Talk:Jared Diamond/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Evolutionary biologist

I tried to post the link in the article history but it truncated. I will link to the Scientific American article, instead. In the article, Michael Shermer refers to Diamond as an evolutionary biologist. According to the Edge Foundation, Diamond's field work includes "...17 expeditions to New Guinea and neighboring islands, to study ecology and evolution of birds; rediscovery of New Guinea's long-lost goldenfronted bowerbird; other field projects in North America, South America, Africa, Asia, and Australia." [1] --Viriditas | Talk 23:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---Diamond isn't an opponet of 'genetic arguments to account for racial differences'. He's an opponent of explaing the relative sophisication achieved by the races via arguments of genetic racial superiority. The previous wording suggested that Diamond's didn't think genes played any difference in racial varaiance at all. Clearly, Diamond is aware that skin color and other racial-specific features (nose shape, type of hair, general body size) are caused by genes. I may have made a run-on sentence, however. 69.250.25.213

---Regarding "Ethnic differences: Variation in human testis size": Diamond's 1986 commentary in Nature was not an "early work"-- he has papers going back to at least 1966 (Science 151:1102-1104). The only trait for which there was a trend from high to low in frequency among Africans, Caucasians, and East Asians was dizygotic twinning rate. Diamond speculated that dizygotic twinning rate might be correlated with testis size and female hormone levels, but noted that data were insufficient to address the question. It doesn't seem to me that Diamond's commentary is in the least contradictory to his later work, nor does it have an important bearing on his more recent books. The whole sentence would not survive a proper rewrite of the article. 131.210.4.95 28 xi.2005

Bibliography

I have been an avid reader of Discover magazine since the early 80's, and I recall Diamond as a frequent contributor to the magazine, so I was surprised when only three of his articles were listed. This bibliography is incomplete, but I am unsure of the proper procedure to do so. Am I correct in assuming Wikipedia uses APA style? --William Moates 18:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We typically lived in very small groups

“Bands are the tiniest societies, consisting typically of 5 to 80 people, most or all of them close relatives by birth or by marriage. In effect, a band is an extended family or several related extended families.” (GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL: THE FATES OF HUMAN SOCIETIES, Jared Diamond, New York, London: Norton, page 267.)

Jared divides human societies into four main categories: bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states. And bands are how we lived for most of human history, pretty much the entire time we were hunters-gatherers. As I understand it, we have been just as smart as we are right now for at least the last 150,000 years, we just lived differently. FriendlyRiverOtter 05:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography order

It is weird to read the bibliography in reverse chronological order. I am going to change it to reverse reverse chronological order. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"New Melanesian"

The article states he can speak "New Melanesian". AS far as I know there is no such language. What is this referring to? --86.148.57.131 (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the text accompanying the appendix titled Neo-melanesian in one easy lesson in The Rise and Fall of the Third Chinpanzee, it should refer to a creole language that is the lingua franca of Papua New Guinea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.98.3 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a quick search suggests that the correct link appears to be Tok Pisin. I have updated the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.98.3 (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Erased some old non-article related discussions

There were some discussions of opinions and personal viewpoints which were not related to improving the article and they were several months old so I deleted them. Vloxul (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

factual errors

Why is there no mention of the factual errors and ambiguity in "guns germs and steel"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.120.240 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism about his comments about Easter Island in "Collapse"

A book by Dr. Benny Peiser details how Diamond greatly exaggerated the "collapse" of Easter Island in the 17th century. Something to look into perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.114.110 (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?

This guy certainly has his critics. Can we compile some basic general criticisms of his thought and methodology and organize it into a criticism section? Right now, this article is head-over-heels for this guy.72.78.159.73 (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi 72.78.159.73. You could try constructing such a section here first, or at least bring together information you've found here. An alternative approach might be to add any criticism to the appropriate section of the main article. Because it separates subjects and criticism of them, creating a separate criticism section is often less effective than noting dissent at the relevant subsection. Just my two cents. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Too bad I'm a nobody, because I can smash holes into his research and make both his books sink faster than the titanic. So somebody famous out their has to have dismantled his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltwaternord (talk • contribs) 17:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Guns, Germs and Steel

The description is far too truncated and does damage to the sense of his arguments. For one, nowhere does he say advanced civilization which overtook simpler ones only arose in Eurasia. That would be an absurd claim. The article leaves out any of the major mechanics he describes which gave certain regions developmental advantages over others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dutchsatyr (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 July 2006.

There is a separate article on Guns, Germs, and Steel, so the description here should not be very lengthy. -- bcasterline • talk 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think the discussion about Guns, Germs & Steel is truncated or cursory. Indeed while Prof. Diamond argues against genetic differences between people as origins of technological disparity he does indeed advance the case that one culture can be objectively superior to another and even gives the example in the 20th century of neighboring New Guinea tribes exercising control over other tribes by being more enthusiastic for newly acquired agricultural or entrepreneural methods as compared to the other tribes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.139.190.35 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

I do not understand why the Controversy section is featured so high in the overall article structure. While it seems to be important, whole Diamond's life and work seem to precede it chronologically, in volume of events and their significance. Moreover, it is difficult to judge now the substance of the controversy and factual state of events. Consequently, in my view, this section should be moved down in the article. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much that the controversy section is high up but that the "list" sections are unusually long. It makes sense for information-heavy sections like bibliographies should be at the end of the article, and you'll notice that's how most articles are. I do agree, however, that the controversy section has an "undue weight" feeling to it right now. I'll see what I can do about moving some of the cruft into the main article and slimming down the controversy section (since, for the moment, it seems not much as happening with the accusations). --Joey Roe (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable plan, though any outright cruft should perhaps simply be moved out. Please proceed. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's a little more balanced now. The 'boards' and 'awards' sections are still a little long though but I'd like to find away to include the information in the article a little more seamlessly instead of just removing it. Regarding the controversy section I removed the summary of Shearer's article (but kept a reference to it) since it's the lawsuit itself that is noteworthy not someone writing an article about it. I'm open to the re-including some of the controversy details if they can be properly substantiated and balanced though. --Joey Roe (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that the section needs to be any longer unless a developing case demands. Nice job overall, thanks, obviously a major task. The Harvard bachelor's degree was (possibly still is) an A.B., from the Latin wording; I've fixed that. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaks a dozen languages?

The miscellaneous section says that Diamond speaks a dozen languages. I find this extremely hard to believe. Is it more accurate to say he has a familiarity with a dozen languages? This information needs to be cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.12.16.176 (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, that kind of caught my eye, too! Maybe some people have a real facility for language, or start learning several when they’re very young and that really helps them start developing the skill. In any case, this is the kind of thing that I also agree would be good to include a citation. FriendlyRiverOtter 05:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not odd at all, though it is slightly unusual for the average human. If I were to learn Manx Gaelic to an excellent level of fluency, it would be extremely simple at that point to learn Irish and Scottish forms of Gaelic. This is a generic rule that can be applied to other language families; Italianate, Germanic, and so on.

Another point to consider is that it is not our place to judge his claim. This is an encyclopaedia, not a debate forum. At best, it is appropriate to cite sources for and against his reputed facility for learning and using languages.

75.180.34.240 05:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Gaelic is not a language family, so it's not valid to compare it with the Romance or Germanic language families. I speak English and I certainly didn't find it "extremely simple" to learn German; I doubt a French speaker would find it simple to learn, say, Romanian or Portuguese either. We really need to know what those 12 languages of Diamond's are for the claim to have any meaning at all. Lfh 15:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Manx, Scottish, and Irish would best be described as three dialects of Gaelic, comparable to the multitude of dialects of Italian. As for the language famillies issue, I can attest that fluent French speakers have an advantage learning Spanish and Italian, and from what I know of those two languages, I expect that they would confer even greater advantages to anyone who speaks one and seeks to learn the other. To respond to the initial comment, I think Mr. Diamond's academic career demonstrates that he is a very intelligent man, lending plausability to the claim that he speaks 12 langauges. NorthernNerd (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I sent 2 emails to Jared Diamond requesting a list of his 12 spoken languages. I received no response. Perhaps an administrator can try to contact him at UCLA: jdiamond@geog.ucla.edu

If that fails, we can try to contact UCLA's geography department. --Bureaucracy (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Is any administrator willing to contact Jared Diamond to confirm his 12 spoken languages?--Bureaucracy (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt he'd answer such a banal question. I don't see that it's that important. It's enough to state that he has an aptitude for languages, you don't have to go into childish counting and listing. Besides, who decides what's constitutes "speaking a language" -- do you demand native-level fluency? The ability to hold a conversation? Ask for a carton of milk? Or will comprehension do? It's a silly question. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

An inquiry of Jared Diamond's linguistic accomplishments is not banal, childish nor silly. Shame on you, Joseph, for suggesting it. A detailed list of his spoken languages could inspire young people to strive for 13, 14 or even 20 spoken languages.--Bureaucracy (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, is any administrator willing to contact Jared Diamond for a list of his 12 spoken languages?--Bureaucracy (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence controversy

The arbcom notice has got me curious as to why this article is in the category "Race and intelligence controversy". The category has been there for a long time, but if Diamond has ever weighed in on the issue, it's not mentioned in the article. I suggest we remove it. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 20:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean remove the category tag from this article? If it is your (source-based) impression that Diamond is not really an author whose writings are relevant to that issue, and other editors share the same impression, I don't think anyone connected to the ArbCom case would object to that. I'm glad you opened the discussion. If consensus of editors watching this article is that it doesn't belong to the Race and intelligence controversy category, then the category tag needs to be removed from the article, and correspondingly the notice to editors tag up above could be removed from this talk page. Currently, the notice is exhaustively attached to the talk pages of all articles in the category (and to the talk pages of a few other articles that were in edit-wars related to the recent ArbCom case). Thanks very much for your comment. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there doesn't appear to be any objections, I've gone ahead and removed the category tag. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 20:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

He is obviously a fraudster - see http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-149.php . I recommend changing the entire article to highlight this fact. - KappaD (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Even a brief look at the comment section of that article reveals there are severe issues with it that have yet to be worked out. While I'm not saying this should not be included, the accusations are only just beginning to surface and we should tread carefully.

We of course should certainly NOT be indulging in the kind of juvenile vandalism you have been in your last few edits. --Joey Roe 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is vandalism [2] . My edits certainly were not. - KappaD (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. There are certain kinds of statements WP cannot make in its own voice. We have to be extra careful, even with sourcing. And the case has yet to be tried. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You will have to be more specific. It is proven that he is a fraudster. Just look at the evidence. He is the James Frey of science. - KappaD (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We both know that's not true :) --Joey Roe 21:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

These accusations are rubbish. The suit filed against him appears to have been malicious, as are many of the comments here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.192.139.52 (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. As someone pointed out, "Even a brief look at the comment section of that article reveals there are severe issues with it that have yet to be worked out." I would say that these convince me it's not a reliable source in the WP:RS sense. --Elvey (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind it's been over a year since the article was published so a lot of those issues have been worked out. The section as it stands I think does a good job of reviewing how things stand now, though of course it could be longer. The cultural anth blogosphere have continued to take potshots at Diamond over the last year, but I think until the case is settled there will be no new significant details. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I hadn't noted the dates. I haven't read the original article. But even basic facts such as whether the plaintiffs and the characters with similar names in the New Yorker article are the same people seems to be in dispute. That they're not the same is another possible explanation for the wheelchair-bound status discrepancy. There seems to be a dispute as to whether there are any factual inaccuracies, but this wiki reads as if it's settled fact that the New Yorker article contains notable factual inaccuracies and is not a faithful account of the 'stori' related to Diamond by Wemp. Major actors in the drama seem to have huge axes to grind politically and poor reputations for scholarship. Forbes reports: "The New Yorker counters that the story was vigorously fact-checked by a trusted editorial staffer and stands by its account. Science reports: 'David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, also defends the magazine’s story: “It appears that the New Yorker and Jared Diamond are the subject of an unfair and, frankly, mystifying barrage of accusations.”' Not that these are gospel either. --Elvey (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Science article is the main source for the second paragraph of the section, and the New Yorker's counterpoint about fact-checking is also noted. I haven't seen anybody suggest that the Wemp mentioned in the article is not the same Wemp that filed suit. It seems to me if that were the case the suit would have been dismissed immediately--Diamond would certainly spot that the plaintiff is not the man he knew for several years--and yet as far as I know it is ongoing. So I've reverted your edit for now, but if you can provide a source for the doubt on (not a comment), then by all means re-add it. My understanding of the sources is that the inaccuracy of the article is not questioned, but whether that inaccuracy is Diamond's fault or not, and if it is whether he acted in bad faith, is still a matter of debate. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 16:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The lawsuit response admits to a several claimed facts in the complaint, among which are neither any assent to any inaccuracies in the article, nor any assent to the Mandingo of the article not being wheelchair-bound. I never suggested that the Wemp mentioned in the article is not the same Wemp that filed suit, despite your implication that i have. But claiming the Mandingos are not the same person is sort of OR, so I'll let that revert stand. Undoing the rest, as allowing defamatory statements by the wiki itself is totally unaceptable. The inaccuracy of the article is questioned; the encyclopedia CANNOT represent opinion such as this as fact. Lastly, you reverted a sentence move that was neccessary to keep cited facts with their citation, providing no justification.--Elvey (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving that sentence broke the flow of the prose ("Jennings on Wemp -> Wiessner's summation -> Wemp on Jennings" vs. "Jennings on Wemp -> Wemp on Jennings -> Wiessner's summation") and, for your part, you did not explained why you moved it so I didn't realise you had a problem with the citations. I've moved the sentence back and duplicated the citation; hope that is an acceptable compromise. After all, an article's structure and flow should really depend on its content, not its citations. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 07:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yay for compromise and consensus. Cheers!--Elvey (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Add Mr. Diamond's contribution to book.

• 2011 Culture: Leading Scientists Explore Societies, Art, Power, and Technology (with John Brockman) ISBN 978-0062023131
  • http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Leading-Scientists-Societies-Technology/dp/0062023136

    Contributors and topics include; Jared Diamond on why societies collapse and how we can make better decisions to protect our own future • Denis Dutton on the origins of art • Daniel C. Dennett on the evolution of cultures • Jaron Lanier on the ominous impact of the Internet • Nicholas Christakis on the structure and rules of social networks, both “real” and online • Clay Shirky and Evgeny Morozov on the new political reality of the digital era • Brian Eno on what cultures value • Stewart Brand on the responsibilities of human power • Douglas Rushkoff on the next Renaissance • W. Daniel Hillis on the Net as a global “knowledge web”

  • Also in http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/john-brockman/culture/_/R-400000000000000455110?in_merch=Global_SubjectLanding_New%20Arrivals_US
  • and http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/culture-john-brockman/1100567886?ean=9780062023131&itm=2&usri=john%2Bbrockman 216.250.156.66 (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There are (at least) two three problems with that:

1. None of those is a source for the connection, under WP:BLP. If the book, itself, or the publisher, had a web page, it might be a reasonable source.
2. Why is it an important part of Jared's life?
3. The citation, as you wrote it, doesn't indicate Jared's contribution.

The latter could be fixed by using {{cite book}} with the author=Jared, editor=Brockman, chapter=(whatever his chapter title is), per the example in Template:Cite book/doc titled "Citing a chapter in a book with different authors for different chapters and an editor". Otherwise, it's misleading. - Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I really don't see why Diamond's chapter shouldn't be listed. Such a trivial fact doesn't need to be directly source (per WP:V anyone can just pick up the book, or look at the preview on Amazon, and see Diamond on the contents page to verify it), nor do I understand the need for it to be an "important part" of his life – we're just putting it in the bibliography, not devoting a section to it or anything. I think I'll go ahead and put it in, with the {{cite book}} template as Arthur Rubin suggested. joe•roe^t•c 08:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you User:Joey Roe ... WP:TEA. 141.218.36.44 (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted criticism of Romney

I reverted the good faith inclusion by ‎Dhawk790 concerning his criticisms of Romney. I'm thinking that it may be topical because of the current election, but is really a bit undue in the larger scheme of things, making it more news than encyclopedic. Of course, if a consensus decides otherwise, I have no problem with it being restored, but my gut feeling is that it takes some neutrality and balance out of the article, rather than adds to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Fair point. I thought it was pretty relevant because it was published in a major publication (like the "Vengeance is Ours" subsection), dealt with a real world application of Diamond's theories, and dealt with Diamond's criticism of a presidential candidates take on his work, which I just read was also featured in Romney's book. I think it should stay, but do you think it would be better suited for the Gun Germs, and Steel article? Thanks Dhawk790 (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not rigid in the idea, but because it has a political element, I just wanted to put more eyes on it to make sure we weren't accidentally tilting the article. Political season here can do that. And taking a look at Guns, Germs, and Steel, I would agree that it actually fits there much better, as it would give the event much more context and isn't undue since the incident was about that book to begin with. Had I seen it there, I likely wouldn't have batted an eye lash. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Sounds great. I'll put it over there. Thanks for the input. Dhawk790 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Roxbury Latin School?

Is there a source that states that Diamond went to RLS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.84.209 (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Jared Diamond's Factual Collapse

It seems strange to me that the article doesn't mention the scandal about his 2008 New Yorker article in which he fabricated many facts. Details are here: JettaMann (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

References

There's an entire section on it. joe•roe^t•c 21:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography

As mentioned above, the "Selected publications" was recently expanded quite a bit by User:Duncan.Hull which made it unwieldy. It seemed a shame to waste the effort by just deleting the more obscure articles, so I forked the complete list off to Jared Diamond bibliography as recommended by WP:MOS-BIBLIO.

The books are fairly straightforward, but it was a bit difficult judging which articles are "significant" enough to be remained in the main article. I ended up excluding any that were (a) were mainly technical/written for a specialist audience or (b) just reporting on other papers and conferences (most of the Nature articles). What's left is a bit of an odd collection, but looks broadly representative to me. I suggest we stick to those criteria in future, and leave a comprehensive listing to the forked bibliography article. joe•roe^t•c 12:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Looks much better.— James Cantor (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP issues

I've reverted a couple of recent edits by User:James Cantor. Rather than try to squeeze the reasons into an edit summary, I thought it would be better to explain them properly here:

• This edit that removed some unsourced material on criticism of GG&S. I restored it with a source. But I'm slightly puzzled as to why just that sentence was removed since the majority of the "Work" section isn't directly sourced – it's mostly a summary of the main articles on the respective books which are all amply sourced.
• Two edits (diff) that removed a reliable source and replaced it with a citation needed tag. It's not mandatory for references to have a working hyperlink, and {{dead link}} template exists to draw attention to link rot without removing cited material.
• The most significant change, removing reference to Roland Shearer's article. I'd dispute that the source is not reliable: being formatted a blog doesn't automatically make something not RS and StinkyJournalism (now apparently renamed iMediaEthics) well established journalistic source published by a reputable nonprofit ([3]). More importantly, it was Roland Shearer's article which kicked off the controversy about Vengeance is Ours (verified in the immediately preceeding citation [4]) so in this context it's being used as more of a primary source, and was appropriately phrased as such (i.e. "Roland Shearer alleges...")

I think these were good faith attempts to improve the neutrality of the article, just a bit narrow in following through on citations. And in fairness, the article as a whole could do to be more clearly sourced. But removing sourced and (I hope) balanced criticism just leaves the door open for someone else to put it back in in more libellous form later on. joe•roe^t•c 15:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging my intent, which was indeed to repair the rather egregious WP:UNDUE problem on this page. The subject is someone with a list of awards as long as my arm, including some of the most prestigious awards in all of academia. That 25% of the main page text is about (unfounded?) claims from a plaintiff seeking enormous sums of money is not particularly encyclopaedic. The subject of the BLP has 2.4 million google hits. Any significant criticism would be easily available in well-regarded RS's and should be reflected proportionately.

I'm puzzled why Joe Roe is puzzled about my removal of the relevant text. The WP policy on this is quite clear and repeatedly emphasized:

• "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." WP:BLP
• "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."
• "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively"
• "(BLP) policy extends that principle (of verifiability), adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." WP:BLPSOURCES
• "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" WP:BLPREMOVE

In order words, although I appreciate Joe Roe's caution that removing the text that I did might leave a door open for future problems, it is BLP that guides our edits. Although BLP says I should again remove the problematic material, I do not oppose further discussion first. (Joe: Perhaps you might consider a note at the BLP noticeboard for other guidance on the application of the policy?)

— James Cantor (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I of course agree we should be applying WP:BLP strictly. Could you clarify which problematic material you're referring to, though? I assume the Vengeance is Ours section, rather than the GG&S which was criticism of the book rather than Diamond himself, but best to be clear. joe•roe^t•c 16:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It was the problems with the grossly insufficient sourcing of the Vengeance section that caught my eye, yes. I am not saying that the section should be entirely removed or that the lawsuit oughtn't be mentioned on the page together with whatever BLP-appropriate sources. I'm saying essentially that the section should be proportionate to the rest of the article and (following BLP) that claims should not be on the page until/unless strong RS's can be found. There exist folks who hold whatever beliefs about Diamond's conclusions, and cherry-picking comments like 'he should have known better' is neither encyclopedic nor in keeping with BLP. It's probably best to go through these one by one:

• Sentence 1: "On April 21, 2009, Henep Isum Mandingo and Hup Daniel Wemp of Papua New Guinea filed a $10 million USD defamation lawsuit against Diamond over a 2008 New Yorker magazine article entitled "Vengeance Is Ours: What Can Tribal Societies Tell Us About Our Need to Get Even?""

No problem introducing the issue, although some contextualizing would be appropriate. (We have no idea whether the complaint is reasonable or just puffery from folks who didn't like how they looked in print.) The problem is the source: The source does not mention the lawsuit! (It is a link to Diamond's original piece in the New Yorker.) The source should probably be the Science article, noted below.

• Sentence 2: "Mandingo and Wemp claimed the article, an account of feuds and vengeance killings in the New Guinea highlands, misrepresented and embellished their involvement in inter-tribal violence."

Again, no essential problem with describing the allegation, but it is again missing the context (that anyone can sue anyone for anything, and we have no idea who's right), especially with regard to the general standard that BLP hold us do. Again, the source is a problem: www.imediaethics.org is the blog site of the person/group who sparked the allegations! It does not meet WP's standards for "third-party" neutrality even for regular articles, never mind for BLPs.

• Sentence 3: "The lawsuit came after Rhonda Roland Shearer alleged that the New Yorker article contained factual inaccuracies – most notably that Mandingo was fit and healthy, not, as claimed by Diamond, wheelchair-bound after being injured in fighting."

Here's where the page really goes to town with WP:GOSSIP and WP:BLPGOSSIP. Shearer is not some professional journalist dispassionately pursuing a story, as the page intimates. She is "an artist, art historian and adjunct journalism lecturer" as well as the widow of Stephen Jay Gould. (What was Gould's professional relationship with Diamond like, I wonder?) I'm not saying I have any idea about whether there was some academic feud here potentially relating to Shearer's "allegations." I am saying that if there were genuine significance to this aspect of the BLP, then for someone with 2.4 million google hits, we would have no trouble finding sources that easily fit WP:BLP, rather than needing to rely on websites produced by a participant in the event, treating her as if she were a neutral reporter of them. The Science cite is, of course, the good one here. The current summary of the information in it, however, is terribly POV (see below).

• Sentence 4-5: "Diamond and the New Yorker both stood by the article, maintaining that it was a faithful account of the story related to Diamond by Wemp while they worked together in 2001 and again in a formal interview in 2006. They said that the article was based on "detailed notes", that both Diamond and the magazine did all they reasonably could to verify the story, and that in a recorded phone interview conducted in August 2008 by Chris Jennings, a fact checker for the New Yorker, Wemp did not raise any significant objections."

As I say, the Science cite is the good one, and even though the mainpage includes the basic denial of the allegations, the summary of the content of the Science article is terribly POV. The Science article is decently even handed, but the mainpage summary of its contents plays up criticisms and downplays Diamond's evidence and supporters. Putting the phrase "detailed notes" into quotes is technically correct, but the ambiguity leaves the reader with the POV that these were merely so-called detailed notes, whereas the original article does exactly the opposite.

• Sentence 6: "Wemp contends he told Jennings the story was "inaccurate, inaccurate".

As I say, no problem to summarize the allegations themselves, but what exactly does this add to the BLP? Moreover, the source is again Shearer's website, not that of a 3rd party.

• Sentence 7: "According to anthropologist Pauline Wiessner, an expert on tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea, young men often exaggerate or make up entirely their exploits in tribal warfare; she stated that Diamond would have been naïve to accept Wemp's stories at face value."

Same problems as before: WP:GOSSIP and WP:BLPGOSSIP. It is also an example of the POV summary of the contents of the Science article. That article contains both positives and negatives, often from the same people, but mostly it’s the negatives making it to the mainpage. (Although the positives can be added to the mainpage to match the relative balance in the Science' article, all of this is still wildly WP:UNDUE emphasis relative to the rest of the page.)

(Speaking of proportionate, the list of articles is rather excessive. I think it could be edited down to just the highest impact pubs.)

Finally, to help decide what emphasis this should receive on the page, what was the outcome of the lawsuit? Academics getting sued or found guilty of something make the news much more easily than do academics getting exonerated, and I can't find any report of the outcome. Shearer doesn't appear to mention any kind of victory or other follow-up on her website (and the site certainly suggests that she would have). If the outcome of the lawsuit was that Diamond did something wrong, then we have some updating to do. It’s been several years now, and if he did nothing problematic, then the section needs to come way, way down in emphasis (as well as tone) to meet BLP. If the lawsuit is now over, but was never deemed notable enough by any 3rd party sources useable on the mainpage (the unfortunate nature of news reporting), then we also need to take it way down, probably even farther. (Otherwise WP would have all kinds of BLPs containing false allegations that have been dismissed, but with articles making them sound like open cases, questioning the reputations of academics.)

— James Cantor (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I have to say I'm surprised. I would have thought if anyone was going to accuse that section of being POV it would have been in the other direction (since that is indeed where my POV lies). The quoted "detailed quotes" and the Wiessner quote were both intended to be positives, in defence of Diamond and the New Yorker. More generally, the intention behind maintaining a separate section on the controversy was to include detail that showed that there was very much two sides to the story in a way a passing mention might not. Put it down to overcompensating, maybe.

I've periodically tried to find updates on the lawsuit and haven't found anything either. In light of that I think you're right: an entire section is now probably undue weight. I'd be in favour of slimming it down to a sentence or two in the main biography or work section.

Also agreed on the slightly overzealous list of articles that was added recently. joe•roe^t•c 11:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. (And I have found myself in exactly the same position you describe!) I agree with you suggestion about appropriate weight. Let me suggest the following (using the Science article as the RS): In 2008, Diamond published an article in The New Yorker, describing the role of revenge in warfare among tribesmen in Papua New Guinea. A year later, two of the PNG tribesmen filed a lawsuit against Diamond and The New Yorker claiming the article defamed them, seeking $10 million in damages.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I would avoid the word tribesmen, which in this context could seem slightly paternalistic:

In 2008, Diamond published an article in The New Yorker, describing the role of revenge in tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea. A year later, two of the men mentioned in the article filed a lawsuit against Diamond and The New Yorker claiming the article defamed them, seeking $10 million in damages.

But since we're agreed in principle, I'll go ahead and make the change. joe•roe^t•c 17:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Great; looks good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Cantor (talk • contribs) 15:44, 31 December 2012

Well, that was well timed. Thanks to User:MarmadukePercy for adding the mention in today's Guardian that the lawsuit was dismissed. joe•roe^t•c 11:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow! (And ditto for MarmadukePercy). — James Cantor (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP issues continued

Wow is right. Diamond told the Observer the case was dismissed but this was a falsehood that the Observer corrected and cut out that false claim. It obviously benefits Diamond to have this case disappear in life and Wikipedia. . The error about the lawsuit being dismissed is an error that has been corrected by The Observer/Guardian. iMediaEthics is not a blog but an award winning news site. My report won a major journalism award, single best digital article in the Mirror Awards, last year beating out Columbia Journalism Review, The New York Magazine and other news outlets. Mondo Times, a global directory of media outlets, lists iMediaEthics as a Media Business News site. Google publisher recognizes us as a news site--Not a blog. The fact that our investigation led to the historic law suit --and that the ONLY media report (Balter, Science)you do list links to our report and has ZERO criticism of it, should be the endorsement needed to include here once again. It is also shameful that this single reference to the lawsuit here on Diamond's page that was recommended is behind a pay wall so almost no one will read it.

Diamond's New Yorker article's title nor link for it is included! When I add it back--something reasonable so researcher can look it up--Joe Roe who was one of those behind this whole section being taken down suddenly reappears and deletes it. By what standards do you mention a nameless New Yorker article as behind a lawsuit but do not include the title or link? Because the full reference adds weight? Nonsense. The fact this section is deleted just in time for the Diamond's big January book tour (the people wanting to delete it started I think Dec 31)is too much of a coincidence.

The fact that Wikipedia stated the lawsuit was dismissed and then now states it wasn't, deserves an explanation and inclusion of the wording of the correction. Diamond himself gave the issue weight by citing it to The Observer. My additions should stand and the original section restored in my view.

This is, no doubt, a historically significant that tribesmen would sue a famed researcher. Diamond's new book features and contrasts civil disputes in the US and Papua New Guinea. Diamond personal experience of this litigation, in light of his new book, which was not published during your previous discussion, has given the topic of the lawsuit against him much more weight. But I don't accept that it did not have weight in the first instance. That tribesmen sue a famed scientist in US civil court, just like we do in the US, is significant in the history of American media and history of anthropology.

We need to add the section back. I can rebut all the claims if necessary but am hoping that the aforementioned points will suffice, and at minimum what I just added will be restored Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Rhonda, I was asked to take look at this page because it was filed over at the conflict of interest noticeboard. It is clear that you have a conflict of interest, but I don't want you to feel stonewalled or rejected. I would like to help you work through the issues you find with this article. There appears to have been a lot of discussion over this in the past and I would like to have a fresh start. If you could help me a couple of ways, I think we can find a good resolution to this article. (1) please give me a quick 2-3 sentence statement about what is the overarching problem with this article and generally what needs to be done to address that; (2) please have good faith in the editors on wikipedia, in the end, we all want a proper article represented on here; (3) understand that wikipedia is not a soapbox either for or against Jared Diamond, but rather a place for reliably source, verifiable and notable information about a living person; (4) wikipedia is also not a journal or new source, we don't rush to have information about a current or developing story or court case, it isn't clear to me if this court case is active or not, but typically we don't publish information about someone accused with a crime until they have been found guilty. Also please understand that I am coming into this with simply a quick review of the article and want to help you as best possible, so please be patient and help me understand what you'd like to see done, and hopefully this can be cleared up shortly. In the mean time, because you have a documented conflict of interest, and apparently have been in a contentious edit war with other editors, please refrain from editing the page for a little while. Thank you! Tiggerjay (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

TiggerJay, I appreciate your friendliness. Thank you for your questions.

You mention the need for “reliably sourced, verifiable and notable information about a living person.” I agree and this is precisely why the article failed after the almost total deletion after years of relative stability of the section on Diamond being sued by tribesmen. There is no criminal case involved here. There is no rush with new reporting . Just a historical time line of facts backed by media reports that cited and relied upon our report. Michael Balter's report in Science (that you source) investigated our facts and links to our report without any criticism of it.

My main problem is the basic facts and references are missing since the deletion of the entire section on Diamond’s legal case. This censorship based upon an editorial judgement creates the elimination of a historically important and unique case of a famed scientist being sued in US civil court by Papua New Guinean tribesman for libel per se. If it had no merits, the court would have thrown it out during the 14 months in was in the NY State courts. But that is not what happened. To outline the history:

In 2008, Diamond published an article, “Vengeance is Ours,” in The New Yorker, describing the role of Daniel Wemp, his driver for bird watching, in a tribal war in Papua New Guinea.

A year later, after finding out about the article, the two men accused of killings and other crimes mentioned in the article, Hup Daniel Wemp and Henep Isum Mandingo, filed a lawsuit against Diamond and The New Yorkerin New York State Courts--not Papua New Guinea. One of the first reports about the case was published by Forbes, states that two New Guinea Tribesmen "challenge a story depicting them as rapists, murderers and pig thieves.”

Forbes, Associated Press, The Guardian, even the The New York Post as well as and science blogs and journals globally reported that iMediaEthics (then Stinky Journalism) sent an expedition to find Wemp, who turned out, as iMediaEthics reported, to have no idea he was in an New Yorker article(which Diamond admits to Balter in Science as Diamond last spoke to Wemp in 2005 ). All the media discussion involves two key issues:

1. Informants were named by Diamond without permission (Diamond and the New Yorker admit this in Balter’s Science article cited now but behind a pay wall). Diamond and the New Yorker said he was following journalistic rules and hence why he named people. However in his new book, Diamond says (page 472) “That was also formerly my practice[naming informants]…it was my practice in the past.”

2. Diamond said Wemp told him that Wemp and Isum were leaders in a tribal fight and were responsible for 30 killings. He confirms in Science that he never spoke to Isum or check if this were true before repeating it on New Yorker pages, telling Balter that he relied what he was told by on Daniel. Diamond also reported in New Yorker that Isum was paralyzed and in a wheelchair for eleven years after Wemp’s hired assassin’s spear cut his spine. In their interviews with Balter, the fact that Isum was able bodied as demonstrated by photos we took was never disputed, by New Yorker or Diamond.

I was concerned too that Wikipedia editors were gleeful, as the talk page shows, and quickly posted a link to the Observer article. They were fooled by the Observer’s initial statement about the lawsuits dismissal that seem to justify their removal of the section on the lawsuit. Instead of checking the article that was quickly corrected, after reading Diamond’s words-"I am happy to say the case was dismissed"- they believed Diamond just as the Observer reporter had done. But belief and editorial opinion is not fact. And Diamond, by mentioning the case and providing incorrect information, personally gave the case weight and significance.

But it was factually wrong. It is important that he was publicly caught bending the truth. His statement was in error and has to be corrected. It is not for Wikipedia editor to hide this important fact as they are trying to do in their edits. As the Observer reported in their correction, the case was withdrawn by mutual consent following the death of tribesmen lawyer. They deleted Diamond words as the screen shot proves. The correction states: "This article was amended on 9 January 2013 to make it clear that the libel lawsuit against Jared Diamond filed by Daniel Wemp and Isum Mandingo was withdrawn by mutual consent and that further action is pending."

Diamond’s new book is filled with contrasts between traditional tribal conflict resolutions with civil litigation in the US, according to The Observer. “There is no mention of the Wemp tale, although highly relevant to Diamond's thesis, in The World Until Yesterday. Caution appears to have won the day.”

The time line of facts must be restored. It is established in the public record. Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Thank you for your lengthy explanation of the situation you are wanting to include. However I will need verifiable resources to substaintiate what you are saying, you vaguely mention reference materials without specifics. The effort is on your part to come up with specific web links or periodical/issue/page number to validate your claims. Also those references must clearly show what you are talking about. That information must be presented in the article. From an initial view, it appears you are performing original synthesis and research by reviewing various articles and inconsistencies and "putting the dots together". Wikipedia is no the place to be an investigative reporter, but rather to represent (re-present) the facts as already collected by reliable 3rd party sources. If your conclusions are correct, I really hope you can find sources to support your claims. Also it seems you are very passionate about this article, and according to our policy regarding weight, what you are talking about would likely need to be contained within a 4-8 sentence paragraph. Please feel free to write a proper, well researched and sources, paragraph that you propose to be included. Those sources should be very specific so that someone can follow behind you and verify the articles you reference support your statements. I hope that helps. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please understand, I cited sources above but not in full as this is only a discussion. I take the position that the original deleted section needs to be added back and updated. I will work from what was there and update it. I appreciate you efforts to be helpful and to communicate about resolving this matter. Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Tiggerjay, I have left the original section Revision as of 16:10, 24 November 2011 (edit) more or less as it was.

However, I made some updates and took into consideration discussion comments above and incorporated two questionable inclusions

Cuts Sentence 6: "Wemp contends he told Jennings the story was "inaccurate, inaccurate". Sentence 7: "According to anthropologist Pauline Wiessner, an expert on tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea, young men often exaggerate or make up entirely their exploits in tribal warfare; she stated that Diamond would have been naïve to accept Wemp's stories at face value."

I also took into consideration the guidelines to which I believe I comply

• We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation.

Due weight

• Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

I have already provided evidence that iMediaEthics (formerly known as StinkyJournalism) is accepted as a legitimate news site. 2 to 4 professional editors review every article published, depending on its length and complexity, which sets us at the highest standard in the journalism industry. Hence, this is why we have very few errors and certainly NO allegations from Diamond or the New Yorker or the tribesmen, that we have committed any libel or error.

It is notable that neither Diamond nor the New Yorker have EVER requested that we should correct even one error of fact in public or private forums.

I have provided links but not the full references. I figured that these can be completed when the discussion is done and the section is restored. In addition to numerous media reports --far beyond what I have cited here, numerous academic papers and scholarly blogs and publications cite this lawsuit. If need be, I will form a bibliography but if I do it should be included in this page. For private use, if you need the Balter article in Science to read, send me an email request.

-start-

No controversy / criticism section?

Hi! Could someone tell me why there's no controversy or criticism section on this page? I agree it needs to be NPOV but I'm not sure why there isn't one here. I don't think it's WP:UNDUE either - Diamond's work has not been universally praised and considering the lists of awards & honours on this page I'm not convinced this article is NPOV without one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.86.6.79 (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the previous discussions on this talk page, they're nearly all about criticism in some form or other. In particular, see the section immediately preceding this one, which is an ongoing discussion on whether to (re) include a section on the controversy surrounding his article Vengeance is Ours.

Although I will note there's a difference between having no criticism/controversy section and having no criticism/controversy in the article. You'll notice both personal controversies (i.e. Vengeance is Ours) and criticisms of his work are mentioned throughout the article. Scanning section headings is a poor way to judge the POV/NPOV of an article. joe•roe^t•c 14:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(On the last point, WP:CRITICISM has this quote from Jimbo Wales which puts it well:

"In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.") joe•roe^t•c 14:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joe - I'm still not sure, sorry!

"Scanning section headings is a poor way to judge the POV/NPOV of an article." What about people reading this Wikipedia article? Newbies and civilians like myself, that is - unfortunately, most people will scan section headings to get the gist of a larger body of text. They're really useful especially here on Wikipedia - like in the article about Chomsky, pretty much makes it readable.

There are big sections for awards and publications here, but what's wrong with two or three well-cited, objectively-worded sentences in a separate section to keep the reception of Diamond's works apart from descriptions of the works themselves? Also, doesn't Jimbo say, 'I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think.' I know some of the folks who look after this page are real Diamond fans - but I really think it would benefit from being a bit clearer.

Thanks for answering, though! Still finding my feet here. :D 178.86.6.79 (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversies come and go. There's always a tendency to emphasise the latest flare-up, even though in the long run these may be seen as irrelevant. Back in the 70s, there was controversy over Diamond's ideas regarding bird distributions in the Pacific, and whether these should really be interpreted as the product of competitive exclusion. While this should be covered (but isn't) since it had a major scientific impact, it would only have been seen as a "controversy/criticism" back in the day. It was a big deal then, it's a footnote now. Since it's impossible to judge the long-term significance from this vantage, and since these things almost always look bigger at the moment, it's important to maintain a sense of perspective. Guettarda (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you really arguing that we should structure the article based on the assumption that people won't actually read it? Reception/criticism of Diamond's work is perfectly at home in the Work section, and each of his books' respective articles have lengthier criticism sections where appropriate. I don't see any reason to have a dedicated criticism section here other than for the sake of appearances. (And I'm not arguing that we should follow the above argument because Jimbo said it, I'm saying it is a good argument.) joe•roe^t•c 15:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it's 178.86.6.79 here - just created an account, so excited! Yeah, I know what you mean @Guettarda - but Wikipedia is awesome because it's a work in progress, no? In ten years this page will be completely different - while it's always important to maintain a sense of perspective, being a digital encyclopaedia means that we can maintain a sense of timeliness that would be impossible in a printed volume - I also think that's exactly why controversies should have their own section, since in a decade the content of Diamond's books and their legacy might diverge greatly, right? Hi @Joe - I really do think the appearance of an article can sway readers, and apart from the reasons I've just mentioned, separating the Diamond's work from its reception makes the whole thing easier to read. I get that you're worried about trolls, but I trust that there'll be people looking out, including me. ; ) Runner Five (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As explained in WP:CRITICISM, sections titled "controversies" or "criticism" are strongly discouraged and only used in rare situations. This article is not one of those rare situations. Material about controversies may be included, of course, but the names of the sections should be topical (e.g. names of his books, names of key events in his life, etc). --Noleander (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. :D Runner Five (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)