Rutherford and Aylwyn Scally wrote it. Polygnotus (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. To return the favor, I strongly recommend reading this lucid rebuttal, which includes links to pertinent commentary from eminent experts: https://noahcarl.medium.com/response-to-birney-raff-rutherford-scally-bf70f763efc6. 2601:147:C200:86A0:A1CF:B096:4428:ADB4 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. I was not impressed. I also read, by the same author, "Did women in academia cause wokeness?". I was very unimpressed. Polygnotus (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your flippant dismissal does not impress me in a good way, but props for reading another essay from the same author. Wumhenry1 (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumhenry1: I even read the one where they claim that "long Covid is mostly psychosomatic". Like science, scepticism is hard. Polygnotus (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that strikes you as preposterous, but I don't know enough about relevant facts to have a strong conviction re the plausibility of that contention. Wumhenry1 (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to my comment below, the word "them" in "reverted by them" refers to Generalrelative, a being of dubious and undisclosed gender whose gaze pierces the veil between worlds. We got this handy template called {{pronoun}}. If you want the mediawiki software to use your preferred pronouns you can configure it in Special:Preferences (scroll down a bit). Polygnotus (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring Generalrelative's use of the plural pronoun in "I invite Wumhenry1 to discuss their preferred content here ...." Wumhenry1 (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, yes, though I obviously didn't use the plural. "They" has been used as a singular pronoun in the English language since Shakespeare, though this is surely not the place to quibble over such matters. I'll remember to call you "he" from now on. Generalrelative (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the royal we but no one even cares. See Singular they and WP:INDENT. Polygnotus (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, we are not amused :-/ Generalrelative (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The royal "we" is a special and obviously impertinent case. 2601:147:C200:86A0:A1CF:B096:4428:ADB4 (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) He may be referring to my phrasing their preferred content above. As a rule, I always use the gender-neutral singular "they" until I've been informed that a user prefers a gendered pronoun. I'll be happy to refer to Wumhenry1 as he from now on.

As to the substance, concurring with Polygnotus here again: this is a clear example of original analysis, which is expressly forbidden in article space. Generalrelative (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it when people agree with me. It robs me of the chance to learn! Polygnotus (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure if we keep editing the same Wikipedia pages we will find something to disagree about by and by! Generalrelative (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the stars align to herald that accursed morn, expect first a thrashing, then a ring, in rapid succession. Polygnotus (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's much less likely that an outsider will now read this talk page discussion. I'd suggest that PG or GR please remove the last few comments (including this one) per WP:NOTFORUM. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why hide any of this dialogue from "outsiders"? 2601:147:C200:86A0:A1CF:B096:4428:ADB4 (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some omight find it enlightening. 2601:147:C200:86A0:A1CF:B096:4428:ADB4 (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Biohistorian15: please discuss here. Polygnotus (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, didn't know about this discussion. How about moving the section to a note or something? I still find it relevant. Biohistorian15 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Biohistorian15: The question is not if but why you find it relevant. Polygnotus (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The short description, for one thing, reads "white supremacist..." That's a different thing from e.g. "aligned with scientific racism." Biohistorian15 (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Generalrelative's goal when starting this section was to discuss the edits by Wumhenry1 reverted by them and myself, and then reinstated by you which I again reverted. That edit did, as far as I know, not change the short description. Polygnotus (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed change is definitely based on original research. I can't support it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the edit I proposed, it was based simply on noting the names and nationalities of the members of Mankind Quarterly's Advisory Board -- i.e., its editorial board. Half of them are indigenous Asian or African nationals, so although the Quarterly's focus on racial differences might be motivated by racial animus the notion that those involved are promoting a white supremacist agenda seems rather far-fetched, at least in the absence of evidence-based explanation that's currently lacking. Furthermore, I submit that the proper object for critical scrutiny is the scientific validity of reported study findings and the logical validity of any conclusions drawn therefrom, rather than conjectural inferences re the authors' motives -- which if presented by way of rebuttal is essentially argumentum ad hominem. 2601:147:C200:86A0:A1CF:B096:4428:ADB4 (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what it was based on. This sort of analysis based on a primary source is original research. If you feel like you've latched on to an important but unpublished point, your best options are approaching the existing references about a correction or finding a reliable media outlet that wants to publish your analysis. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it not suffice to support an assertion that MQ's "Advisory Board" is ethnically diverse by providing a link to the MQ webpage where their names and nationalities are listed? Am I to understand that although it's not good enough to simply cite that webpage directly you'd be satisfied with a cite to an article from a "reliable media outlet" that cites it?? 2601:147:C200:86A0:A1CF:B096:4428:ADB4 (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a reliable source that contrasts the make-up of MQ's board with its description by multiple sources as white supremacist, please bring it here so we can evaluate how best to include that in the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does any report or document linked in the Wikipedia article at issue assert that the current members of Mankind Quarterly's Advisory Board are all Caucasian? Or that more than half of them are? Wumhenry1 (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but why do you think that is relevant? Polygnotus (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the preceding comment from Firefangledfeathers to which I was responding. Wumhenry1 (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read Firefangledfeathers's comment and it does not answer my question. Polygnotus (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this question took me to the point of surety that this discussion is not going to be productive. I reiterate my objection on OR grounds, and I hope you pick up the general "find source, add content" approach that works for most Wikipedians. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it doesn't suffice is that what you're describing is original research, which is strongly discouraged on this site. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course names and nationalities are not reliable indicators of "ethnicity" (e.g. Malcolm X). Polygnotus (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pretty good chance that a resident of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia whose name is Salaheldin Farah Attallah Bakhiet is of indigenous North African ethnicity, doncha think? And it wouldn't be going too far out on a limb, would it, to assume that someone named Jiannong Shi who lives in Beijing is of Asian descent? Or that the same is true of a resident of Seoul named Yoon-Mi Hur? Wumhenry1 (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and WP:RS and WP:V and read about why Malcolm X adopted X as his last name before Twitter was created. Polygnotus (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already know why Malcolm changed his surname to X but so what? Are you seriously suggesting that the board members named Salaheldin Farah Attallah Bakhiet, Jiannong Shi, and Yoon-Mi Hur might be white dudes posing under pseudonyms?! If so trying Googling on their names. For starters, here's a link I found in Google Scholar by running a search on "Salaheldin Farah Attallah Bakhiet": https://scholar.google.dk/citations?user=aJDrPoYAAAAJ&hl=en. Anything else I can help you with here? Wumhenry1 (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean posing? People marry. People travel. People get adopted. People change their names for various reasons. I know at least 2 dozen "Asian" people who go by different names in the west. But in any case, unless we have a reliable source its all moot because of WP:OR. Polygnotus (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click the link to the Salaheldin Farah Attallah Bakhiet's page in Google Scholar? Perhaps he travels widely, but his place of residence is listed as Riyadh and King Saud University as his employer. Is there something about the image of the swarthy-complexioned individual in the head-and-shoulders photo that leads you to suspect someone is perpetrating an ethnic-identity scam here?

PS Have you tried Googling "Jiannong Shi," "Yoon-Mi Hur," or any of the other names of Board members with listed residences in Asia or Africa, and if so what did you find? Wumhenry1 (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using words like posing and scam. Please read Straw man. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to input another edit today but was prevented from doing so by an algorithm, so I'll propose it here instead. It involves no original research, insertion of new content, or deletion of existing non-duplicative content. To wit, I recommend removing the first sentence from the opening paragraph and merging it with the largely identical initial sentence under the "Reception" heading, where it more properly belongs, along with supporting cites not duplicated there. Which, aside from eliminating redundancy, would afford a better semblance of neutrality. Wumhenry1 (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you mean an WP:EDITFILTER? Or a Polygnotus? [2] WP:LEAD says: All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies Polygnotus (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.