Talk:Christopher Jencks

BLP guidelines and attributing bad faith

"As Wiener noted, as "the author of important books, including Inequality: Who Gets Ahead?, The Homeless and The Black White Test Score Gap . . . Christopher Jencks knows exactly what’s wrong with the studies purporting to link 'race' with 'IQ.'"[2]"

User:Generalrelative The above text is an attribution of bad faith to Jenks in the article's voice making it a BLP violation. No reference will suffice for that 'As Weiner noted' tone, which is hardly encyclopedic. It is fine to include mention of reasonable criticisms, but it cannot be in Wikipedia's voice. Overagainst (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "noted" should be changed to "argued" per WP:CLAIM, so I'll fix that.

As to your larger point, I searched the policy page WP:BLP for the term "bad faith" and found only one instance, which referred to the actions of editors rather than the content of articles. I will be happy to go along with your edit if you can show me a policy/guideline-based reason to do so. Generalrelative (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Still nothing for balance, and so it is one very sided; what it reads like is Harvard's Professor Jenks has guilty knowledge inasmuch he knows something is wrong with the candidate's dissertation but awarded a Phd anyway. It quotes someone saying they think that Jenks writes things in his own books that not only are not true, but he knows are not true, yet there is no balance. Weiner is an American historian and journalist, but even if you don't want to find someone more qualified in Jenks's field to give an opinion there needs to a bit of a defence of Jenks appropriate for a NPOV. Surely Jenks or someone else in his field has defended his views somewhere. Overagainst (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

1) Surely Jenks or someone else in his field has defended his views somewhere. I mean, he was given an opportunity to comment by Wiener and he declined. But sure, go ahead and look. We're all WP:VOLUNTEERs here, which means that no one is responsible for doing research for you.

2) there needs to a bit of a defence of Jenks appropriate for a NPOV. That's not what WP:NPOV means. NPOV means we balance the views of reliable secondary sources, giving each one due weight when they disagree. You haven't provided any alternative reliable secondary sources so the point is mute.

3) It quotes someone saying they think that Jenks writes things in his own books that not only are not true, but he knows are not true, yet there is no balance. This statement is false. Wiener is stating that because Jencks' scholarship is good he should have known better than to award a PhD for work which was based on obviously bogus foundations (i.e. the idea that "there are genetic differences in intelligence between races").

4) he knows something is wrong with the candidate's dissertation but awarded a Phd anyway. Yes that does seem to be the case. Wiener's appraisal on this matter is notable and therefore belongs in the article. You might want to read WP:CRYBLP before commenting further. Generalrelative (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I took your advice and readWP:CRYBLP"If someone has been convicted of multiple counts of murder and grand theft, it's not a BLP violation to mention those facts with appropriate sourcing, even though most editors would agree such facts reflect poorly on the subject". Thus the BLP standard for attributing discreditable behaviour to a LIVING person in a Wikipedia article is high.

You argue the "Wiener is stating that because Jencks' scholarship is good he should have known better than to award a PhD for work which was based on obviously bogus foundations". But what the article actually says is "Wiener argued that Jencks, as "the author of important books, including Inequality: Who Gets Ahead?, The Homeless and The Black White Test Score Gap . . . knows exactly what’s wrong with the studies purporting to link 'race' with 'IQ.'"[2]". It reads like bad faith is being attributed to Jencks, who is a living person. Some people may have a conviction that Jenks has acted in bad faith, and that can be quoted as what it is, an opinion by a reputable journalist and historian (Wiener). The secondary source is a source for him having given that opinion, not that its true. There is no secondary source given for Weiner's opinion of Jenks's being a consensus among authorities in the relevant scientific field. The article does say "Wiener argued that", but the weight given to what is an opinion is excessive, certainly for a BLP The tone of the the 'no comment' stuff is all wrong for a BLP, making it look like Jenks was a suspect under questioning by the police. Jenks was a member of a Harvard Dissertation panel, that approved a controversial thesis. It is fair enough to cite authorities who disagree with Jenks (up to you to find those) , but it is really a bit much to give so much weight to a quote Weiner saying Jenks "knows exactly what’s wrong" with dissertations he is signing off on. That is attributing bad faith. Overagainst (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

fixing citations

hey, just noting that I'm going to go through and add citations. The tag on the article right now is for Bare URLs but the URLs are for actual wikipedia articles, which is fine. It's just that many of the sentences don't have citations at all. I will remove the tag when I'm done. Ruthgrace (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

reorganizing

Currently the order of sections in the article is Richwine controversy, Awards, and Selected Bibliography. I'm rearranging in order of relevance so that it's Selected Bibliography, Awards, and then Richwine controversy, and I will rearrange the Awards section so that it's in paragraph format organized by subject matter of the writing he got the award for. Ruthgrace (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)