Talk:Mankind Quarterly/Archive 1

Archive 1

Verifying Mankind Quarterly contributors

Did Arthur Jensen really contribute an article to Mankind Quarterly? hitssquad

I can't find any reference to him having done so. However without access to their past issues there is no way of being sure. -Willmcw 20:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Their website lists the table of contents for issues back to 1985. Any issues published after Spring 2001 also contain the article abstracts, and occasionally full texts. A search of the site conducted through google for 'Jensen' returns 2 hits, both reviews of Jensen's books. --Nectar ^T 20:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Since nothing pops up, perhaps we should remove Jensen. We can always add his name again should we find a citation. -Willmcw 20:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Will. Next up is Cyril Burt. He died October 10, 1971, so it is chronologically possible he contributed something. But then, MQ is obscure and Burt was a hyper-accomplished elitist. It would have been an odd mix.

It also says he is known for [his] work in race and intelligence. Probably not. Burt is famous, partly, for never having done any work in regards to race. -hitssquad 00:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, as with Jensen, the original author of this article was confused because of articles about Burt. Whatever the reason for his inclusion, I can't find any sign that wrote for the MQ. -Willmcw 06:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Verushcka contributed that section. That was his sole edit in this article. -hitssquad 06:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Next up is William Shockley. --hitssquad 17:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I just emailed MQ about this. The person who answered said that he can't recall an MQ article by Shockley, but that MQ does not have the resources to check unless I would like to pay for them to search their archives. I know that all of MQ is indexed on FirstSearch, so if anyone happens to have access to that they can check that way. I will remove Shockley from the article. If some new data comes in, his name can be restored. --hitssquad 20:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Who is J.W. Jamieson? --hitssquad 04:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

James W. Jamieson. I included him because he is a frequent contributor and gets many Google hits, apparently for the same person. I don't know anything else about him. -Willmcw 08:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps attaining high status in terms of Google hits does not necessarily make one notable. [1] --hitssquad 09:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

That;'s one of the questions which keeps bouncing around Wikipedia. Anyway, as for specifics, being a frequent contributor is sufficient reason for inclusion on a list of notables, so far as MQ is concerned. By comparison, some of MQ's other editors are quite obscure. -Willmcw 09:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

If there is conclusive evidence that no one cares who a given person is, there may be sufficient reason anyway to put him in an encyclopedia article and label him notable? --hitssquad 10:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently "J.W. Jamieson" is a pseudonym for Roger Pearson. Why the editor of a scientific journal would use a pseudonym to contribute is not clear to me. -Willmcw 03:38, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

I went through the Mankind Quarterly online table of contents and did not see any paper by Herrnstein or Murray. If that is the case for the non-online issues as well, that reference needs to be removed. 68.155.77.31 01:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be mis-reading the sentence. It says that many of the works cited by those two were first published in MQ, not thayt the authors themselves were published there. -Will Beback 03:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and citations

This article needs to be re-written for balance and citations need to be added in order to comply with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. -Classicfilms 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made small improvements, but if you still wish, can you explain how it's particularly unbalanced?--Nectar 06:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. I am not familiar with many of the claims made by the Wikipedia article on The Mankind Quarterly and until they are backed up by legitimate sources, it's hard for me to comment - though as the article is written, it is hard to point out that other types of controversial articles are also published. For example, the following essay published by Mankind Quarterly supports both liberal and feminist arguments. It offers an alternative to the standard representation of Grendel's mother, the character in Beowulf who is usually portrayed as a marginalized monster:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grendel%27s_mother#Germanic_earth_goddess. As the Wikipedia article on Mankind Quarterly is currently written, it is hard to understand how this essay on Grendel's mother would have been published by the periodical Mankind Quarterly - and thus I'm not sure where to add the information. -Classicfilms 14:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reinstated the neutrality tag for the reasons cited above. -Classicfilms 16:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would we include a mention of that essay in this article? Frank Battaglia does not appear to be an especially notable academic. Many journals include works that are outside their defined mission. I just don't see what it is about one insignificant essay from 15 years ago that makes this article "totally disputed". -Will Beback 23:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Will Beback- thanks for your feedback. The trouble is that this article lacks citations which would help me to understand better what this mission is. Could you supply the citations which would back up the claims of the article? Thanks, -Classicfilms 23:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We can get to that. But what does the Battaglia essay have to do with anything? -Will Beback 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Great, because without citations the tone of the article seems one sided. As I mentioned, I'm not familiar with the points made in the article and citations would help me to better understand these points. The Battaglia article (which is part of an ongoing discourse in Beowulf studies and is cited in essays on Bewoulf) indicates that the journal publishes articles on controversial topics (in this case, Battaglia's article is of a controversial nature quite opposed to the tone of the Wikipedia article, as it supports feminist and liberal arguments). I don't necessarily have to include it here, but its existence indicates that (to maintain neutrality) the Wikipedia article should state that the journal publishes different types of controversial articles. -Classicfilms 00:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Campbell was on the editorial board, so, taking into account articles like this Bragglia article, there'd seem to be more to the journal than gets presented by anti-racists and anti-hereditarians.--Nectar 00:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The current lede states:

• The Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to physical anthropology and cultural anthropology and associated with the Pioneer Fund [citation needed]. It contains articles on human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, languages, mythology, archaeology, race, etc.

The essay in question appears to fall solidly within the mission of the journal as we describe it. Classicfilms, are you looking for a source which says they cover ethnography and anthropology? -Will Beback 01:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No, since in terms of anthropology this sentence covers it. I am looking for the citations requested on the page and for an indication that the journal publishes different types of controversial articles. Could you provide that? -Classicfilms 01:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me. Isn't the Grendel article related to ethnography, mythology, etc.? What's the problem with that essay?-Will Beback 01:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase it? -Classicfilms 04:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

<-- OK. You wrote:

• As the Wikipedia article on Mankind Quarterly is currently written, it is hard to understand how this essay on Grendel's mother would have been published by the periodical Mankind Quarterly - and thus I'm not sure where to add the information.

Since the introduction to the article says that the journal publishes articles on "ethnography, languages, mythology, archaeology, race, etc..." it seems clear why the journal would publish an essay (and an accompanying book review) on the mythology of ancient Britain. The second point is that I don't understand why this essay is so important that we should add a mention in the article. The journal has published countless essays and papers. What's so special about Battaglia's article on Grendel? -Will Beback 07:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not contesting that Battaglia's article is about ethnography - and I did say above that we don't necessarily have to include it in the Wikipedia article here, so that isn't the issue. As I said above, Battaglia's article on Grendel's mother is, within the realm of Beowulf scholarship, controversial but in a way which supports a liberal and feminist viewpoint. The Wikipedia article on Mankind Quarterly makes a number of points which are currently not supported by citation, which implies that the journal publishes only controversial articles of a particular viewpoint that would not support articles which are either liberal or feminist. If the requested citations were added - not about ethnography - but the other points made, it would help. -Classicfilms 15:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So your point is that we say that MQ only publishes controversial articles, but the Battaglis article isn't controversial? I don't see how you get that, as the article doens't mention the word "cotroversy" in the text. -Will Beback 08:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

New Right, unite!

Further information: Aryan_Invasion_Theory_%28history_and_controversies%29 § Later_racialised_theories

it is very funny to see Alain de Benoist and Subhash Kak united as contributors in a racist/nationalist journal: their outlook is really comparable, ethnic nationalism paired with mythic fantasies of noble "Aryan" forbears, just that Benoist of course places the Proto-Indo-Europeans in Europe, while Kak places them in India, each implying, I suppose, concentric circles of racial degradation around the original homeland. This makes them 100% related in terms of their mindset, and 100% opposed in its application to geography dab (𒁳) 14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence

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) 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Two good sources for further edits of this article.

Getting to know the various articles in the same category as this article during the recent Arbitration Committee case alerted me to some authors and sources who don't usually appear in the mainstream professional literature on psychology. And following up on some citations I found in those Wikipedia articles, in turn, helped me find some sources that explain the origin of much of the minority literature on this subject, especially Mankind Quarterly and several related publications.

• Y Tucker, William H. (2007). The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-07463-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

• Y Tucker, William H. (2009). The Cattell Controversy: Race, Science, and Ideology. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-03400-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

I'm very impressed with how thoroughly Tucker cites his vast array of sources and how thoughtfully he describes the context of the different authors, writings, and historical movements he surveys. These books are helpful, reliable secondary sources for most of the articles here on Wikipedia related to Mankind Quarterly or to authors who publish writings in it. In general, all of the articles within the scope of the topic sanctions from the recent ArbCom case could be improved if more Wikipedians refer to these sources for further editing of the articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Speculation about the founding of MQ?

The article states of MQ:

Its foundation in 1960 may in part have been a response to the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education

What exactly does this "may in part" bit mean? Is this merely speculation on part of the cited sources? If so, is it really appropriate to include it in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Bloggz (talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Check some of the better sources. For example,

* Tucker, William H. (2007). The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-07463-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

which is far from the only reliable secondary source that goes back to archival collections of the papers of the founders of Mankind Quarterly to explain the origins of the publication. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Academic Journal

Isn't calling MQ an "Academic Journal" a bit dishonest? Its completely discredited and is not considered citable in academia, so I think its somewhat abusive to Academia to blame them for this mess of a magazine. 203.59.93.176 (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not just dishonest, the whole article as it is now is a total joke. It's a white supremacist/racist publication which tries to pretend it's somehow "scientific" by having its publications "peer reviewed" by fellow racists.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is an academic journal. This article and much of the criticism of the journal is extremely biased.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What else do you read about the topics covered in Mankind Quarterly? It is available in a library I visit regularly (just in the last twenty-four hours, in fact), but most serious scholars in most fields related to the topics it covers far prefer other sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute that Mankind Quarterly has been criticized a lot, or that this article should reflect that. But I think that the new criticism added by Volunteer Marek is approaching WP:COATRACK levels, where the article is giving more space to how much everyone hates this journal than it is to describing what the journal actually is. For comparison, look at the articles about Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. These are two of the most racist books ever written, and the articles make it obvious that this is how they're viewed. But the criticism of the books doesn't dominate the articles. The majority of both articles is taken up by historical information explaining what the books are, how they've been translated, etc. It's strange to have this article be more dominated by criticism than the articles on either of those books. Even if this journal is viewed by a lot of people as being racist, it can't possibly be viewed as racist by more people than Mein Kampf.Boothello (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The obvious difference between MK and TPotEoZ on one hand and MQ on the other is that most people already know MK and TPotEoZ are racist junk. But they may not be aware that MQ is as well, particularly since 1) the journal tries very hard to establish a veneer of respectability and 2) it seems that some Wikipedia editors really wish to whitewash its nature and pretend it is something which it is not.

Also here is Boothello's comment left on my talk page, as well as my response [2]. I would prefer if the discussion was continued here, where it belongs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The argument that less people know is not really a valid one encyclopedially. What is a valid reason is that there is a large body of knowledge analysing Mein Kampf and the Protocols in a disinterested way, because they have historical value. About Mankind quarterly the body of literature analysing or describing it is much smaller and mostly criticizes and exposes. That is the reason that the article should do the same.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, those weren't great examples. A better parallel might be The Turner Diaries. This is a white nationalist novel that's infamous for having inspired several real-life crimes, including the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. As far as I know, every secondary source in existence that discusses this book has something nasty to say about it. The only debate that exists over it is whether the it's dangerous enough that it should be banned from publication. I don't think anyone could reasonably claim that Mankind Quarterly has been criticized more than this book has.

But even the for article about the Turner Diaries, criticism isn't taking up more than half the article like it is on this one. Why is that? It can't be that Mankind Quarterly is criticized more in the source material than this book, because I don't think there's any publication in the U.S. that's had a more overwhelmingly negative reception than The Turner Diaries. I think the reason is just that the authors of that article know that it isn't encyclopedic for an article to be nothing but a coatrack of criticism. We even have a policy about this, Wikipedia:Attack page, which disallows any article "that exists primarily to disparage its subject". As a result of Marek's recent edits, I think that's what this article does.Boothello (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The criticism section was not written by me. I don't think it's too long or anything but it's true that other parts of the article are under expanded. The thing is... if we expand the article to include the history of the journal it's going to be mostly negative. Same for if we write about "notable" publications. That's simply because the journal has a negative history and negative publications. This is different from TD where there's at least a (very very hokey) plot to summarize. But it's not like the section "Crimes associated with the book" can be described as "positive" - so aside from the plot section, yes, I do think that "criticism" is pretty much what the TD article is about. I guess here, we could include some technical publisher info to expand the rest of the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Impact factor

I removed the section about Journal Citation Reports removing the journal's impact factor, because the significance of that is unclear. While it is true that the journal's impact factor was removed, Mankind Quarterly was just one of about 50 journals that had its impact factor removed and no details were provided about what was anomalous about any of those journals' citations that had caused the impact factor to be pulled for them. If more details become available to explain the problem, I wouldn't object to the information being re-added to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• An IF is an import part of what makes a journal notable and has been used in the past here to argue for MQ's notability. And although 50 may seem like a large number, the JCR covers almost 9000 journals. Some of the covered journals have rather large proportions of self citations, so the abuse must be rather egregious in order to be pulled from the list. That's why I think that the fact that MQ was pulled should probably be mentioned in the article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Here is a reference about the removals. If you agree, I'll re-add the info on the pulled IF with this reference added. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

How much criticism is too much?

This whole debate seems to be led by people who never read anything in the Mankind Quarterly at all. It doesn't get into my head why it should be called a "racist" journal although very little of what is published there is about race differences or race politics. Perhaps 20% or so is. Most of this is innocuous, such as papers about differences in athletic track records (e.g., E.C. Dutton & R. Lynn: Ethnic differences in success in cricket. MQ 55: 226-241, 2015). Such papers are standard fare for an anthropology journal. The opinions that authors express in MQ articles are not even especially lopsided. For example, in the Spring/Summer 2014 issue there was a target article for discussion in which the author proposed a Piagetian developmental model as an explanation for the rise of modern, industrial society (G.W. Oesterdiekhoff: The rise of modern industrial society. The cognitive-developmental approach as a new key to solve the most fascinating riddle in world history. MQ 54: 262-312, 2014). The author claimed that education is responsible not only for rising intelligence (Flynn effects), but also for any measured intelligence differences between races. Not one of the five critical comments contested the author's assertions in any way that could be described as "racist", or as otherwise outside the range of academic etiquette. It should also be pointed out that many authors who publish in the journal are not the kind of people who can credibly be labeled racists. They rather include educational researchers from the Middle East who report about IQ studies in their countries and generally attribute their results to characteristics of the local educational systems (e.g., A. Batterjee: Intelligence and education: The Saudi case. MQ 52, 133-190, 2011), Asian researchers who write pieces about ethnography or cultural history (e.g., A. Qurrat Ul Ain & L. Jianyou: Historical Narratives embedded in stone: analyzing the inscription on X'ian ancient mosque steles. MQ 55: 3-29, 2014), and African scholars who publish pieces about traditional African culture (e.g., P. Simelane-Kalumba, T. Mabeqa and S. Ngubane: The use of proverbial names among the Nguni people. MQ 55: 214-225, 2015). What distinguishes the Mankind Quarterly from most other journals in the field of anthropology should be evident for anyone who ever flips through the pages of the journal: There are lots of tables with quantitative data, not in all articles but in a majority of them. This is very different from the qualitative approaches and theoretical musings that otherwise dominate the field of cultural anthropology. It is more "scientific" than the kind of anthropology that its detractors seem to prefer. A Wikipedia article should inform readers about what is actually published in an academic journal, not what someone claims it is. The current Wikipedia article is a piece of sleaze that needs to be removed and replaced by something that summarizes the facts, in an objective way that can be verified. I am not too familiar with the early history of the journal, which is of limited interest anyhow. An important piece that needs to be in the article is indeed that its publication was transferred to the Ulster Institute at the end of 2014. Roger Pearson was 87 years old at the time, and his age and the difficulty he had in keeping up with the work is perhaps the main reason why he and his journals became easy targets for political activists. Gmeisenberg (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lots of anthropologists work with quantitative data and publish about human biological diversity. Nonetheless for an anthropology of any sort to publish in Mankind Quarterly would amount to professional suicide. That is the reputation of the journal, which has been well deserved as documented since Juan Comas first criticism. The reason Pearson and his journals became targets for political activists was because Mankind Quarterly as well as most of his other journals were themselves based on political activism from the extreme rightwing of the political spectrum. The idea that tables of quantitative data makes something more scientific is absurd, and would mean that astrological pamphleths are more scientific than historical journals. Mankind Quarterly has shown itself to be consistently incapable of sorting science from pseudoscience, and that is the way it has deserved its abysmal reputation among serious scholars and scientists. If current or future editorship aims to change it by published better research then I am sure that will be welcomed by the rest of academia. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason why the Mankind Quarterly became a target for attacks was that it (1) published empiric data that some political activists found incompatible with their agendas; (2) some contributors criticized social developments such as school desegregation in America that they claimed didn't work; and (3) unlike other journals that publish material of this kind, the Mankind Quarterly was not published by a major publisher with a big legal department but by a reclusive old man who didn't have the cash to pay a lawyer. Journals like Personality and Individual Differences and Intelligence publish a lot more obnoxious stuff than the Mankind Quarterly and much of this is of dubious quality. The reason why nobody attacks them is that they are published by Elsevier, and anyone starting a smear campaign against them would have to deal with their lawyers.

One thing you will find about the Mankind Quarterly is that it repeatedly published controversial material that became mainstream only later. Example: The "survival of the richest" in pre-industrial Europe became a leading explanation for the rise of early modern Europe only in 2007, when it filled a chapter in Gregory Clark's "A Farewell to Alms." In the Mankind Quarterly, the same pattern of differential fertility by wealth was already described in 1990 (V. Weiss: Social and demographic origins of the European proletariat. MQ 31, 127-152, 1990). The Mankind Quarterly also published the first list of IQs for 81 countries (R. Lynn & T. Vanhanen: National IQ and economic development: a study of eighty-one nations. Mankind Quarterly 41, 415-435, 2001). Later, Lynn and Vanhanen published their results in a series of 3 books published in 2002, 2006 and 2012. This research became respectable only later, and by now the three books combined garnered more than 1000 citations according to scholar google. National IQ differences have been the most rapidly growing field in intelligence research recently. Also, this whole field has merged with the study of school performance with tests such as PISA and TIMSS. (e.g., G. Meisenberg and R. Lynn: Intelligence: a measure of human capital in nations. Journal of Social Political and Economic Studies 36, 421-454, 2011). Basically, IQ studies and scholastic achievement tests like TIMSS and PISA measure the same thing at the country level. Only the rhetoric surrounding them is different. Of course you can label TIMSS and PISA "racist" if that's your obsession, because they measure race differences. More recently, methods for the study of population allele frequencies of genes for "educational attainment" and similar outcomes were pioneered in two papers published in the Mankind Quarterly (D. Piffer: Statistical associations between genetic polymorphisms modulating executive function and intelligence suggest recent selective pressure on cognitive abilities. Mankind Quarterly 54, 3-25, 2013; D. Piffer: Factor analysis of population allele frequencies as a simple, novel method of detecting signals of recent polygenic selection: the example of educational attainment and IQ. Mankind Quarterly 54, 168-200, 2013). Very obnoxious! Still, today you find this research published in major journals (e.g., D. Piffer: A review of intelligence GWAS hits: their relationship to country IQ and the issue of spatial autocorrelation. Intelligence 53, 43-50, 2015). There are lots of "racist" databases such as 1000 Genomes and HapMap, and also fossil genomes of populations that lived thousands of years ago. People are realizing that to be credible in science, they cannot suppress this whole research area (although some try anyway).

And what about Flynn effects? Environmentally caused rises in intelligence are the strongest argument against genetic race differences. Where do you think these studies are published? In many cases, in the Mankind Quarterly! Some examples: G. Meisenberg et al.: The Flynn effect in the Caribbean: Generational change of cognitive test performance in Dominica. Mankind Quarterly 46, 29-70, 2005. A. Batterjee: Intelligence and Education: The Saudi case. Mankind Quarterly 52: 133-190. H.-Y. Chen et al.: Two studies of recent increases of intelligence in Taiwan. Mankind Quarterly 53, 348-357. James Flynn himself wrote a comment about Flynn effects in the Mankind Quarterly (J. Flynn: The folly of writing history without a cognitive dimension. Mankind Quarterly 54, 313-321, 2014) in which he argued, for example, that rising intelligence was a reason for the ethical advances on which the civil rights movement was based. You can of course argue that Flynn is a racist because he writes that intelligence is important, and intelligence is different between races, but don't put that in Wikipedia! It is also interesting that many of those who have published about these environmentally caused Flynn effects, either in the Mankind Quarterly or elsewhere, have been accused of being racists at one point or another. They include people like Richard Lynn, Ed Dutton, Jan te Nijenhuis, Heiner Rindermann and Gerhard Meisenberg. The dividing line is between scientists who describe how the world works, and politically motivated agitators who use intimidation to suppress those parts of science that don't seem to fit with their agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmeisenberg (talk • contribs) 14:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

To return to the general question of criticism in Wikipedia pages. It would seem that it makes sense to not overdo it as has perhaps been done in this article. Having one section called Criticism and moving the major chunk of the criticism there would make sense and be comparable to other pages, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Critical_reception, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice#Criticism (sub-section in this case), or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Criticism_and_controversies (where it also forms a large chunk of the content). Right now, there is a lot of name-calling in the intro-section, most of which could be moved to the Criticism section. One could also note the general non-academic sources of the name-calling. It also seems fair to include some mention of the name-calling in the intro-section.

As Meisenberg says, it makes sense to note the recent transfer of ownership, which to some degree severs the current staff from its more dubious earlier history. As far as I know, none of the current members of staff are known to advocate race-based policies, but maybe I'm wrong.

Disclaimer: I have published one paper in MQ. Deleet (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, people prefer to seek out sources confirming their own beliefs and try hard to stigmatize source contradict them. Such tendency is probably evolved as part of process of self-deception. Unfortunately, some people reject the notion that mind is evolved, let alone any racial difference. The article currently is heavily biased by opinions from race-denying people, even though only some articles on MQ are about racial differences. On the other hand, Wikipedia rely on reliable sources. If things on many WP:reliable sources are heavily biased or simply wrong, Wikipedia still have to reflect them. In this case, there are many criticisms from reliable source listed in the article, so perhaps the article is not problematic on Wikipedia’s standard. The only way to make the article less biased is to add content based on reliable sources that are sympathetic to MQ, or response to criticism. I hope anyone could list them here for editing of the article. --The Master (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The observation by The Master that the current article is heavily biased is obviously correct. I found that many people from non-Western backgrounds are puzzled by this kind of bias. They do not know that in the West, there is an academic subculture of dogmatically-inclined individuals who are obsessed with race differences. They are firmly convinced that there are large race differences in intelligence, and they are equally convinced that such knowledge is dangerous because it leads to bad attitudes. The conclusion is that either research related to race differences, or the dissemination of the results of such research, needs to be prevented. To my knowledge, neither of these two core beliefs has scientific support. For causes of race differences, we need more studies in molecular genetics. In the case of attitudes we know, for example, that people who believe that gays are "born that way" tend to support gay rights. People who don't believe in genes often end up blaming victims. These inconsistencies aside, the dogmatic approach creates a lot of misunderstandings. For example, about one third of the papers that were published in the Mankind Quarterly during the last 4 or 5 years were from a research program that studies intelligence in countries, usually developing countries that are struggling to improve their educational systems. The authors, most of them natives of these countries, usually discuss their results with reference to the inadequacies of the educational systems in their countries. But for dogmatics like Marek and Maunus, these studies are racist because any IQ differences between countries could possibly be related to genetic differences, and therefore knowledge about them is dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmeisenberg (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

To answer the question asked by the section title here, there should be as much criticism of the journal in this article about the journal as is reflected in reliable, secondary sources about the journal. I have read many issues of the journal (the library I use most often for research has a large collection of back issues of the journal) and I have read much about the topics treated by the journal in other sources. And I have read about the history of journals that cover the same topics, and the history of how scholars who work on the same topics view Mankind Quarterly. In my observation, this article has long "hid the ball" on how much Mankind Quarterly is derided by serious scholars on the topics that the journal claims to cover. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 20:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

1963 Federal case citing MQ

This Federal civil rights case regarding the racial segregation of Georgia schools devotes a paragraph to IQ research from the Mankind Quarterly. I think this puts some historical context on the journal, and it's worth adding to the article. Stell v. Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education, 220 F. Supp. 667 - Dist. Court, SD Georgia 1963 Waters.Justin (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Racism is creeping back into mainstream science – we have to stop it

That's the title of an article in The Guardian today.[3] It starts with "University College London has been unwittingly hosting an annual conference attended by race scientists and eugenicists for the past few years. This might have come as a shock to many people. But it is only the latest instalment in the rise of “scientific” racism within academia." It has quite a bit on MQ. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)