Talk:James Watson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

eugenics

  • That if a genetic test for homosexuality existed, a mother should be able to abort the fetus if she wanted.
  • Linking intelligence inextricably to genes, saying that it would be beneficial to try to improve the human race by selecting against those with low intelligence.
  • A conviction that the benefits of genetically modified crops far outweigh any environmental dangers, and that arguments against GM crops are unscientific or irrational.

Are you profficient about those declarations? I´m reading ADN: The Secret of Life right now, and he is openly against eugenic programs.

no need to yell, there.

I will rewrite that part of the article, as these should definitely be backed up by actual quotes, with references. The second bullet point does indeed make him look like a eugenics promoter, which he is not, obvious for anyone who has read his latest book (DNA: The Secret of Life). And the last bullet is also not NPOV with regard to his actual views -- Watson believes on balance that the benefits outweigh the risks, not that all arguments against GM are irrational. So do probably the majority of scientists, so this view is not really very controversial, I believe Watson is in the spotlight for this more because his high profile and outspoken personality. Mortene 09:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree; I just rearranged that section so that his support for genetically modified crops appears at the bottom rather than the top. I don't see that as a controversy on the level with the other statements.--Gloriamarie 05:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Having just attended a lecture of his I can attest that he definitely believes in much of the bulleted opinion above and feels that genes are much more important than environment on humans. Which in fact I asked him point blank. He strongly believes against trying to regulate some of the more controversial applications of biology and is also promotes 'eugenics' which for him seem to be more of the use of genetic technology and careful breeding to prevent disease and increase desired traits than the Hitleresque sterilization and mass killings from which eugenics derives much of its bad reputation.

Jarwulf 08:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear Jarwulf, how on Earth is he going to achieve 'careful breeding' without violating the rights of some people and preventing them 'breeding'?

Watson has said repeatedly that he is an advocate of providing parents with genetic information so that they can have reproductive choices. Wikipedia has Liberal eugenics but I do not know if Watson has ever used that phrase to describe his views. --JWSchmidt 15:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Oddly, Watsons' ideas could have led to his own uterine termination, since a) he believes there is a genetic disposition towards 'Schizophrenia', and b) one of his own sons has it -

Without comment:

[There are people whose genes] "don't permit a meaningful existence [..] a chance to one day be able to marry, to one day be accepted as equals when entering a room. Hitler said: Kill all who do not have this chance. I say they shouldn't be born in the first place. That's the difference. But society isn't able to cope with this. [......] Whoever demands of women to love a mentally handicapped spastic child, terribly contorting, demands something abnormal of them. Nobody can dictate to a woman to love something she does not love. We all know people with progressing Alzheimer's disease that we do not recognize any longer. Almost everyone wishes their death, if it is their own father or some stranger. From science's point of view, these cases are regarded as non-existence. [...] Evolution did not develop us to love a baby that cannot even look at us [...] Of course one may bring up a heavily malformed child and try to view it as a human being, because some people maintain that all forms of live should be preserved. But the attempt remains a constraint and turns into anguish. The Germans speak of live not worthy to live [unwertem Leben], that's what Hitler called it [...] Look, if Hitler hadn't been Hitler there would have been an honest debate about some of his ideas concerning eugenics regarding horribly malformed children. These views were put aside because he was a monster and killed the jews. Don't misunderstand me: I consider everything he did as terrible. I just think, one loves humans because they are human, and only then love flows naturally."

Watson, James D.: "Ich suchte eine Freundin" ["I was looking for a girl-friend"], in: "Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin", Nr. 22, 01.06.2001, p 28-33; cited by: Lemke, Thomas: "Rechtssubjekt oder Biomasse? Reflexionen zum Verhältnis von Rassismus und Exklusion", in: Stingelin, Martin (ed.): "Biopolitik und Rassismus" (Frankfurt/Main, 2003), 160-183, here 172-73. My translation. Ver sacrum 08:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone who develops Alzheimers at 80 can have made enormous contributions to mankind in the previous 79 years of their life surely? Some women just ADORE children who are heavily malformed. The man is a moron.

Child prodigy?

He enrolled at a young age of 15 in Zoology. Should he be in the list of Child prodigies? --Jondel 01:08, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The University of Chicago for a long period starting in the 40s accepted many students to school very early (i.e., 15 or 16), including Watson and (somewhat later), Carl Sagan. The policy was the brainchild of Richard Maynard Hutchins, the University's president. In any case, there were so many of them that I don't think they all qualify for child prodigies, though many of them went on to do great things... nwt 4 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Watsons' delusions

He did GENUINELY donate sperm to the Repository for Germinal Choice <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repository_for_Germinal_Choice>, which is relevant to Watsons' delusions regarding genes and intelligence, and should be included. 80.225.184.210 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Dr.Stokes Jnr.80.225.184.210 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Start by providing a list of reliable published sources that discuss Watsons' delusions. --JWSchmidt 17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think his own publications on Gender and Race as related to intelligence adequately evidence his delusional state-whether he is a 'reliable' source or not is hard to say - he appears to make a habit of stating one thing, discovering its going to damage his coffee-table science book sales, then changing his mind - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.163.207 (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Watson's books are widely reviewed. Just list the ones that explain why Watson's views are delusions. --JWSchmidt 03:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am using the World Health Organisations' International Classification of Diseases-10 and DSM (USA equivalent) definitions of 'Delusional Disorder' to guide me here (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusions>), though perhaps an 'apperception' would be a more appropriate term. To quote from this entry 'the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:

1) certainty (held with absolute conviction) 2)incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary) 3) impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as:

"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). "

Watsons' hypothesis that Africans are less intelligent (than white Americans) is falsified by the existence of Black human beings who hold university degrees, and the existence of White Americans without any. Despite this falisification, he continues to protest that all Africans are less intelligent - which is a demonstrably false belief - its the structure of formal logic that renders him 'deluded', and if that structure was good enough for Karl Popper, its' good enough for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.145.156 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That last statement is incorrect for several reasons. Firstly, I'm yet to see a quote from Watson stating that all Africans are less intelligent than all white Americans. Secondly, you parse Africans with black human beings (which Watson may also have done) but the two are not necessarily equivalent. Thirdly, you make the assumption that someone with a University degree is inherently more intelligent than someone without, a statement that is ludicrous. Blackmetalbaz 14:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In answer to extrapolations to the statements above... 1) The fact that Blackmetalbaz is yet to see Watson stating that all Africans are less intelligent than all white Americans does not mean he did not make the statement,logically it just means that Blackmetalbaz has not been reading UK press reports on this either widely or closely, 2) Watson parses Africans with black human beings, I did not, 3) I do not assume someone with a University degree is inherently more intelligent than someone without - however, it occurs to me that someone with a university degree is much more likely to do well in the type of 'intelligence tests' Watson cites to support his hypothesis than someone who has either received no formal education, or has received a fifth-rate education by virtue of economic disadvantage - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.116.54 (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question:

I see that Watson's promotion to head of the Genome Project is mentioned, and yet nobody mentioned that he was fired for lying and unethical scientific practices. NO, his original appointment was judged to be invalidated by a conflict of interest. Get with the times, Gentlemen. Rosalind Franklin is the real scientist behind the discovery of DNA. 

Kade 02:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
About Watson being fired due to "unethical scientific practices" -- could we please have a source for this? I've read a lot on the modern history of science the last 5 years or so. Watson naturally features prominently in a fair amount of this, but nowhere have I seen a mention of him being fired. From Watson's own account of his time at the Genome Project, I got the impression that he left on good terms with both the institute and the new leader.
If no source turns up, I'm tempted to remove that statement.
Mortene 08:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
"when he was fired due to unethical scientific practices"
According to the website of the Human Genome Project, "Watson resigned". According to the biography of Watson at the American Scientist website "NIH Director Bernardine Healy fired him (over differences of opinion on the patenting of genes and her perception that he had conflicts of interests because of his ties to the pharmaceutical industry)." At this website it says, "Technically, Watson resigned the post, which he held from 1988 to 1992. Depending on whom you talk to, he resigned because of possible conflict-of-interest issues over his financial holdings - or he was pushed out because he'd opposed Healy's wanting NIH to patent genes." This webpage describes how Healy was determined to allow people like Craig Venter to patent genes. Watson and other scientists thought this was rediculous (finding a gene was not an invention) and detrimental to science and medicine. Rick Bourke wanted to start a commercial gene sequencing venture and did not like Watson working from inside the government's genome project to keep genes non-commercial. "Healy used Bourke’s concerns as an excuse to set up an investigation into Jim’s financial holdings on the grounds of suspected conflict of interest. Nothing was found that he had not previously declared, but Healy never publicly exonerated him. Jim felt he was left with no option. He resigned in April 1992, but today he is in no doubt that he was effectively fired." Watson quote: "It turned out I always had an illegal job. I should never have been head of Cold Spring Harbor while passing out money from NIH." --JWSchmidt 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I have been under the impression that the dispute was over patenting of genes. Absurd really, but then capitalist-corporate America want to own everything, as Proudhon said, Property is theft, it especially applies in this case. Alun 18:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
online resource: Robert Cook-Deegan: 'How can you patent a gene?' --JWSchmidt 19:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

True, actually. My biology teacher likes to go on at great length about how everyone else did all the actual work but could never come to a conclusion because of communication gaps, and Watson and Crick, who were actually supposed to be working on something completely different at the time, just managed to collate the hard work of a bunch of other influentials while they were slacking off in a drawing room. And they got a Nobel Prize for it. Well balls to that I say. --195.92.67.75 29 June 2005 00:46 (UTC)

acommplishments

fact check: atheist

"Like his late colleague, Francis Crick, Watson is an outspoken atheist, known for his frank opinions on politics, religion, and the role of science in society. He has been considered to hold a number of controversial views."
Is there a source for this? --JWSchmidt 13:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/042765.htm --CountCrazy007 01:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Watson is a secular humanist. His diligent efforts, ongoing to this day, to achieve personalized medicine and cures for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's are evidence of his beliefs. Shannon bohle 22:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Watson holds an honorary affiliation with the International Academy of Humanism in which he was nominated to Humanist Laureate in 2005. http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=iah&page=index Shannon bohle 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Better picture

Is there anyway we could get a halfway flattering picture where he doesn't look like a hunched over rat? I think that with a man who's contributed so much to science, he deserves something respectable. :-)--CountCrazy007 01:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, just about every picture of him looks like that. He's not a pleasant guy to look at, which I'm sure attributed to his very weird issues regarding women. --Fastfission 14:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Gratuitious "citation needed"s

The number of "citation needed" templates here is ridiculous -- almost every one of them are for things clearly taken from The Double Helix. I'll try and go through and clean them out and add a citation every few paragraphs or so, but it's a pain in the ass for something which would be obvious to anyone who had read around on some of these things. The fact that the statement about TMV being the first virus synthesized is labeled as needing citation just further proves the point: it is a completely uncontroversial fact, as our page on the subject clearly explains. --Fastfission 14:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of adding the cite tags is to aid people who do want to go back to the literature and read around these things. I agree that most of these can be found in The Double Helix and easily added. How are we to tell what facts are reliable and which are not if we have no definitive proof that they are not simply whisked out of the editor's imagination? Asking for a cite is not the same as disputing a fact; they should not be taken as indicating that a given statement is necessarily controversial. Basically, this article (like every one in Wikipedia) should serve as a start point for any interested non-biologist who wants to learn more about the subject; it is not primarily designed for those who have read around the subject and already have some knowledge. Adding the citation tags is messy, but the point is to flag those portions of the text that obviously need backing up. All the best, Badgerpatrol 14:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

References to Franklin

I find that we keep sprinkling in references to Franklin all over this story. She obviously contributed, but I think that she needs s section of her own because information is being repeated about her in an intrusive way. -- 67.121.114.170 16:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Watson stole her data.
The comment that Watson "effectively stole" Franklin's data is unnecessarily inflammatory, and given that this is a matter of debate, biased against Watson. The preceding sentence states that the data was shown to Watson by Wilkins, and that the data had come from Wilkins' and Franklin's collaboration. That in itself is enough make make this less than theft.Aenikolopov 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Archival evidence (handwritten letters from Franklin to Watson) proves the relationship between Watson and Franklin was a benevolent one. Also, the scientists published their unique findings separately in the same volume of Nature. This included Franklin's important DNA image.Shannon bohle 00:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are these handwritten letters dated before or after she realised someone had been through her data without asking her first??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.140.150 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Science vs. Controversy

I feel that we spend too much time on the Franklin "controversy" and not enough time on the science. I am beginning to think that the controversy deserves its own page, just so that we can keep Waton's biography focused on Watson. -- 67.121.114.170 16:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

CanadianCaeser is being destructive

Is is doing mindless reverts. He obvious does not have the intellect to read and comprehand the article and his action show a complete disregard for article quality. He username says it all: CC is a mind that only understands one thing: force. -- 67.121.113.143 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

During the past few days the Francis Crick article was edited by several users known only by IP address, including User:67.121.113.143. I request that if any of these users is not a banned user, please register a user name so that other editors can have some confidence that you are a serious Wikipedia contributor. Thanks.
I am trying to work through CanadianCaesar to understand the reason for his reversions. --JWSchmidt 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the replies to this Incident report, the banned user Amorrow is known to edit using IP addresses that start with numbers such as 75, 68 and 67. Augaeth started the King's College DNA controversy article and is listed as a suspected puppet of Amorrow. I guess all edits by the following users should be deleted:

DNA Pioneers dropdown menu: addition of King's College London

Is the addition of KCL to the list a joke or is someone seriously unbalanced? I claim equal rights for the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge of course; so why just add KCL to the list? Nitramrekcap

List of Minor Edits

Since the article is locked, any minor edits can be listed here:

--Ollie 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the protection off. Feel free to edit the article. --JWSchmidt 00:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Needs infobox

This article needs the Template:Infobox Scientist 24.126.199.129 22:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

proceedings of the Royal Society in 1954

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(byuu1iz24qxbuby4yu3etcbm)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,10;journal,726,1018;linkingpublicationresults,1:120148,1

or start at: www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/archive and go via their Crick link!

217.134.247.11MP217.134.247.11

"Outspoken atheist"

The article states ("Other controversies" section) that "Watson is an outspoken atheist..." Could someone provide a citation for this, as I'd like to add Watson to the List of atheists article? Thanks. logologist|Talk 07:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone has now provided documentary evidence for Watson's atheism. It is available at List of atheists, to which Watson has been duly reinstated. logologist|Talk 08:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Referring to the controversy section

The controversy section is very biased towards Franklin and her work. Also, the section contradicts itself in the amount of contact that Franklin had with Watson and Crick. First it says that she told them personally, then it says that she had little interaction with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.23.202.164 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I guess there's been a small recent controversy over his his statement "Yes, because some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified. If you can't be criticized, that's very dangerous"[1], but not enough of one to be mentioned perhaps.--T. Anthony 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Referring controversy Someone asked why Watson discribed Roslaind the way he did. He said that it was 'important.' Don't you think there could be another reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.16.116 (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

lede

Some anonymous editors have been taking out the material on Rosalind Franklin from the lede paragraph. I imagine this has been a contentious paragraph over time, but from looking at it, the version with the Rosalind Franklin appears to have been fairly stable for a while. The editors taking it out have been anonymous & not apparently regular contributors here. So I've put it back for now, but am raising the issue here. --lquilter 15:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

DNA SCULPTURE AT CLARE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY, ENGLAND

The following words have been added to the article:

  • The wording on the new DNA sculpture outside Clare College's Thirkill Court, Cambridge, England is

a) on the base:

i) "These strands unravel during cell reproduction. Genes are encoded in the sequence of bases."

ii) "The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins."

b) on the helices:

i) "The structure of DNA was discovered in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson while Watson lived here at Clare."

ii) "The molecule of DNA has two helical strands that are linked by base pairs Adenine - Thymine or Guanine - Cytosine."

Nitramrekcap

OPENING PARAGRAPH

"Sir James Dewey Watson KBE(Hon) ForMemRS (born April 6, 1928) is an American scientist, best known as one of the discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule."

I would seriously question the use of 'Sir' for what is only an honorary title? It is not normal practice for honorary knighthoods to non-British nationals to be quoted in print. I am also dubious about the 'KBE(Hon) ForMemRS' as well! Can whoever added all these details, please comment? I think the opening paragraph for this article should be kept as simple as possible and does not need all this superfluous detail.

see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_honours_system#Knighthood 

Honorary awards

Citizens of countries which do not have the Queen as their head of state sometimes have honours conferred upon them, in which case the awards are "honorary". In the case of knighthoods, the holders are entitled to place initials behind their name but not style themselves "Sir". Examples of foreigners with honorary knighthoods are Riley Bechtel, Bill Gates, Bob Geldof, Bono, and Rudolph Giuliani, while Arsène Wenger and Gérard Houllier are honorary OBEs. Honorary knighthoods arise from Orders of Chivalry rather than as Knights Bachelor as the latter confers no postnominal letters.

Recipients of honorary awards who later become subjects of Her Majesty may apply to convert their awards to substantive ones. Examples of this are Marjorie Scardino, American CEO of Pearson PLC, and Yehudi Menuhin, the American-born violinist and conductor. They were granted an honorary damehood and knighthood respectively while still American citizens, and converted them to substantive awards after they assumed British citizenship, becoming Dame Marjorie and Sir Yehudi. Menuhin later accepted a life peerage with the title Lord Menuhin.

Tony O'Reilly, who holds both British and Irish nationality [1], uses the style "Sir", but has also gained approval from the Irish Government to accept the award as is necessary under the Irish Constitution[2]. Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, the German soprano, became entitled to be known as "Dame Elizabeth" when she took British nationality. Irish-born Sir Terry Wogan was initially awarded an honorary knighthood, but by the time he collected the accolade from the Queen in December 2005, he had obtained dual nationality [1] and the award was upgraded to a substantive knighthood.

Bob Geldof is often erroneously referred to in the tabloid press as "Sir Bob", though he does not have British nationality and does not appear in the British Knightage. His late wife, Paula Yates, regularly styled herself "Lady Geldof", though this may have been a ruse to enjoy preferential treatment when booking restaurants.

There is no law in the UK preventing foreigners from holding a peerage, though only Commonwealth and Irish citizens may sit in the House of Lords. This has yet to be tested under the new arrangements. However, some other countries such as the United States have laws restricting the acceptances of awards by foreign powers; in Canada, where the Canadian House of Commons has opposed the granting of titular honours with its Nickle Resolution, the prime minister Jean Chrétien advised the Queen not to grant Conrad Black a titular honour while he remained a Canadian citizen[3].



Nitramrekcap

Genome sequence

Recently James Watson has reportedly allowed his full personal DNA sequence to be made available on the public NCBI trace server[2] (with the exception of his Apolipoprotein E sequence, which has implications for Alzheimer disease) It is very tempting to set to work on it here. (That may not be a good idea, but it is well nigh irresistible...) The WP:NOR policy is restrictive, but I don't think it prohibits (essentially) looking up two sequences to see if they're the same. To begin a to-do list:

  • Use HapMap[3] to infer the degree of correlation with adjoining genes, so that one ApoE isoform can be described as most probable.
  • Worrier or warrior? COMT begs description.
  • ACE polymorphism? Probably not important.[4]

Someone talk me out of this. ;) Mike Serfas 21:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Do you think that ApoE might be linked to Racism as well as Alzheimers, Mike, or is it just environmental? 80.225.151.204 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)DrLofthouse80.225.151.204 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Is 'ApoE' a typo for 'OAPE' ? HIs DNA sequence is almost identical to a Gorillas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.167.53 (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, one would hope so! After all, humans ARE almost identical to gorillas! chrisboote 13:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added additional information pertaining to the organizations performing the sequencing. Following this is a quote by Watson explaining his reasons for making his genome public.Shannon bohle 01:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote to include

Watson has one of my favorite quotes, one that was even read by Howard Stern on his radio show. "I divide men into those who think of women 90 percent of the time and those who think about them 99 percent of the time. I was a 90-percenter." [5] It is a great quote and I think it should be added somewhere to the article.

He also further states his views on religion "I'm supposed to say, Gee, all religions are equally good. Well, I think that some are worse than others." and fat people "So I shouldn't say that fat people are more content and that's why I want to hire thin, discontent people."

Dom316 14:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Congratulations to whoever reinstated the original Discoverers of the Structure of DNA earlier as it looks a lot better with a more comprehensive list from William Astbury to Maurice Wilkins!

Nitramrekcap —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:50, August 21, 2007 (UTC).


racist comments

why can't we summarise what he said? All the other CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS basically summarise what he says, such as, 'all girls should be genetically modified to be pretty'.The only reason I included the quotation was because he made about 5 different statements on the matter, but my summary: 'said the majority of black people are inherently stupid' were the actual views expressed by him, I wasn't sensationalizing his statement, his statement was in itself sensationalist.NOT including such a summary to avoid controversy would be biased in his favour, and would downplay the seriousness of what he said.In my last edit I've given a more formally worded summary, but it amounts to the same thing.Please explain your actions before reverting or editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective (talk • contribs) 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If the actual quotes are available, the actual quotes should be used, not a summary that's subject to error. This is particularly applicable in this case, where we're getting a quote of a quote, which loses even more. The less interpretation, the better.
For instance, the text that initially was in here on this said "the majority of black people are inherently stupid," which is simply inaccurate. Another was "intelligence of black Africans was inferior on average to that of the rest of the world." He didn't say that, either.
What he's reported to have said is that [he is] "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really."
What is the objection to using the short quote to assure the most accurate representation of what he actually said, and leaving the interpretation to the reader?
He also didn't say that "all girls should be genetically modified to be pretty," either, and, yes, I agree that that should be corrected too.
Okay, now that I've "explained [my] actions before I edit or revert, as you requested, I'm now going to edit or revert.
-- Terry Carroll 01:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But why include a quote at all, we don't include a lengthy passage from his paper on DNA do we?We say that he discovered DNA and annotate a link to our reference.It seems messy and and counter intuitive to me to include such a long quote, it is without precedent to do so on any matter in wikipedia.Seemed to me that the text of the last edit was very accurate, 'he stated that there is compelling scientific and anecdotal evidence for some racial predjudices, such as, (among other things), the inferior intelligence of black people :', that was a description of what his statements amounted to, not putting words in his mouth or using inflammatory language.

"racist comments" <-- Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective, can you state the definition of racism you are using? --JWSchmidt 05:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


well, he's an old american man with the old amercian predjudices that most 80 eyar old white middle class+ income americans have.He is searching for evidence to support these predjudices as opposed to being lead to these conclusions by evidence.His use of 'our' obviously means other white americans, but americans come from many many different countries with many many different racial characteristics, such as height, hair and eye colour etc.Skin colour is only one of many phenotypes that differs from country to country.So the use of the word 'we' denotes actually refers to many different peoples with many different phenotypes.His argument that, H “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”, therefore makes no sense, as german people, spanish people are very different genetically,and therefore many white americans with differing ancestry are very different racially, so why doesn't he cite these examples.His argument is psuedoscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on racism provides several definitions of racism. Do you like any of those definitions? "why doesn't he cite these examples" <-- I think the basic issues are discussed at Race and intelligence (test data). --JWSchmidt 04:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)



what reason did you have for changing my sentence?, it wasn't inaccurate in any way.I'm reverting that sentence simply because the sentece you substituted it with amounts to the same thing, but is unnecessarily verbose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The direct quote From Watson indicates that he was discussing a conclusion that he draws from data obtained by testing people. My version provides a link to a Wikipedia page that shows data from intelligence tests. Watson's comments are more nuanced than your short version. --JWSchmidt 03:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems there are many people unwilling to use the term "racist" when it comes to this man. I can understand why a racist would resist those terms but I am confused as to why non racists have such a difficult problem identifying racism. Is it just me? I took the opportunity to label his statements racist. The NAACP, and Barak Obama agree that his statements were indeed just that. I would think that an organization as huge as the NAACP and a smart leader are more than enough proof that indeed his statements were indicative of his racism. --Landerman56 03:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So why not cite verifiable sources in which people explain how Watson qualifies as a racist? What definition of "racist" do you propose we use here at Wikipedia? --JWSchmidt 04:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV in the statement "He claims to hope that everyone is equal". This has clear connotations that he does not mean what he has said. Changing claim to stated. Bilz0r 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Old Man

Take it easy on the old man. Remember how old he is. He had a statement about "latin lovers" and "the English patient". People found these statements amusing. This may have encouraged him to take it a step further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.99.26 (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler wasn't that young either - true some people found his statements about Jews amusing, and it certainly encouraged him to take it a step further didn't it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.183.55 (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

strange sentences

I made changes to sentences #1 and #2 (below) and have a question about #3:

1) "Watson, through his connections at King's College, used Franklin's data without her knowledge or consent. In fact, when he had asked her to share her crystallographic results, she refused him outright." <-- This was marked as needing citations. I agree. "used Franklin's data without her knowledge or consent" <-- This is somewhat complicated by the fact that Franklin did share her data in a seminar attended by Watson and did share in personal conversation some of her ideas (such as placing the phosphate backbone outside) with Crick and Watson.

2) "Neither was Franklin mentioned in Watson or Crick's Nobel Prize speeches" <-- This is irrelevant. The Nobel Prize was not awarded for just the Double Helix model; Watson and Crick both discussed other aspects of their nucleic acid work in their Nobel speeches.

3) "According to one critic, unprotected by libel laws, Watson's portrayal of Franklin in The Double Helix was negative, giving the appearance that she was Wilkins' assistant and was unable to interpret her own DNA data." <-- What does libel law have to do with Watson's book? If this sentence is to remain in Wikipedia as written, I think we need to find direct quotes from Watson's book to support it. --JWSchmidt 16:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In Watson's book, The Double Helix, it is clear that Wilkins had the hope that Franklin would be a technical specialist, in some sense an "assistant" who would work with Wilkins and others on the problem of figuring out the structure of DNA. Wilkins' thinking about how he had imagined working with Franklin is described in great detail in Wilkins' autobiography. It should be of no surprise to anyone that Watson could have initially interpreted Wilkins' comments (about the difficulty he had collaborating with Franklin) as indicating that Franklin was his assistant. Early in the book, Watson wrote, "Maurice, a beginner in X-ray diffraction work, wanted some professional help and hoped that Rosy, a trained crystallographer, could speed up his research. Rosy, however, did not see the situation this way. She claimed that she had been given DNA for her own problem and would not think of herself as Maurice's assistant." The remainder of the book makes clear that Franklin never worked as Wilkins' assistant. In the Epilogue, Watson wrote that, "my initial impressions of her, both scientific and personal (as I recorded in the early pages of this book), were often wrong," and he acknowledged her "superb" results on the structure of DNA. I do not think a rational claim can be made that Watson's book gave the appearance that Franklin was Wilkins' assistant. --JWSchmidt 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"was unable to interpret her own DNA data" <-- This statement (from the current version of James D. Watson) is clearly at odds with the story told in The Double Helix, which shows that Franklin did "superb" research that facilitated construction of the Double Helix model. Lynne Elkin wrote this more correct comment: "To this day, Watson emphasizes the opinion that Franklin, although a gifted experimentalist, could not properly interpret all of her own DNA data." In particular, the The Double Helix makes clear that Watson and Crick were ready and willing to interpret the experimental data by way of attempts to make molecular models in the Pauling "tradition": using the data to eliminate wrong models and as a guide towards correct models. Franklin did not adopt that approach and Watson stands by the claim that this difference in interpretive approach is what allowed Watson and Crick to find the Double Helix structure at a time when Franklin ignored their suggestion that the Kings College workers should attempt model building. --JWSchmidt 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Other controversial statements

"Watson is known for his frank opinions on politics, religion, race and the role of science in society." The article appears to make no reference to any remarks that Watson's made about religion at all - the closest it comes is mentioning that he's an atheist. Was this here before? Mark J. Shea 05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from The Harvard Crimson, I have added a statement about Watson's controversial anti-war stand on Vietnam while he was a professor at Harvard in 1969. While there, he helped spearhead an effort to get the faculty at Harvard to take a formal political position on the subject.Shannon bohle 01:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC). I also added information about Watson's nuclear nonproliferation position and action at Harvard.Shannon bohle 02:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC) I am not sure why, but someone deleted these two items from the Watson page. They are properly cited additions from an authoritative source. They deal with controversial positions and actions: an anti-war position during Vietnam and protest against the use of nuclear energy due to concerns about possible proliferation, so they fit into this category. I returned them to the page.Shannon bohle 16:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Question on Placing Watson's Atheism at Top

I was surprised to find Watson's status as an avowed atheist listed in the introduction. I was curious about this becuase I thought it would be a little harder to find. Generally in biographies, an individual's philosophical or religious identification occurs in a section of its own unless this is germane to what gives them celebrity status. For instance, it is appropriate and necessary that Richard Dawkins be identified as an outspoken advocate of secularism since it is a large part of his professional fame. Watson, on the other hand is known primarily for his part in the discovery of DNA and his contribution to biology as a whole.

It would be almost as appropriate to write, "Watson is also a secular humanist, atheist, and racist" because both are nearly as relevant to his life's work. I say 'almost' because he has strongly identified himself with atheism whereas he would not likely identify himself as being a racist.

I looked up Francis Collins and George W. Bush to get a better idea of how properly to deal with belief systems in a wiki article. Interestingly, Bush's Christian status has only a brief reference in the middle--possibly because the religious right is not eager to own him. Francis Collins' identification with Christianity, on the other hand, is given a decent amount of treatment including good quotes and references. However, though both Collins and Watson are possess strikingly similar roles as scientists who specialize in DNA studies, the Collins article devotes a section farther down about his beliefs. He has, perhaps, more justification than Watson in being identified with Christianity in the first lines as he has taken an active role in publication and interview regarding the question of faith and religion whereas Watson does not seem to have published specifically regarding this area.

If he has, it would enrich this article to state it, but either way, it seems like the article could only be improved by moving Watson's philosophical position into a section that focuses on his biographical information secondary to his role as a scientist. If there is indeed enough material to merit its own section, I would be happy for more information since presently we have only a line and a source. It would be a step backwards academically for each celebrity to be identified by their belief system up front when not of primary interest; factionalism and ignorance of those who don't line up with one's own belief system necessarily follow. --JECompton 17:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your points exactly. I certainly do not think that secular humanism and atheism should be included in the opening of this article, especially since it's so short. It should be mentioned somewhere, but not at the top unless it merits its own section or is an important part of his work, as is the case with Dawkins.--Gloriamarie 18:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting issue and concern for Wikipedia. On one hand, Watson's fame arises from his scientific work that does not directly involve religion. However, Watson is one of those rare scientists who does not have to pretend to be politically correct in order to keep a job and feed his family. Since Watson has an interest in the links between genes and behavior, he has thought a lot about topics that have traditionally been claimed by philosophers and religions.....and he is not afraid to speak his mind. This makes him a target for some religion-motivated folks who do not like to see elements of their religious beliefs contradicted or challenged. Sometimes I think Wikipedia should just have a central article on religion-motivated attacks on famous scientists, then each such scientist could have a link from their biographical article to that central page. --JWSchmidt 22:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the removal of Watson's atheism from the article is not justified. It should be mentioned somewhere in the article (though probably not in the lead), along with the fact that he is a secular humanist. Here are some reliable sources that claim Watson is an atheist:
  • "Watson is a strident atheist", San Francisco Chronicle [6]
  • "Mr. Crick's partner and fellow atheist James Watson" Washington Times [7]
  • "James Watson, co-unraveller of DNA, told television viewers recently how "embarrassed" he is to meet scientists who believe in God, or indeed who take religion seriously. He was talking to his chum and fellow atheist Richard Dawkins" Guardian Unlimited [8]
  • "He is an obdurate atheist (as was Crick)" Smithsonian Magazine [9]
As per WP:V, there is no need for a direct quote, if there are reliable sources, so you can't claim it's original research. And I could not find any source that says Watson is agnostic. Furthermore, a true agnostic would never claim that he doesn't believe in God, he would say he doesn't know. By the way, I think Crick should also be considered an atheist, since "an agnostic with a strong inclination toward atheism" means "atheist" in practice (even Dawkins admits that he is agnostic "to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden": would you say he is not an atheist?), but I admit that's debatable.
Addendum: as an alternative, we could say that those sources claim he is an atheist but that he didn't say it himself, and provide some quotes to clarify his views.
Mushroom (Talk) 05:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Mushroom: yes, there is an industry devoted to placing the label "atheist" on anyone who does not believe in God. However, many people who do not believe in God reject the label "atheist". Is there a reliable source in which Watson self-labels as "atheist"? If not, why not simply report the words that he uses to describe his own views? --JWSchmidt 06:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have thought about it and maybe you're right. I'm probably a bit biased because I'm an atheist myself and I'd like people to call things with their name. I still think that sentence should be moved from the lead section and expanded. Watson has expressed his views on religion on some occasions, saying for instance:
"Well I don't think we're for anything. We're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose.' But I'm anticipating having a good lunch."
And:
"The biggest advantage to believing in God is you don't have to understand anything, no physics, no biology. I wanted to understand."
And he also said "Absolutely not" when he was asked if he believes in God. That's stronger than just "No". Mushroom (Talk) 06:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I suspect it is a hopeless cause to try to get people to edit responsibly with respect to using labels like "atheist". There are reasons why the Wikipedia articles on atheism and agnostics mention many different variations in how people think about their disbelief in God. If we tried to label everyone who who believes in the God of the Old Testament as a Jew, there would be a fire storm, but there is a whole army of people who do not hesitate to apply the term "atheist" in a simple-minded way. I think Watson's disbelief in God is unremarkable and has nothing to do with why he is famous and has a Wikipedia article. There are hundreds of thousands of other scientists who hold similar views with respect to the fact that science contradicts beliefs that are held as "the gospel truth" by many. Since Watson is a famous scientist and not afraid to speak his mind, there are swarms of wiki editors who feel the need to label him as an atheist. I suppose applying such a label saves them the trouble of having to think about what Watson actually says. I would not be surprised to learn that Watson thinks of himself as an atheist, but until I can cite a reliable source on that, I'd prefer to just provide direct quotes....although I'm still not sure why anyone cares if Watson believes in God. --JWSchmidt 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and I think I agree. Maybe it would be better to remove that sentence altogether, unless it can be incorporated in the biography section in some way. Mushroom (Talk) 23:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I have removed it. Mushroom (Talk) 23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh,...:

"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really."

Whereas there are many pages about cartoon disputes, maybe this dispute would rate a page.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 15:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful if we knew more about the context of the "all the testing says not really" comment. Wikipedia has the article Race and intelligence (test data). I suspect that Watson was talking about "intelligence tests". I think the "Race and intelligence (test data)" article does a good job of making clear that "environment" (nurture) has a large influence on the results obtained with intelligence tests and that interpretation of results from such tests can often be complicated by non-genetic factors. This makes many people hesitate to assume that genetic differences account for variations in "intelligence" test scores reported reported for groups of people who have been sorted into cultural or genetic categories. We also have Neurodiversity, and I think Watson's personal experience with his son makes him very interested in the way genes can create different types of human intelligence. I think it is clear that Watson is well aware of examples of genetic differences that alter human intelligence and he has concerns about how a society can best make use of that kind of genetic knowledge. --JWSchmidt 20:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research and conclusions

"This statement is consistent with his previous claims and suggests that he has not actually retreated from his views on genetic determinism"

Instead of drawing conclusions, lets report the facts. Quotes, apologies, repercussions are appropriate. What is suggested by his statements is a matter of opinion. I'm removing this sentence from the article. Jcc1 19:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Mushroom (Talk) 20:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Me too! Amit@Talk 10:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews

I added some material from a recent Economist article on research which seems to show Ashkenazi Jews are significant more intelligent than average. This was removed, with the note "POV and OR". I have re-added this material, since it clearly not POV and OR, and provided the ref to the Economist article. I have removed a second following paragraph which expands upon the implications of this research, since that could be taken as OR.

Toby Douglass 22:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A discussion of whether Watson's purported views are justified or not is POV and OR. In an article about Askenazi Jews, this material is neither POV or OR. But in Watson's article, it is. -- Terry Carroll 23:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are adding material to support Watsons hypothesis regarding genetic determinants and intelligence, please do the scientific thang and cite the actual research papers - then intelligent people can assess how the study was conducted, whether it is therefore a valid investigation or just Watsons normal twaddle, and importantly, who the 'peers' deciding it was worthy of publication were -

Eugenics (again)

Would it be possible to have a small, self-contained, factual, NPOV, well-sourced, non-OR, un-biased, whatever-else, section summarising what Watson's opinions of Eugenics are? 81.98.244.111 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the section above, Watson is quoted as saying 'There are people whose genes] "don't permit a meaningful existence [..] a chance to one day be able to marry, to one day be accepted as equals when entering a room. Hitler said: Kill all who do not have this chance. I say they shouldn't be born in the first place. That's the difference. '

Watson sees himself as different from Hitler in some way, ..Steven Hawkins would not have been gassed or sterilized, just his parents? Mmmmmmmm????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.133.210 (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha...too bad Stephen Hawkings' disability is not genetic.207.245.79.201 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)##Last laugh on you I'm afraid! Jeez, not genetic!!! Steven Hawkins has Motor Neurone Disease - if you are ignorant of the 'genetic' aspects of this condition <http://www.mndassociation.org/research/research_explained/causes/index.html> why on Earth are you attempting to enter a debate on Genes and Eugenics?? Are you saying that it would then have been ok just to sterilize Steven Hawkins, and leave his parents alone? Lets ask his children stupid.


That didn't even answer my first question ("would it be possible"). Also the section would have to include his opinions on different types of eugenics, such as Liberal eugenics versus state coerced eugenics, which you seem to be confused about.81.98.244.111 13:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think stating what his views are in the article does not make the article itself POV. LDHan 14:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There could be such a page section if we cite reliable and verifiable sources, either Watson's own writings or scholarly analysis of Watson's writings by people who are experts in eugenics and genetics. Many people talk about eugenics only after making the assumption that anyone supporting any type of eugenics is immoral or to be condemned as psuedoscientific or, somehow, "dangerous". As we have seen from comments on this talk page, many people assume that people who favor any form of eugenics automatically want non-voluntary sterilization or other forms of "negative eugenics". I think that kind of attitude makes it very hard for a community of wiki editors to rationally deal with this topic. I think we have to take to heart what Ernst Mayr wrote: "...it has become almost impossible, since 1933, to discuss eugenics objectively." In discussing the prospects for understanding human genetics and providing parents with tools for controlling reproductive outcomes, Watson has suggested the use of other terminology such as "genetic injustice" (see "Genes and politics", published as PMID 9351701) .--JWSchmidt 20:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks for making that clear. The goal was to lessen the misconception against Watson (or at least clarify the prejudices, eg. it would be valid for anti-choice people to hate him), but it's kind of out of my depth... 81.98.244.111 13:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that Watson is not really a professional in any field of ethics. He has personal and professional interest in making use of genetic knowledge to help parents, but he has largely been limited to acting professionally as an administrator of scientific funding who has had the chance to help channel money to professional ethicists who do the work. This should probably be mentioned in the article with a citation to Watson's "Genes and politics" article. --JWSchmidt 17:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that JWSchmidt notes 'Watson is not really a professional in any field of Ethics' - I'm an '80s' former student of the late Maurice Wilkins, and in sharp contradistinction from Watson, Wilkins insisted his students could at least to justify their work to themselves from an ethical perspective by instigating a course at Kings (London) entitled 'The Social Impact of the Biosciences': Watson ( a swell headed duffer who just stole Wilkins and Franklins efforts in my probably biased opinion) hasn't had any involvement in encouraging others to consider the impact their research might have on other people - he's had his ego as a 'genius' massaged for his entire adult life, and has always been less than welcoming of debates in which he is forced to consider that he might be wrong. This explains why he just headed for the hills when the storm broke over his racist comments in the UK press recently - a Scientist would have stood their ground, a Scientist would have insisted on taking part in a fully transcribed public discussion in London - he ran to the airport. In my opinion, having been in his presence twice, albeit as a lowly Student, he is arrogant, unbearably sexist to female scientists (which for any male scientist who has valued female colleagues is excruciating to witness), Racist in an ignorant, 'Alf Garnett' stylee, and a rather embarassing duffer. By virtue of his involvement in the Nobel, and nothing else, he's been surrounded by minions all his life who have been too scared to tell him to b#gger off in case their grants got cancelled - its a great shame Cold Spring Harbour didnt 'dead wood' him years earlier. Maurice Wilkins understood the need for Ethical consideration in Science: his lifelong guilt at having contributed to Oppenheimer's baby in his youth made him emphasize to his students the need to explore the likely outcomes of your research on other people- - Watson has wasted a working career presenting lectures, replete with offensive and gratuitous jpegs of women in bikinis, and simply doesnt have the intellectual capacity a proper Scientific 'debate' requires 80.225.140.150 21:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Watson....hasn't had any involvement in encouraging others to consider the impact their research might have on other people" <-- This is not correct. He made an effort to channel a huge chunk of money to ethicists so that they can deal with issues arising from human genome studies. You (80.225.140.150) express well the attitudes of political correctness. Time will tell if Watson is correct, that political correctness is now blocking some of the ethics work that needs to be done. --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI: reeling definition

Reeling is definitely a word. It is a form of the instransative verb "reel", meaning: 1a: to turn or move round and round 1b: to be in a whirl 2: to behave in a violent disorderly manner 3: to waver or fall back (as from a blow) 4: to walk or move unsteadily Slightly different than "shocked", — DIEGO talk 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, had thought was slang and just did a quick google. I stand corrected. Pharmboy 01:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Resignation from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Was today's announcement a response to his recent Racist comments regarding Africans being less intelligent than Whites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.208.212 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

From Watson's statement: "This morning I have conveyed to the trustees of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory my desire to retire immediately from my position as its chancellor, as well as from my position on its board"
Dr. James D. Watson Retires as Chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
--JWSchmidt 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So it was 'just a coincidence' then? 80.225.140.150 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)ppDrLofthouse80.225.140.150 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC):)

I have moved the section about Watson's retirement from CSHL to the "Positions" section, and quoted selections from the official press release describing his duties there. I have also expanded the "Positions" section to reflect his employment at Harvard University.Shannon bohle 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a brief summary of the November 11, 2007 NYT article to the section called "Opinion concerning the possible links between race and intelligence". The article did not explicitly list neurological disorders as one of the genetically inherited diseases it mentions, so I added that example because it may be relevant to the purpose of the article and Watson's statement. Neurological disorders can relate directly to the capacity for intelligence, and CSHL researchers along with other scientists are actively engaged in the areas of neurobiology, neurology, and neurogenomics. Neurogenomics involves genetic research into "memory" and "human cognitive disfunction" (See: http://www.cshl.edu/ and http://dart.cshl.edu/DART/public/scripts/main2.pl?link=mission&content=mission.html). Relating inherited disease to race may be controversial, but it may also hold the potential to identify, treat, and cure diseases that are prevalent in a particular population, such as sickle cell anemia in African Americans or affect ethnic groups differently. In terms of neurological disorders, take, for example, a 2006 study by Duke University discussing "Gene interaction, autism, and race", where "Research by a team at Duke University reports that a combination of malfunctioning genes increases the likelihood of autism in African Americans." (See: http://www.autismvox.com/gene-interaction-autism-and-race/ and "Investigation of autism and GABA receptor subunit genes in multiple ethnic groups" http://www.springerlink.com/content/82575608481x7705/?p=6f946a7112b043e8a7c3d7264ebc3f95&pi=0). Scientists look at how and why these malfunctioning genes came about to help to treat individuals with Autism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon bohle (talk • contribs) November 11, 2007

The introduced paragraph is only tangentially related to the Watson controversy. Further, the new text appears to be an attempt to buffer the true nature of Watson's statements. There's nothing scientific about Watson's claim that he ""hoped everyone was equal" but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." However, I think the new information could be added to Race and intelligence when it becomes unlocked. Verum 16:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The article does not seem to be "tangentially related". It directly mentions Watson and the aftermath of discussions arising from his comments. It states, "Such discussions are among thousands that followed the geneticist James D. Watson’s assertion last month that Africans are innately less intelligent than other races. Dr. Watson, a Nobel Prize winner, subsequently apologized and quit his post at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island."

The NYTimes article makes only passing mention of the Watson incident without directly address it. Further, it certainly does not lend credence to his personal, unscientific observations. It does not belong in this article, and it certainly does not justify his sweeping generalizations about black employees (his words). Kindest regards, Verum 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved Hardyplants reference on the controversial statements being the basis of Watson's retirement to the "Controversial Statements" section, where it's already treated. It's redundant and borderline POV to keep repeating it throughout the article. TJRC (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have again added the summary from the NYT article which Verum has twice deleted. The article is properly referenced and quoted. Disagreeing with the point of view of a NYT reporter is not a sufficient reason to delete a reference to a published source. Rather, it is censorship. Please consult the Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution.Shannon bohle (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Shannon, it's obvious that you introduced the new material in an effort to justify Watson's opinion about black people. As if to say, "Hey, it's not that bad, look at all of these other scientists who (may) concur with his statements." The problem is that they've done no such thing! Watson made an off-the-cuff remark that was based on emotion, not empirical observation, and it was nowhere near the legitimate science to which the NYTs article alludes. The referenced article only uses Watson's gaff to frame an article about race and intelligence. So forgive me if I've "censored" your entry, but it's quite clear what you're trying to do. Further, your own user page states that you worked for Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Did you know Watson while you were there? Are you trying to whitewash the nature of his comments because you hold him in esteem? If so, you're violating Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Other editors have made similar comments about your edits in the edit summaries. I'm just trying to maintain the neutrality of this article by removing subtle, well-placed POV edits. Further, I don't find the new content disagreeable, nor do disagree with the "point of view of a NYT reporter." After all, I previously said it would make a decent addition to Race and intelligence. I'm not going to delete your addition because I don't wish to engage in a revert war, but I still don't think it directly attempts to justify Watson, and it's clear that was the implication when you inserted it. Nothing personal, just business. Verum (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Affordable Genome Sequencing and Personalized Health Care

www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/us/17dna.html?ex=1353042000&en=4e47cec0d8fa5d93&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

www.23andme.com/

"The Global Similarity Map: Genetically, humans are overwhelmingly similar to one another. But over the millennia, slight genetic differences between people have emerged and been passed down. 23andMe's Global Similarity tool compares your genome to those of people around the world. The more similar you are to people in a particular region, the more likely your family tree sprang from that place. . . .This means that 23andMe's Ancestry tools provide you with more accurate, reliable data about your genetic similarity to populations across the globe." (www.23andme.com/ourservice/ancestry/, www.23andme.com/ourservice/ancestry/science/)

The heading, lks, and and paragraph of text were added in an unsigned Nov. 17 edit. I have broken the otherwise crawlable lks (1 to NYT and 3 to a .com site offering a $1000 product of a questionable nature). I have also struck thru the text, since it is not on-topic with respect to the creation of this article.
--Jerzy•t 07:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Amendments made

Apologies to any who may disagree with the re-formatting I have done. Quick explanation of what I've done:
A - reformatted quotes to be clearer when reading. It was impossible to break up the intitial "bad" quotes as basically that is a lazy paragraph literally torn out of The Times. Seriously verging on plagiarism there (and could do with reworking/wording). Adapted the final section to draw a difference between his quotes in person and those from texts (i.e. Grubbe makes the distinction in the original article between verbal quoting, and that from a book or written journal - she doesn't specify where or when exactly however). Has to be said, her article lacks the citations required to make it verifiable and the whole paragraph makes about as much sense as a chocolate teapot (very confusing as it's obvious she's taken quotes from several different conversations and pieced together to lend some cohesion...and ended up picking up a thread on Africa (year, date?), a thread on Black intelligence (year, date?) and one on positive discrimination (year, date?) and then finally an attributed written piece (year, date, origin?). There's no evidence to suggest this is all one conversation, let alone even the same topic.
B - moved the equally lazy section regarding melanin and sex drive to the "other" section as it's got nothing to do with the topic of intelligence (aside from the fact that Grubbe included it in the same piece in The Times). Again - it's practically ripped word for word from the original text. I axed the word "reeled" as...err...well, the idea everybody in the audience suddenly felt faint or shuffled unsteadily in a swoon because someone suggested a link between darker skin and sex drive is frankly outlandish and certainly not neutral.
C - formatted into date order. I.e. his original comments, the response, his retraction, the belated response of Edinburgh jumping on a bandwagon that had already left the stable.
D - Renamed topic header as "controversial" would be repeated twice (i.e. it's under the heading "Controversies" and called "Controversial". Egging the pudding a bit).
E - renamed it to match the opening line a little, and also to match the wiki topic race and intelligence. Whole
Hope it reads a little less like a an amateur tabloid journalism piece.--Koncorde 17:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to above. Re-inserting "controversial" is pointless. "prefacing" it twice is pointless. Either remove it from the Controversies section so the article doesn't repeat itself, or change the name entirely. Simply inserting "controversial" makes it look far more incriminating. The current heading I have just reinserted does not deny that he has opinions on the matter and allows the article to define those opinions - and similarly define the misrepresentation Watson endured through them.--Koncorde 13:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

does Wikipedia have to be dull?

superb. Many scientists have praised Franklin's DNA work in glowing terms. Watson wrote, "The X-ray work she did at King's is increasingly regarded as superb." Crick wrote, "Rosalind's experimental work was first class. It is difficult to see how it could be bettered." Do we really have to clutter the page with a string of citations in order to be able to use a word that is not dull and boring? --JWSchmidt 05:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If its the general consenses by peers that some ones work is brilliant or such- then I think it should also be stated in the article as such. Without the need for excessive quoting or referencing. Hardyplants 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Controversies" section is getting silly

The "Controversies" section has become bloated and borderline POV. Adding well-sourced entries pointing out Watson's controversial statements probably complies WP:LIVING, but there have been some edits, both for and against Watson, that seem on the edge. The Other Controversies section has become a trivial "rap sheet", and I've seen two accounts of it being used on popular social news sites to point out how "bad" (not my word) Watson is. The section addressing the latest controversy devolved into a "blow-by-blow" account of retracted speaking invitations and apologies. This info was added as the event unfolded, so perhaps people were excited to keep things up to date, but in retrospect it may be time to re-write this part of the article. Finally, "Controversies" has become diluted with accounts of Watson's signature on a 2000 person petition to end nuclear proliferation, which is outside of the scope of this section and seems like a "feel good" edit. I think the whole thing should be re-written and parred back considerably. Thoughts? Comments? Disagreements? AlphaEta 18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Edit summary: I've tried to clean up the Controversies section and maintain a NPOV by sticking to the cold, hard facts.
  1. Removing A LOT of superfluous quotes and the name Hunt-Grubbe from every other sentence. Tried to summarize the sequence of events without cutting any critical information. Tried to retain as many verifiable refs as possible.
  2. Deleted "feel good" edits about other research on race and science, autism and schizophrenia. Also cut paragraphs about Watson's participation in ant-war petitions. There's nothing directly attributable to him here, and these two things don't seem "controversial" enough to merit discussion in this section.
  3. Tried to make a paragraph out of the "other controversial statements" list. Removed unreferenced material and material with dubious sources.
Let me know what you think. Please feel free to change my edits if you don't like them, but let's make an effort to clean up this section. Thanks, AlphaEta 02:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who condensed it into a blow by blow account as prior to that it was basically "Watson said this racist thing and everybody kicked up a stink". Tried to balance it a bit, cited and ref'd. It read like a critique of the situation rather than a wikipedia article, but that's what was needed at the time it was 'current'.
Think the current edit is a bit rough around the edges and has taken some depth away from it that is really needed. The final sentence is a bit confused as it suggests his 'speaking engagements' are still at risk - they were (presumably) cancelled on his return to the US and the date for the talks have now passed. I'll have a go at fleshing it out into a less blow by blow account when I get chance to sit and read it.--Koncorde (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I do remember how it looked before you cleaned things up, and I agree that it was very sloppy. I gave it a good once over, so it will undoubtedly need a few more rounds of revision. My primary concern was how bloated and overwritten it had become since it was composed as events unfolded. AlphaEta 00:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Reads much better now qualifying comments are re-inserted. Makes a more 'real' appraisal and delivery of the events.--Koncorde (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
After digging around to find the source of selected quotes that appeared in the article, it became clear that they were from disparate sources. Regards, AlphaEta 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I gave up trying to find most of them when it became obvious Hunt-Grubbe was formulating paragraphs in mix and match format. Badly it must be added.Koncorde (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Rather than whitewash the "Other controversies" section, I've condensed the list into one extensively cited sentence. It doesn't seem like most biographical articles contain a list of every controversial statement the subject ever made, so why should this article be the exception? Again, feel free to revert if you feel I've gone too far. Thanks, AlphaEta 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the wikilink to Race and Intelligence. It is what it is, a link to exactly the topic (and tests presumably( Watson was discussing and later referring to even when he later restated his position. The fact someone has flagged the topic is neither here nor there. I have reinserted on the grounds that:

A - Watson discussed it.
B - the NPOV flag will likely never be removed from the topic as it will always be in dispute until genetically disproved/proved (which is inkeeping with the actual topic and discussion Watson has elicited).

The wikipedia article if anything helps demonstrate the whole state of affairs.--Koncorde 19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the final sentence

In the article, Hunt-Grubbe compiled selected quotations from Watson that alluded to a link between race and intelligence.

vs

In the article, Hunt-Grubbe quoted Watson making non-scientific based claims linking race and intelligence.

vs

In the article, Hunt-Grubbe quoted Watson making claims linking race and intelligence.

A - First off, the use of the word "claim" suggests that was Watsons intention, yet we only have Grubbe's word for it. We can cite it as 'claimed' using the BBC website, but again that's just quoting Hunt Grubbe making those claims on Watsons behalf. As it stands Watson denies making the claim specifically pertaining to racial difference, or even that Africa is genetically/intellectually inferior. To use the word claim in that place is therefore incorrect.

B - "non-scientific based" is extremely poor English. "Un-empirical" would be a better word, except that there are obvious 'measured' results confirming any number of positions you so wish. "Unscientific" meanwhile is to suggest there is a scientific way and/or that he conducted some form of irrational test.

C - "non-scientific based" (especially in conjunction with "claimed") gives the impression that he was making some form of uninformed wildly innaccurate statement; rather than having several chunks of quoted text pieced together to form something entirely more sinister.

D - "compiled selected quotations" is the most accurate description of what took place, unless someone else overheard the conversation and can actually confirm that the sentences taken from his lips all occured at the same time in a cohesive structure.

E - "alluded" is also probably the strongest word that can be used when using the phrase "linking race and intelligence" without giving the sub article undue weight of opinion or support. Indeed the Race and Intelligence article should do that for itself without Watson (unless of course he specifically reverts his position and/or goes into far more depth of investigation and expansion).

Have to say that the article actually lacks detail of the fall out from media sources, but having looked at most of the reputable ones - very few actually say anything, instead getting "offended" extras to pop up with soundbites. Still could possibly do with an inclusion of one to balance out the 'controversy' with something other than Cold Harbor and the uni's response as currently it looks a bit apologetic.--Koncorde 18:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all there is simply no dispute that Watson made these claims and apologized for them. There is no dispute regarding the interpretation of what he said which is he claimed that intelligence is a function of race, ethnicity, or geographic birthplace. Plenty of time has passed where Watson could have qualified what he said if somehow what was widely reported was so wildly inaccurate.
I suspect Koncorde of having an agenda here since he's trying to basically put a spin on very simple cut and dry quotations. He did not allude to anything. He spoke words that a twelve year old would interpret just as easily as nobel winning scientists.
He has since apologized and reversed his stance. All of this is already in the article and it is complete as is. As for the link to the highly flagged and inaccurate article. It goes without saying that the article exists simply because Wikipedia does not have the same standards for all articles. it is very clear that the entire article is not NPOV. Wikipedia should be presenting truth not speculation and claims of linking race with intelligence falls far short of even speculation. Landerman56 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Not really trying to spin anything and would prefer it if you didn't suggest that. It's disingenuous. I just hate terrible English and attempts to whitewash articles (or conversely tar and feather someone). I'll basically clarify what you're attempting to say by using the word 'claim' in that position. Bottom of this chunk (apologies for the formatting by the way);
In the article, Hunt-Grubbe quoted Watson claiming a link between race and intelligence.
In the informal interview Watson was quoted as saying he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" as "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really." - He refers to 'testing'. Doesn't make a claim himself based on any information other than referring to some unknown test. Hence "alluded"
Hunt-Grubbe states that Watson's "hope" is "everyone is equal" but quotes him as having said "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." - Here Watson completely undermines the idea he is 'claiming' a link, by "hoping for equality". However the next sentence is unusual in its inclusion within the Hunt Grubbe article as it does not scan with either the prior sentences, or subsequent parts. He refers to equality with regards to black employees, but he does not make a claim. He neither states a link to intelligence (we presume so based on what was said previously, but we are unable to say for certain where this quote was taken from) nor even the 'race' involved (or country of origin), unless (in a very ungeneticist fashion) he has decided to ignore the many shades of colour/ethnicity around the world that fall under 'black'.
Furthermore, Watson's stance was depicted as being that "you should not discriminate on the basis of colour" by quoting him as having said "there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level." - Nothing to do with making a claim.
Watson was then attributed as having written "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." - and here he makes a standard caveat statement that we should not presume universal heritage. Again not a claim between any particular race and intelligence, but an allusion to a lack of research (which is why the original 'unscientific' comment was not required) and a lack of understanding. Its inclusion (even though it is patently from a different source to his verbal quotes preceding) at that point in the text from Hunt-Grubbe completely changes the tone of the piece and causes you to go back and re-interpret what was previously said. It's misleading.
As for the linked article - again, that's your POV and that of the people who raised the flag on the Wiki article. The article itself covers many of the core controversial issues and highlights (in just the opening segments) the issues at hand. Personally I feel the current lock down on the topic is pointless and holding the topic back from being clarified and "corrected" in so much as such a hotly contested article ever will bed down. Wikipedia presents truth, and the truth is what Watson said, what Hunt Grubbe quoted him as saying. What the press and media interpreted it as meaning. And what discussions exist on the matter at hand. Its scientific verifiability is not your position to judge. Having read through the Race and intelligence article there are sizeable elements that I have issues with, but many of them are intrinsically linked to the subject Watson raised.--Koncorde (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think a bit of logic is needed here. A linkage between race and intelligence does not exist. It does not exist scientifically. The fact that a nobel winning scientist made claims that such linkage exists does not lead credence to the existence of such linkage. In fact many people "believe" in such a linkage just as many people might believe in God, Devil, or pink elephants. The issue is that since there is no scientific nor conventional basis for believing in a linkage. The difference between this linkage and God,Devil,and pink elephants is that this linkage has been actually disproved through conventional wisdom. By convention I can refer you to the Declaration of Independence which clearly states the conventional belief of equality. Basically Watson's claims are not proven scientifically and have been disproved through conventional wisdom. Landerman56 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
And again that's your POV, just as Watson has his (which undoutably must link to the controversial topic on Wikipedia). To argue that he has made the claim of a link, but then to deny the link to the topic is not logical. You're attempting to argue the topic/discussion/argument on Race and intelligence doesn't exist, when it does (even if only as an inherently racist poser, which again is not our position to judge)?
What is logical is to acknowledge he said what was quoted, that what was quoted was apparently 'from the horses mouth', that what was quoted may or may not have been as a whole a cohesive statement of belief or support for any ideal/idea or concept, but what was intended as its meaning is questionable due to his retraction and re-definition of his comments (namely the need to look into genetic heritage).
As I'm a Brit, the Declaration of Independence is about as relevant as toilet water to both myself and the topic.--Koncorde (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


I would appreciate if you left the comments in the discussion as they are written by the author. Common courtesy here please.
Last time I checked James Watson is an American so the Declaration of Independence means something to him. Enough of that. Basically there is no dispute from anyone except maybe Koncorde that Watson said what he was quoted as saying. If Koncorde's goal is to remove the quotes then he would surely have an uphill battle there. The linked article is itself highly flagged and will eventually be completely re-written or removed entirely as evidenced by almost every flag in the book having been applied to it. Anyone who makes claims linking race and intelligence is basing that on his or own personal assumptions. There simply is no larger "debate" or scientific basis for the claims. That is exactly why the article itself is so highly flagged. It is not flagged because people simply don't like it. Before making assumptions I advise everyone to read the article in its entirety. I have read both the article and Watson's book. Landerman56 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
....eh? Not sure what you mean by the first line. But I changed nothing of yours barring to indent as is 'common courtesy'. As you may have noted, I did "apologise" for formatting. I apologise here again, but it wont stop me doing it as you basically took my 'response' out of context. Either insert a title header in which your comment would be first (hence not requiring indents as a 'response' to something).
Further "eh?" on the Declaration. Relevance is lost on me there unless you're trying to stretch a philosophical point into science. I would say that he said exactly what he said, what I would question is the interpretation. I do not believe Wikipedia is there to interpret and inserting the word 'Claim' is to "interpret" his meaning and to do so. I explained that you could insert the word 'claim' if it was referenced (and even told you which one you could do it with). I have no intention of attempting to "remove the quotes" and would appreciate it if you didn't make those kind of assertions.
I don't care to tell you how to interpret another section of wikipedia, and I think you do a great disservice to the people working on the other article. Is it a 'good' one? I don't know, but I know at this moment in time it covers the topic in a haphazard manner. I also don't care to tell you what science exists or doesn't exist. Would appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions as my knowledge, or anyone elses knowledge and/or effectively try to asume a position of authority on a subject because you've read a book and an article (or suggest that would lend equal authority). I am not judging Watsons statements in terms of scientific validity. I am working to clarify the perception of what they meant vs intending meaning without making "claims" on his behalf.--Koncorde (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like Koncorde has attempted to completely re-write entire sections of the page. He seems to know more than the dozens of editors who have worked to write the article. Unfortunately It appears he has reverted to vandalism of facts in articles he personally disagrees with Landerman56 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And you're resorting to personal attacks because someone it trying to make good faith changes. Could you please check what changes I have made, and then clarify what exactly I have done wrong. The 'claim' is removed, but instead it is cited by the BBC (covering what you were initially trying to include).--Koncorde (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


If I follow you correctly. Every statment that is made that is not your own will get a new indentation. So with that logic there will be entire pages worth of white space. hmmm doesn't sound like very sound logic to me. No intelligent human being needs the indentations. You are simply trying to obscure the real issues here. Landerman56 (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Now back to the discussion at hand. You're changes are wholesale to a section which is the result of dozens of contributors. You may be acting in good faith but you should be mindful not to remove category headers and such without obtaining consensus. I applaud your efforts but let's make sure contributions are done in a way that improves the article. If you google Watson..you will see more articles and commentaries concerning what he was quoted than articles focusing on the fact he resigned and or retired. That is why the header that was in place should not be removed. Landerman56 (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What I suggest if for both Koncorde and Landerman56 to leave the page as is. The headers and titles and wording of the article have been in place for some time now. Allow others a chance to chime in without. If there is a need to scrap the article and do a rewrite surely more than one person would agree with Koncorde. Until I see that his wholesale rewrites should be reverted as necessary to protect the article. Landerman56 (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article needs tweaking. In particular some of the sentences Koncorde addes under the controversies section are reasonable. There is always room to improve articles without changing the headers and completely rewriting the work of dozens of others by a single author. let's discuss specifically what can be changed and how best to do it. If others agree as I am sure they would..then add it to the article.Landerman56 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct - and at a point when suitable it reverts back to a single indent. It may not be how you do things, but it's pretty common on Wikipedia. I also now would appreciate it if you refrained from suggesting I have no intelligence, or that other wikipedia users don't because we may use indentations.
I make my changes as per WP:BB,WP:AGF and WP:BLP. The actual title of that section has been argued back and forth eventually seemingly settling on something that is inherently wrong.
For starters it's horrendous English "Opinion claiming links between race and intelligence" does not make sense. It is a dependent clause. It's confused in its attempt to put everything into 1 line without actually referring to anything. A more accurate line would be "Events leading to his retirement" or "statements leading to his retirement" or "comments regarding race and intelligence". More accurate still would be an entirely seperate subsection rather than a rather vague 'controversy' bit into which stuff has been shovelled.
The title "Retirement from Cold Harbor" describes (though now I realise 'resignation' would be more accurate) what happened as the end result of the events, and allows for the topic to explain the reasons for doing so. It is entirely 'neutral' as per WP:NPOV and does not favour any particular interpretation of what Watson says (part of NPOV's "Let the facts speak for themselves"). You also seem to have ignored the other adaptions I made that firstly allowed your original line of 'claim' to be used in a cited fashion. To insert the 'non scientific' claim (using Collins as an authorative source) that you had previously attempted to include but without a rationale for.
I need not consenus or permission to make changes, just as I didn't get it when I originally made the complete formatting change and inserted most of the references (if you check the history and comments above my myself prior to this occasion) until Alpha Eta made his subsequent changes and Robert K S before him, particularly when there is no consensus on the naming of that section (only what has been left behind after several attempts to clarify it). Regardless what was decided upon can still be revised.
As it stands you made no attempt to 'correct' the heading, instead simply reverting all changes - and then to lambast them as vandalism, and then to cast aspersions upon my motives, then to criticise logic, intelligence, formatting of a discussion etc. As you can see above (and in my contrib history), I have no issue with contributions and edits by anyone and take offence at any suggestion otherwise.
In an attempt to clarify further I have re-amended the heading and re-inserted the other changes unless you can cite some reason as to why they're not good rather than reverting just because you don't like it.--Koncorde (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am heartened to see an effort to conform to wikipedia convention of consensus building. I made improvements to the article flow. Removed some repeated sentences and quotes. Please use care not to cause undue duplication and try to limit the use of unnecessary prepositions and lead-ins. Try to keep the tone as neutral as possible. Unless you have evidence that A resulted in B do not say "as a result of.." Instead just state A and state B and give dates. If the reader would like to infer a link then that is the reader's right. Landerman56 (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Conform? You're having a laugh now.
You've killed a few of the cites/refs and again removed the referral to the race and intelligence for no apparent reason. And that title is the worst yet. Convoluted and is trying to explain everything. NPOV states "Let the facts speak for themselves", not create a header that attempts to concisely explain everything. As it stands I think the controversy section is wrong in its complete format.--Koncorde (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to take out the link to the article. Just that we should decide where to place it in accordance to NPOV. You may attempt to do so and I hope you do. Landerman56 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The controversies section should not be removed. If you wish to have it removed please keep discussing it and win the support of others. In the meantime do not rewrite entire sections and save it to the page, instead put it on the discussion and let other's chime in. Wholesale rewrites to mature articles can only be considered vandalism.

As for the title I think it's important to keep the focus on the topic of the section which is a nobel winning scientist claimed links between intelligence and race. That is the central topic. If you think the topic is not about what he said then please discuss here for everyone to come to know your reasoning. Landerman56 (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of removing the controversies section, but in naming it in a less stupid sounding way. I think the Kings College Results section stands out without the need for it to be 'bundled' in a sub section. Really it should be discussed as wholly part of his career within context. Similarly I feel the section we are working on should be 'out' of the controversy section and part of his actual life and career (i.e. the end of it). Currently it's like his Bio full of nice stuff+oh yeah, the stuff people didn't like at the end.
As for rewriting entire sections - why not? As it is all I ever did was moved two sentences, inserted a reference for something you had tried to claim the day before and inserted a few more quantifying critical comments. Hardly ripped it up by its roots. WP:BB. Anything not liked can be fixed, or edited, or discussed. Wholesale rewrites being vandalism? Don't be stupid.--Koncorde (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


It appears your attempts at consensus building have failed as you simply reverted to your wholesale rewrite. Try changing one sentence at a time and see how that sits, discuss your changes before making them, and not replacing mature content with your excess verbage. Until I see anything along the lines of cooperation your additions will continue to be reverted. I advise you to abide by the rules or we will have to report you for vandalism. That is the 3rd warning. Landerman56 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, the 3RV rule came into play when you did it first - but you don't see me making a song and dance or threatening you with it. If you actually checked what was changed you will see all I did was reinserted the original quotes from Watson, and moved two lines to create a paragraph, fixed the error with cites and inserted a quantifying statement that you originally included but I have no referenced for you. Now I can see why others have had issues with you.--Koncorde (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not making threats to Koncorde or to anyone. I am stating the facts here about your contributions not conforming to Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore you are not being honest about your revisions when you make them. Here's an example.

21:21, 5 December 2007 Koncorde I have amended title to not be so convoluted. People can read the statements. Put quote back in that got lost in an edit somewhere, and formatted into three main paragraphs what was kinda broken up.

However a quick glance at a comparison of prior version you can clearly see that this "minor" edit was in fact a wholesale change. Trying to change entire sections of an article to suit your personal needs are not in the best interests of Wikipedia and ultimately not in a yours as well. Discuss your changes and find commmon ground before making them. That is the way we do things at Wikipedia since this is a mature article that is not flagged and is the culmination of dozens of editors work. You alone cannot possibly outweigh everyone else. Your continued rewrites will be reverted. My reversions are for vandalism which does not trigger the 3RV rule as you know. Landerman56 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you actually look at the edit, the change was to qualify the ending as per your comment regarding his retirement not being attributed to the events.
I clarified a single sentence and inserted cites as per your introduction of civil rights advocates, and introduced 'peers' as an additional.
I cited the 'claim of link between race and intelligence' by inserting the BBC doc (as I stated was an option previously.
I fixed a sentence that had a spelling error, and repositioned a sentence to the beginning of a paragraph so that it scanned correctly.
I replaced a quote from the actual text that you have so far blanked twice for no apparent reason. In total I added about 30 words, most of which were in the final paragraph and placed 'informal' at the beginning to make it clear this was not a biography or professional interview, but one between colleagues.
And yes you are threatening me, and have been insulting and obstinate. Attacked me personally on several occasions and generally not been particularly helpful in any way.--Koncorde (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as your comment that others have had issues with me. Well if you follow the historical discourse you will see that a consensus was made which is very healthy for wikipedia. Having issues is fine and welcomed on the discussion page. You will learn that consensus is the way not fighting and stubborness. Please do not feel burdened that you alone must rewrite the article. Allow a discussion to take place and you may come to realize that the world is not against you. Please do not vandalize the article. Landerman56 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what you think or feel. I'm not attempting to rewrite it alone, I was happily attempting to improve it and have previously tested a number of more 'neutral' titles only to have changes reverted wholesale and/or your mass of edits placed in there instead (which invariably are not due to consensus). Keep your own counsel.--Koncorde (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to discussion regarding the article. You see at least one other editor has reverted some of your changes. There is no reason to make it personal. You are still learning how Wikipedia works as we all have had to learn. This is a mature article not some "in the news" article. Your wholesale changes without prior discourse is the issue here and will continue to be viewed negatively until you are able to contribute to discussion regarding the article and not personal attack. Landerman56 (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you viewing the same thing as me? He reverted a change on the basis that the sentence in place was unwieldy, which it is. That doesn't make the current title correct. And I do take it personally, because how else do I take the things you have said? I made minor changes initially + attempted to create a neutral header, from that you have reverted ALL my edits without actually looking at them. How else do I take it? I also have not drifted at all away from the article.--Koncorde (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also I see by your statement "and have previously tested a number of more 'neutral' titles " that you may misunderstand how to build consensus on Wikipedia. It is not that you "test" changes. You don't throw up something and think that if it is not reverted then it must be fine. No. In fact the present title is the result of many prior changes and consensus building. Check the history and discussion and you will see that the article has been subject to thorough review by dozens of editors over a period of several months. It really is not in good faith for one editor to come along and take it upon him or herself to rewrite entire sections. With that said I hope we can appreciate each other's opinion without getting nasty. Landerman56 (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you having a laugh? This particular section we're editing has only existed since the 18th of October and I have been involved in it since approximately the 22nd. I don't care about the rest of the article, I have simply attempted to create a better article here - whilst you have simply reverted attempts and then flagged it as Vandalism.
"suspect Koncorde of having an agenda"
"Koncorde's goal is to remove the quotes then he would surely have an uphill battle there" (I put them in, and keep replacing them every time you edit one out in error)
"Before making assumptions I advise everyone to read the article in its entirety. I have read both the article and Watson's book" - assuming position of authority.
"It seems like Koncorde has attempted to completely re-write entire sections of the page. He seems to know more than the dozens of editors who have worked to write the article. Unfortunately It appears he has reverted to vandalism of facts in articles he personally disagrees with" - after you messed up the article by moving quotations after responses from the media and I attempted to correct.
"No intelligent human being needs the indentations. You are simply trying to obscure the real issues here"--Koncorde (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's make progress on building healthy discourse here. Here is something to ponder from the article. Furthermore, Watson indicated "you should not discriminate on the basis of colour" by quoting him as having said "there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level."[35]

This seems like someone went through great effor to slip in this link. The use of quotes is done without referencing a source so it is unclear who these words are attributed to? I am sure the source was inadvertently forgotten. Perhaps we should rework that sentence until the source can be attached. Does anyone agree? Landerman56 (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Errr. If you'd read Hunt-Grubbe's article, it would be obvious surely? That's what the cite is there for (yknow, the cite that says where the quote is from, y'know - the article), so you can find it in the article attached. It is linked to the wiki article on Positive Discrimination on the grounds that he was discussing "discriminating on the basis of colour", but in a positive way - hence positive discrimination. I have already once flagged that particular series of quotes as being questionable as Hunt Grubbe does not make it obvious where or when Watson supposedly said those words.--Koncorde (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't journalism. That is why we should take care not to make assumptions about context or what was inside the mind of a man or what his "intentions" were. Rather facts speak for themselves. Words that people say are quotes. From the ensuing quotes one might infer that Watson's original quotes were taken out of context but that is up to the reader to decide. There is simply no proof that they were taken out of context. A quote is a quote is a quote. Providing sources is key. Landerman56 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue is thus:
He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address.
Easy, all straight quotes from the horses mouth.
His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
Here part 1 is Hunt Grubbe talking, but there is no clarification as to what Watson said so we are taking her word for it that he does indeed "hope everyone is equal".
He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”.
And again here, she writes the "discriminate on the basis of colour" line.
The issue I have with many of the quotes is that they are Hunt Grubbe's approximation, or assumptions. Something I previously flagged and worked to ensure clarity on the issue (like including the "informal interview" introduction so as to explain some segments were verbatim, and others not entirely clear where or when comments were made)--Koncorde (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your last change "Removed narrative. Simple giving the quotes and dates is complete enough. Remember this is not journalism nor is it a narrative. There is no evidence that anything was taken out of context"

If you read the quote Hunt Grubbe takes of Watson, she does not define its origin other than he 'writes' it. It is therefore out of context, even more so when she takes out a sizeable chunk of the qualifying text.
..."there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so"
“As we find the human genes whose malfunctioning gives rise to such devastating developmental failures, we may well discover that sequence differences within many of them also lead to much of the observable variation in human IQs. A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our desire to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”
That's out of context and you don't need to be a journalist to identify that evidence.--Koncorde (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Regarding "context". I put that in quotes because honestly if you think the quotes were taken of context you have to present evidence of what the context was and support it with sources. Putting in a narrative stating somehow the quotes were taken out of context is not complete or supported by any of the news agencies that reported the story nor by Watson himself. Watson did not deny he said these things he. He admitted them and apologized. There is no dispute at all regarding the "context" of the quotes. I do hope this clarifies why I removed the narrative. If not then please let's discuss further as you wish. Landerman56 (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The source is provided at the end of the next paragraph (cite 43) but wasn't inserted by myself (nor was the context line). One of the reasons I had 'moved' some of the text originally (that you reverted, and subsequently when you changed and removed a segment it became more fractured) was to pair references (I believe that was one of Alpha Etas changes). With the changes made the "in context" quote made no sense if it wasn't linked to the sentence referring specifically to the book so can understand its removal at that point, but its loss of relevance was due to a re-edit.--Koncorde (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

reference

From the article, "On October 14, 2007, a biographical article written by one of Watson's former assistants" followed by citation of:
Malloy, J. James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: Faces the consequences, Gene Expression, October 31st, 2007. Retried December 5th, 2007

First, what is the purpose of this citation at this point in this sentence? Second, the cited source seems to be a blog or a forum of some sort. I'm not sure that Wikipedia should cite a blog for a biographical article and this topic. What advantage does this blog have over other sources? What does "Retried December 5th, 2007" mean? --JWSchmidt (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that was an error. Should have been referenced by the Indepentant article, but with reverts back and forth I've picked up the wrong one. Shall correct.--62.24.129.68 (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

From the article, "Watson was quoted as saying he was 'inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa' as 'all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really'." followed by two citations. One citation is to the published interview. The other citation is to the Gene Expression blog which gives the same quote and cites the published interview. I do not understand why Wikipedia is citing the blog....I suggest that we do not cite the blog. There are additional citations to the blog in the Wikipedia article: are any of them needed? It seems like Wikipedia should just cite the primary sources. --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The blog references was intended to be used for the test references. I have been attempting to find a neutral reference for what 'tests' may be alluding to and basically thar article lists them all at the bottom(should have incidentally noted that in the ref). Eventual aim was to flesh it out but (as you may see from the history of the doc) not been easy to do. No news source has so far (that I could locate) touched on the subject, and this is far from my specialist subject of knowledge. Couldn't cite the tests myself (as that is "original research") and as yet few sources have referenced both Watson and the presumable 'tests' he refers to (and there are no Primary sources). If you object to it, please remove but I would ask that an attempt is made to acquire a 'balancing' source.--Koncorde (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The blog cites IQ and Global Inequality, Race Differences in Intelligence, and IQ and the Wealth of Nations as the sources of the test data. I think it would be better for Wikipedia if the James D. Watson article were to cite one of those books directly and one or more of the peer-reviewed studies cited in the book rather than use the blog as a source. I think this can be done in the way that perspective is already given in the James D. Watson article by linking Race and intelligence. I have not read any of those books. It might be useful to leave a note on a few talk pages such as Talk:IQ and the Wealth of Nations....it looks like there are some Wikipedia editors who have actually read these books and they might be able to provide a few links to the most relevant (methodologically sound) primary research articles dealing with geographical variation in intelligence test scores that have been cited by people such as Richard Lynn in their books.
--JWSchmidt (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Ref removed:
  1. Typical blogs are not means establishing verifiability of articles, period. An unreliable ref is worse than no ref, bcz it takes more effort to see that it is just a URL (or the like) that fails to verify. A blog citation on an article's talk page can have some value, if the contributor is conscientious in saying "This is just a blog, but it may be a lead toward verifiable information." That is part of discussion among editors about advancing the article. In this case, it would be on-topic on the talk page of an article about the existence of other notable assertions on the subject, and/or about whether such assertions are widely accepted as having a scientific basis. Since that is off-topic for the accompanying article, such discussion toward creating such an article, once it got to this level, would belong instead on the talk page of the stub for the other article, or on a project-namespace ("Wikipedia:") or WikiProject page, with lks to that page placed here (on this talk page) and from relevant WikiProject pages.
  2. As with a similar case discussed further on in this section, our article does not assert that Watson had a basis for his belief, but only that he said it. So even a perfect ref for verifying that either geography ("Africa as a continent", as in Watson's muddy evasion of addressing whether he meant race) or genes (those of pre-colonial sub-Saharan Africans) correlate meaningfully with IQ or value as an employee does not belong with the current text of the accompanying article. (Nor really on this talk page.)
    --Jerzy•t 07:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference 26 is here entitled "Long Awaited $1,000 Personal Genome Sequencing Service Now Available. NYT, November 17, 2007." This is a fallacy. The NYT article cited here is entitled "My Genome, Myself: Seeking Clues in DNA" and describes a commercial service which does marker tests for certain portions of the customer's DNA of known relevance for diseases but does not even come close to a full sequencing of a genome. The title used for this reference is thus highly misleading and should - given the importance of the personal genome topic in current bio-medical discussion - be corrected to the original title "My Genome, Myself: Seeking Clues in DNA". Steinbeck (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of references is to permit verification of the facts the article is asserting. This ref, lying inside a quote, cannot do that: we only assert that Watson mentioned personalized medicine, not that is in sight or whatever. So that ref is either a silly way of introducing off-topic material into the article via the refs, or, one may suspect, a slightly subtle way of drawing attention to a company mentioned in the article -- i.e., spam. It is removed.
--Jerzy•t 06:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

African-American Watson

Does anybody read about that Watson's DNA sequence reveled he is of African-American heritage (having 16 times fold more black African genes than average European Caucasian)?[10] It is noteworthy that Watson is probably the first African-American (very partly I admit, but much more than he wanted to be I guess) to win a scientific Nobel, I find it hilarious…But any way, lets mention it.--Gilisa (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the african american category that was added to the article. What is the normal rationale for adding it? If it's that of the subject has some alleles (16%) that predominate in Africa then we might have to add this to most US citizens who have relatives dating back before the revolution. David D. (Talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No sense, you are right (however, I don't accept that most of the prerevolution US citizens descendants have "black" alleles for the same extent as he does, it is empirically incorrect...Actually, he have 25% of non-white alleles (Asian and Black) and it means that virtually one of his grandfathers/mothers was neither white nor Caucasian) but still the all issue is noteworthy (and personally I believe that it can explain some of the statements he made against blacks (may be he grew up to a parents that did their best to hide the family history)). Mainly it is hilarious and funny :).--Gilisa (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, a bit of hyperbole on my part ;) And definitely funny. David D. (Talk) 20:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I just reverted the "African American academics" category for the same reason as David D. TJRC (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why focus on his African ancestry? Didn't the analysis also indicate that a significant fraction of his genes are of Asian origin? If we're going to include this information, we should represent it without bias. AlphaEta 19:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

TJRC, he allready revert it-I didnt understand what else you had to revert but what ever...Any way, as for AlphaEta we can and we should include the information about his Asian origins as well, it looks notable since Watson is widely accused for being racist against any non-European human's group.--Gilisa (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Since this is a biographical encyclopedia article, not a tabloid, I suggest that we wait until there is a scientifically peer-reviewed account of the genetic data. What I have seen so far is rumor and what looks like a publicity stunt by a company. Has anyone found a source that explains what the data analysis actually was? --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've only seen news accounts. All of them report in light of Watson's recent comments and have a significant slant against him. I think the material is too preliminary for inclusion, but if people want to add it, they should not just focus on the supposed 16% of Watson's genes which are derived from African ancestors. It would be wrong to cherry pick data from references just to point out irony or humor. AlphaEta 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Gilisa: there were two categories added and reverted. You added "African American academics," Computer-girl added "African American." David D. reverted Computer-girl's "African American." I then reverted your "African American academics." I see Computer-girl has once again re-added "African American." I don't feel like an edit war right now, but I'll probably eventually re-remove it if no one else does first. -- TJRC (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in favour of keeping the information, of course qualified as being a newspaper report. Suppressing such a surprising (and relevant, given recent controversy) piece of news would seem like censorship rather than an effort to maintain a neutral point of view. But on the other hand, I am strongly against putting the article in the African-American category. First of all, because there is still no commonly accepted confirmation of the news. Secondly, because it may not fit anyway: read the "Who is African American?" section of the article African American; the "one-drop" rule according to which any amount of African ancestry would make you "black" seems to be an old legal norm not accepted anymore. That article reports discussion about whether persons who have one white and one black parent (for example, Senator Barack Obama) are to be considered African-American. It also appear that the term should be applied to people who are commonly identified or identify themselves as such. Eubulide (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a similar discussion with Computer-girl on my talk page. Maybe she will join the discussion here. David D. (Talk) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • In my mind, the information's validity should determine how it is presented. How did the company conduct their analysis, and have they made it available for review? What criteria did they use to define a gene as European, Asian or African? If its validity can't be confirmed, the best we can say is that deCODE Genetics claims that 16% of the analyzed genes are derived from an African ancestor, and we can make no definitive statments about the man himself. AlphaEta 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well the European average is apparently 1% and he has 16% of African DNA so it would appear significant (I won't claim to be an expert though!). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
There is some information at their DeCODEme webpage here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue is how they arrived at the 16% value, not necessarily its significance in light of the European average (1%). Regards, AlphaEta 02:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Simple mathmatics 1% is roughly equal for 1/(2Log64 (or 128)) (representing 1/ the generations passed without the descendant, while 64 is approximately the number of ancestors) of one's ancestors been black while 16% (+9% non white nor Caucasian) equal for 1/4 of one's ancestors was non-European-it's a big difference. However, they should check the Y chromosome type that he have (and the mtDNA) and to see whether one of them is typical for Asians or black Africans-if they will get a positive answer, then they can attribute the findings for his African +Asian roots. More, they probably did statistics regarding the chances of him to have the alleles kinds they find without being of African and Asian genetic background (after all it is mostly about commonality differences between human groups and not about absolute differences) – any way, it seems like that Watson's genome is significantly outside the typical European genetic cluster.--Gilisa (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
From his nobel prize bio:
"James Dewey Watson was born in Chicago, Ill., on April 6th, 1928, as the only son of James D. Watson, a businessman, and Jean Mitchell. His father's ancestors were originally of English descent and had lived in the midwest for several generations. His mother's father was a Scottish-born taylor married to a daughter of Irish immigrants who arrived in the United States about 1840.". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
There's an extensive pedigree of his father here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I going to see what I can do in filling the gaps in his ancestry. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are you bothering with this? The DNA report is in the article. It's probably worth having in there. What are you trying to research here? To identify which of his eight great-grandparents, if any, was of African origin?
We're really beating a dead horse here. TJRC (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm don't get you knickers in a twist- there's no harm in looking is there? Unless there's something obvious like one of his ancestors being identified as Black on the census it's unlikely anything will be found unless any of his family have a family story that might explain the DNA results. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the math is obvious! The question is how they parsed the data. How did DeCode define what constitutes an "Asian" vs. "African" vs. "European" string of DNA? Is this type of analysis common, and is it prone to error? In other words, should we trust these results simply because they were reported in the Sunday Times? Thanks, AlphaEta 02:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It was reported in a lot of other places too. I think it was probably partly a publicity drive for their new DeCodeME service, but they probably do know what they are talking about? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We should notice the creators of "south park" they definitely have here a raw material for another chapter. And seriously, probably it would be very hard to find out who's of Watson ancestors was the non European/Caucasian- My personal opinion is that the answer may lie outside his declared dynasty. Any way, the all issue is noteable.--Gilisa (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be possible to get a reasonably good guess at which of Watson's ancestors had the African forebear by examining photos of his relatives. I know photos have been useful in tracing my own family. His grandfather Thomas Tolman Watson was recorded as a stockbroker in the 1920 census so it is highly likely photographs of he and his wife Nellie Dewey Hamlin exist. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess that this is non of the known ancestors, or those who considered to be his ancestors, that is of African origin. Any way, even if he had African ancestor that you could recognize using photos it will still would considered as not politically correct to base one racial origin upon his appearance while he identify himself/ herself to be from other racial origin. --Gilisa (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. People may have been described as white on the census but if they were seen today most people would regard them as mixed race. Many would probably claim to be of Italian or Spanish descent if anyone asked questions. I doubt any of Watson's near ancestors are a result of illegitimacy of rape although that is not impossible. But as you go further back where some of his forebears may have had a lower social status that may be more likely where the connection will be found. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an excellent example of the sort of guesswork and speculation that should not be in the encyclopedia, and that would very clearly violate WP:BLP. Gustav, I just went to the restroom and confirmed that my knickers remain untwisted; I am just pointing out that your investigation is not going to yield anything that's appropriate for entry in this article. If you're doing it for your own amusement, great; but this is not the place for it. Start a blog or something. TJRC (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I know exactly what should and what should not be in Wikipedia. I never intended that anything I found to go straight into the article. And yes I am doing it purely out of my own curiosity. If "reliable sources" want to pick up on anything that would be up to them of course. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

African doesn't mean sub-Saharan black African. James Watson is half Irish, and the Irish and Basques share an ancestry with NORTH African Berbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.195.109 (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually he is 1/4 Irish and 1/4 Scottish. I see no evidence that when Decode referred to African they meant North African and I find it unlikely that the Irish/Scottish have at least 16x more African DNA than the average European. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
After quite a bit of searching I have found one thing slightly unusual in Watson's ancestry. His father James Dewey Watson (1897-1968) was the son of Thomas Tolman Watson (b.1875) a stockbroker of Chicago who died sometime between 1920 and 1930. His father's mother was Nellie Dewey Ford who was born in 1875 and was still living at the time of the 1930 census. Her supposed parents were Delevan Ford, a mechanic, farmer and lumber dealer born 1825 in Greene County, New York, and Sarah Loomis Dewey born February 3, 1839 in New York state. They had a daughter Mary E Ford in 1866, and Nellie was born in 1875. In the 1900 census, Sarah was living at Geneva, Wisconsin where she had been living with Delevan in 1880, describing herself as a widow. However, Delevan Ford was still alive and residing at the "National Home for D.V.S., N.W. branch", Wauwatosa, Wisconsin and describing himself as "divorced". Why did Delevan Ford abandon his wife? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
In the hope that GvH is showing more good faith than is obvious, and did not make "Ancestral anomoly" a separate section in order to make appear to be more than another dreary turn of this pointless exercise in WP:OR, i've joined i attempted to join it with its prologue, and subordinated "Ancestral anomoly" as a subsection of "African-American Watson". But i find that GvH is for some reason dissatisfied with 25 characters, more or less, of that (all but the depth of heading nesting of his own authorship), and has remedied that dissatisfaction by reverted that refactoring in favor of a trivially different one, and (perhaps unintentionally) reverted my entire new, signed, procedural contribution of about 1200 characters -- which i herewith restore.
(Just above is evidence of my getting distracted into giving myself a test: if the original edit in this section-turned-subsection seemed indigestible to me, brain-rot might be proceeding faster than i realized. (You gotta worry: the NYT Saturday puzzle always feels either harder than usual, or, once finished, like a softball) [wink]). If i failed to explicate it, then it's probably just me. But i think i succeeded:)
Here's the substance of GvH's "Ancestral anomoly":
  • Watson
    • W's fa: James Dewey Watson (1897-1968)
      • W's Gf: Thomas Tolman Watson (1875-1920s)
      • W's Gm: Nellie Dewey Ford (1875-1930+?)
      • (W's G-aunt:) Mary E Ford (b. 1866)
        • W's GGf: Delevan Ford (1825-1900+?) - - - - - - - claimed to be divorced
        • W's GGm: Sarah Loomis Dewey (1839-1900+?) claimed to be widowed
Beyond that, and birthplaces, one full date, and occupations, he also offers:
  1. 1880: DF & SLDF in Geneva ("living with" one another; it's unclear if he has more evidence of that than their being censused in the same town)
  2. 1900: SLDF in Geneva; DF "residing at the 'National Home for D.V.S., N.W. branch', Wauwatosa, Wisconsin"
  3. his implication that he believes "Delevan Ford abandon[ed] his wife", and apparently expects others to accept his judgment that the evidence i restate here makes that obvious.
Although the following would violate WP:SYN (i'm trying in part to show the context that frontier and near-frontier conditions set) and WP:OR, if it were in the article, this timeline, incorporating my own research, will be worthwhile in making sense of what GvH said:
  • 1825 - DF born in NY
  • 1837 - Andrew Jackson leaves office after 2 terms; DF aged ~12
  • 1839 - SLD born in NY
  • 1846-1848 - Mexican War; DF aged ~23-25
  • 1857 - by this time, Geneva has been laid out with streets encompassing about 40 square blocks
  • 1862 - Sioux Uprising creates 40,000 white refugees and perhaps 800 white deaths in SW Minn. (a state and a half west of Geneva); DF ~37, SLD ~23
  • 1866 - DF & SLDF presenting selves as married, in Geneva; Watson's great aunt born there; DF ~41, SLDF ~27
  • 1875 - Watson's maternal grandmother born, Geneva; DF ~50, SLDF ~36
  • 1880 - DF & SLDF both in Geneva; DF ~55, SLDF ~41, their daughters ~5 and ~18
  • 1900 - SLDF in Geneva, ~61; DF about 48 miles away in National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, ~75; their daughters ~25 and ~38
We can conjecture about three related questions:
  1. Why were they living apart by 1900?
  2. What explains their respective census-reported marital statuses?
  3. If their marriage ended in divorce, why?
  • Separate residences
    1. GvH insinuates (solely, among the 5 births dated) the possibility of W's maternal grandmother being not conceived by her nominal father, but nothing we know (other than the desire to make something of the clear-as-mud evidence offered by a company with a clear economic interest in making their service look earthshaking) suggests a rupture triggered by the conception or birth, within the first 5 years of the child's life. In fact, that child may have been as old as 25 before the parents lived apart.
    2. The soldiers' home was for disabled vets (tho not obviously only those with service-related problems), probably in large part a nursing home; starting at any age from 55 to 75, he may have needed care that his 41 to 61 y.o. wife could not physically provide (e.g. assistance between bed and toilet, or restraint from harming those about him), and it is not obvious hired home care was affordable for them; as to other family members as potential caregivers, we know that by 1900, one daughter was 38 (but not whether she lived with her mother) and the other, about 25, was the mother of at least a two- or three-year-old.
  • One claimed to be "divorced", the other to be "widowed"
    1. Obviously, she may have been lying: divorced quietly but preferring the status of a widow. In fact, divorce was so rare, despite WI's early institution of a no-fault provision that a desire to conceal it would probably be less remarkable than unnecessarily admitting to it. And if he were confined, she would not need to fear exposure.
    2. Either of them may have initiated the divorce, and she may have married a second husband who died by 1900, in which case no lie nor inconsistency would be involved.
    3. She may have consider him dead, in all but the medical formalities, and as to the divorce:
      1. He may have wanted to divorce her, and been deluded that he had done so, or may have considered himself divorced in all but the legal formalities.
      2. His divorced state may not have referred to her: The frontier irregularities of President Andrew Jackson's marriage, and its reverberations, including
(he bitterly claimed) his wife's early death, and
many of his 13 duels, including the one of which killed his antagonist and left him occasionally coughing up blood for the rest of this life
would have been a recent memory in DF's community when he was an adolescent. With or without that prominent example, he might have
abandoned an earlier wife in New York without divorce, and fled into the army, or
had (in Texas, Mexico, or elsewhere in the West, after mustering out there) a frontier bride whom he abandoned;
and subsequently, he and SLDF (his 2nd long-term partner) may have settled on pretending marriage rather than making him liable for bigamy (without guaranteeing their children legitimacy), if the other marriage were exposed (especially as the development of the area where the first wife was deserted came into better communication with the rest of the country). He may have said he was divorced (from the only valid marriage he'd been in)
  1. in the "all but the legal formalities" sense, or
  2. accurately, bcz eventually he
  1. divorced the real ("first") wife, or
  2. knew that she'd divorced him.
  • If divorced from SLDF, why?
    1. A divorce rooted in a then recent rape or infidelity producing NDF is not impossible (since we aren't told whether there is evidence for more than the same town of residence in 1880).
    2. A divorce as such a response, but delayed (for the sake of the child(ren), or bcz intolerable feelings on either side took time to take root) is also possible.
    3. He may instead, motivated by her having him confined, or not visiting him, have obtained a divorce, knowing that 5 years' separation made it feasible, or finding or feigning grounds to divorce her.
In summary, note that on this evidence, the assumption that he either divorced or otherwise "abandoned" her, let alone because of the daughter's paternity, is just speculation.
--Jerzy•t 06:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
That's some good analysis Jerzy, thankyou. Delevan Ford was indeed living with his wife Sarah in 1880 in Geneva. I had imagined that divorce was very unusual at that time in the U.S. as it was in the U.K. which is why it had struck me as quite odd. I suppose it is possible that the divorce was just a mistake or misunderstanding by the census enumerator or of Delevan Ford himself. By 1900 Delevan would have been 75 years old and Sarah, 61 years old, so it is possible that Sarah was unable to care adequately for Delevan which was why he had to go to the Veteran's home. The question is, are there any records kept in Wisconsin about divorce at that time? If they do exist they may be able to confirm whether or not the divorce took place and the what the reason was. If Nellie Ford did have an African American or a Mulatto father, are there other examples of women who were accepted in white society around the 1890s who clearly were of mixed race? Presumably it would really only take one man, i.e. her husband to "accept" a woman, and perhaps as long as that husband was of good social standing no one would ask any questions? Nellie Dewey Ford married Thomas Tolman Watson, a bookkeeper, later a stockbroker in the mid 1890s. Thomas was the son of William W Watson, a hotel proprietor who was living in Geneva in 1880. From 1897-99 Thomas and Nellie were living in Mehuren, Minnesota, by 1900 they were in Fayal, St. Louis, Minnesota. They moved to Chicago around 1905 and Nellie was still recorded living there as a widow in 1930. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page to James D. WatsonJames Watson, per the discussion below. However, there does appear to be consensus that this person is the primary topic for the search term "James Watson". Accordingly, I have redirected James Watson to this page and moved the disambiguation page to James Watson (disambiguation). Hopefully that will be an acceptable compromise until such time as everyone here can reach a clear agreement as to Watson's common name. This is unrelated to the argument that we should prescribe the current title - rather, we should rely on Wikipedia naming conventions and the principle of least surprise to come to a conclusion. Dekimasuよ! 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

_ _ IMO James D. Watson should be renamed to James Watson, with a ToP Dab to James Watson (disambiguation) that begins "This is about the DNA researcher; ....". (This would of course be preceded by a move of the existing James Watson Dab to James Watson (disambiguation).)
_ _ James D. Watson is precluded as the title for his article by WP:UCN: Googling produces

about 30,200 for "James D. Watson" OR "James Dewey Watson" DNA

vs.

about 474,000 for "James Watson" DNA

showing a ratio of about 16:1 favoring the shortest form.
_ _ And he also appears to be the primary person meant by "James Watson":

  1. Googling
    "James Watson" actor
    gives 1/4 the hits that
    "James Watson" DNA
    does, even tho the 2nd misses the "James D. Watson" refs, and even tho presumably many of the actor's lks are for minor roles in non-notable films (while JW's mentions in articles that mention DNA are probably at least strong "supporting roles"); and
    "James Watson" 1922 judge
    and
    "James Lopez Watson" are both in the low 4 figures.
  2. IMO the other James Watsons are less likely to be sought: they are very short, in most case perfunctory, bios, and are linked to by very few other articles. (Note that the many lks to the Calgary mayor are in fact multiple copies, from all the other Calgary mayors, of the lk to him in a templated list of Calgary mayors.)
  3. Altho Googling
    "James Watson" DNA
    produces just under half the hits of
    "James Watson" -DNA
    most of those more numerous hits fail to bear against the move:
    Of the first 10 hits,
    3 are for the actor,
    3 for James D. Watson (including one purporting to be a page created by him!),
    1 for the 20th-cent. pol,
    1 for a "James Watson Cronin", and
    2 for James Watsons not appearing on the James Watson Dab.
    In the next few Google pages, the proportion of James D. Watson hits increases, and no new James Watson-Dab-page people appear.

_ _ IMO, i am being overcautious in accepting the advice of a colleague to pursue this via Wikipedia:Requested moves rather than treating it as uncontroversial.
--Jerzy•t 03:35 & 03:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

agree. I think this is a very good idea, for the reasons stated by Jerzy. I'd been thinking along the same lines myself, but didn't have enough enthusiasm to start it. --TJRC (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am totally opposed to this change. First of all, why are Google results driving what a person's name is in Wikipedia? Why not just have a redirect page from "James Watson" to this existing page? There are several reasons why I am opposed to the proposed change.

1. First of all, the name in Wikipedia should be the name the individual being written about actually goes by. That would be either "Dr. Watson" or "Dr. James D. Watson" (formal), "James D. Watson" (normal), or "Jim" (familiar). Examples of these useages are documented in the archives at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Also, the way the individual signs their name--in book signings for example, is also important. That would be "James D. Watson".

2. The name the individual publishes under is the most formally recognized name. That would be "James D. Watson"

3. There already exists a naming system for individuals in instances like this. It is not a new concept, especially for librarians. Librarians use the LCNAF or the Library of Congress Name Authority File when determining the correct author name when cataloging books. Any author name can be searched in the LCNAF which is freely available online: http://authorities.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First. Dr. Watson is listed in the LCNAF as "Watson, James D., 1928- ". The closest and therefore the best choice to use here is "James D. Watson" (reversed and without the birth date). When a new individual publishes a book, it is up to NACO members to establish the formal name used by the Library of Congress. (About NACO: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/naco/naco.html). Birth and death dates (when applicable) are only used when there is already someone by that name who is in their system. The name is then added to the LCNAF. Writers are encouraged to stick to the name they are assigned so that all of their works can be easily grouped (collocated) together under the same unique name. This also prevents publications by different authors sharing similar names from being confused with one another. As Wikipedia expands, it might be a good idea to keep this concept in mind and to refer on a regular basis to the usage of the individual's name in the LCNAF. How do the Wikipedia administrators plan to disambiguate when there are multiple people sharing the same name? Is there a standards policy about this to help with consistency throughout the Wikipedia project? If not, maybe there should be. It is not really that difficult to look up an individual and find their authorized name. In the case of "James Watson" there are actually 17 different entries in the LCNAF--that is potentially 17 or so future disambiguations needed down the road as Wikipedia expands and people write new articles. There are 11 LCNAF entries just under "Watson, James D." (or middle name that begins with "D") alone.

4. On a selfish note, as an individual who has significantly contributed to this article, I am left wondering what will happen to the history of my contributions, my discussions on talk pages, etc. if this page is moved? Will all of these be moved as well? If not, I would have a personal objection as well as the above professional objections.

Shannon bohle (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree that Google should not have the final word in this. As to your contribution history, yes that will be preserved, we are very particular about this. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If the page "moves" then everything will move with it, I would think that this page should stay the way it is - and maybe a disambiguation page could be made for 'James Watson' but I have no strong feelings about the issue. Hardyplants (talk) 09
48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
A disambig page exists already. Also oppose any move. Nothing worse than trying to find one person and Wikipedia trying to give you the answer it thinks you're after.--Koncorde (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: if you Google just "Watson DNA" you get 636,000 hits. Of course if you use fewer terms you get more hits. So does that mean we should move the article to just Watson? He signs his books as James D. Watson. So that's his official name. Eubulide (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I too oppose the idea of shortening the name of the article to James Watson. What we should try to advocate is that Wikipedia get a much better search engine, not renaming people with common names and making Non NPOV assumptions about what "most" people want to see. I mean this is a silly request that should not be acted upon. My hope is that the number of opposition need not be in the majority to prove there is no consensus. By the way consensus means EVERYONE agrees not just the majority. James D Watson is more accurate and simply the right thing to do when there are multiple James Watson's in the world. Let's be fair and not pander do the lowest common denominator. Remember wikipedia is NOT google. It is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia should arrange a deal with Google to provide modern search capabilities for the site. Editors should not try generalize articles to suit searching. Period.Landerman56 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, what we are after here is rough consensus, which doesn't need to be unanimous. As to pandering to the lowest common denominator, that's an emotive way of rephrasing Wikipedia official policy, but it is exactly what the policy says we should do in the case of article names (but not neccessarily content), and for good reasons. Andrewa (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be very strong oppostition to this move. James D Watson is the name used on every article in scientific journals written by the subject of this article. There is simply no reason to change his name. And the reason for it is as inane as any reason I could imagine. To think that wikipedia needs to tailor content to suit search engines is a terrible terrible idea. It is very good indeed to see others share my view. Certainly there is no consensus and any attempt to declare one will meet stiff opposition.
--Landerman56 (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, consensus at WP means neither majority nor unanimity, bcz those responsible for detecting consensus are counseled to give more weight to the quality of arguments than to number of advocates. At this point, each arguments that have been made against the move is compatible with at least one well-established WP guideline. Those opposed should study WP:MOS, WP:NC, WP:UCN, WP:DAB, and/or WP:GOOGLE, and accordingly revise either their position, or their arguments for it. (There is one argument that specifically invites browsing a list of articles whose titles begin with "Dr."; consult WP:RDR if necessary.)
This is not so urgent that it needs immediate decision, but if nothing to the point is said against the move in a few days, i will declare it decided, and make the move myself (which requires admin status, last time i checked).
--Jerzy•t 04:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree, but I caution against the nominator performing the move... better to leave it to another admin. Andrewa (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree that James D Watson is a more common official name, but simply James Watson satisifes the policy at WP:NC, the more specific guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and the others quoted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography#Guidelines. The shorter name is more commonly recognised, and with reasonable lack of ambiguity as he's by far the most famous. Those who think the official name should take precedence might like to contribute to the discussion at User talk:Andrewa/systematic names. Andrewa (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the move, but IMO it's good that it went through WP:RM so this discussion could take place... it would have ended up here anyway. See arguments above. Andrewa (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose wholeheartedly Just in case previous comment is glossed over. The idea of having James Watson here then an apologetic "Sorry, isn't this the guy we thought you were after? - try clicking here and looking through the list.." sounds a bit silly. A fine example of that kind of lunatic re-routing logic is John F Kennedy. When you type in John Kennedy, it redirects to his page (regardless of the number of people listed in the John Kennedy disambiguation page). Is he the most famous John Kennedy around? Well yes if you're a west-o-centric politics follower who thinks John F Kennedy is the same as John Kennedy. Less so if you're after the Celtic football player and don't even know who JFK is.

In a case like JFK's it seems to make more sense to redirect to the disambiguate if someone types in "John Kennedy" (because you'd presume most people realise the 'F' is quite important) and let people select the correct person first - rather than having circular logic try to predict which page they wanted. "James Watson" googled incidentally draws up the James D. Watson article here first anyways. I feel the name James D. Watson is accurate on the basis of WP:NPC. Notably that it is:

A - the name that is most generally recognisable
B - the name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles (of which there are a dozen other James Watsons).

If you rename this topic you will have to rename it James Watson (genetecist) or similar. And then if you hi-jack the name James Watson to route directly to him, then you'll have to have a link to a seperate disambig page.

In the end you're second guessing what people are looking for, how they will look for it, and what results they're after. Really don't understand the logic of it when by removing the "unambiguous" 'D' you make him ambiguous, then have to unambiguate him through a job title.--Koncorde (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The logic is that (supporters of the move claim that) this James Watson is sufficiently famous that when people say James Watson this is normally who they mean, and when they want a name for him they normally say James Watson and leave out the D. Certainly there are other James Watsons, and other James D Watsons, so neither name is strictly unambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If you use that logic wouldn't we be naming the article Jim Watson? That's what most scientists I know say. David D. (Talk) 04:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No, or at least not unless these scientists are representative of the English-speaking population in general. Good question. Now that you mention it, I have heard him called that too, particularly by scientists in his particular field. But I don't think it's a suitable name for the article, as it's not generally recognised. Andrewa (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
However there are no other James D Watsons on wikipedia for their to be confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koncorde (talk • contribs)
True. So? The fact that they are not here (perhaps yet) doesn't eliminate confusion among those who know of other, perhaps notable (or they wouldn't be looking for them here) bearers of the name. Andrewa (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The argument to rename the page does not hold water. To take someone's name and shorten it does a disservice to the namesake of the article. Dr James D. Watson is how he himself signs his name. That is fact and should be the most compelling reason to leave the article as is. Again moving the article will result in more opposition. There is NO consensue and those in support of a move have not brought forth enough compelling benefit. The definition of consensus is that an agreement is made not that the majority agrees. It means that it is acceptable. It seems to me there really isn't much room here to compromise since it's such a black and white issue. Leave the article as is and move onto something more productive. There are no less than 12 James Watson's in Wikipedia. It is surely not up to a few editors to decide for the world which page should get the most "HITS". Wikipedia is not about hits. And please address this fact and what I have said before about the separation of search engine from an encyclopedia. Keep this conversation about the facts. That is how you build consensus. This move cannot be done without addressing the very points I among others have made. Declaring a consensus would run afoul of acting in good faith. So please read our carefully drafted thoughts and address our concerns. And please do so without throwing up so called wikipedia acronyms. That proves nothing. Make us believe in your arguments and we just might come to see the world as you do. Landerman56 (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The editor who began this discussion last stated the following:

"This is not so urgent that it needs immediate decision, but if nothing to the point is said against the move in a few days, i will declare it decided, and make the move myself (which requires admin status, last time i checked)."

My opinion is of course this is not urgent and my argument is it is also very unnecessary. Furthermore, a large percentage of readers are enjoying the holiday season so putting up your own ultimatum is really just disingenous. I agree with the other editor who wrote above that perhaps the one advocating the move should not be the one to perform it. I propose to table this discussion until perhaps we get evidence that there is indeed a problem here with the name as it currently stands. Where is the proof that anyone is confused by the full accurate name used as the title. Does anyone have network click data or has any user complained on these pages about difficulty in finding this article. I mean at the very least there should be evidence that there exist a problem to which the proposed solution would address. I think I've said enough for now on this topic. Again I propose we table this ill-conceived idea until further evidence and discussion is had. Let's also refrain from making deadlines. I am watching among other contributors and wikipedia does not operate and should not operate by fiat. Landerman56 (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • For the record, I'd oppose such a move. This is his publication name that makes more sense for its home. We can have redirects to this page from other options. David D. (Talk) 04:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose move, but support redirecting James Watson here. We do try to make it as likely as possible that people will find what they expect when they type a name in the search bar and hit "Go", and I believe that this is indeed the James Watson that most people would have in mind when they do that. --Itub (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
1 - The articles are all on the same page.
2 - A disambiguation block leads to the lesser known person(s).
3 - The name is a disambiguation page leading to pages for each person. These are also listed on Links to disambiguating pages.

Therefore there is no "hard and fast" rule or preference for any particular style. It would probably be a good move (just out of principle) to have a disambiguate link to James Watson at the top of this article regardless of the direction the decision takes as (in my opinion) no single article should dominate another, or obscure/skew results from the Go box. For a fine example of that see Adrian Peterson vs Adrian Peterson where a 1st year back (albeit a 'star') has overtaken an established league back and thereby seemingly bagged the right to be called "Adrian Peterson" wholly and uniquely (which is, in my mind, quite disrespectful of the Bears RB).--Koncorde (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jerzy motivated the proposed move by: "James D. Watson is precluded as the title for his article by WP:UCN". I couldn't find anything in it that precludes James D. Watson. Could you be more precise and quote the passage where this is stated? Eubulide (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the nominator, and I actually think it's an error to say the the title James D. Watson is precluded. It's a perfectly good article title. It's just that James Watson is a far better title. Andrewa (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

James D. Watson is by far the more accurate and common name for the subject of this article. It's just plain weird that a single editor should come along and propse to rename an article and propose an artificial deadline for "consensus" before doing so. It's ridiculous to change the name of James D. Watson. Thus far there has been no evidence that anyone in the world has been confused or denied access to this article as it stands. Can I get a second opinion on whether we should postpone this idea upon further review or hard evidence that the current name of the article impedes upon users' abilities to research James D. Watson? Landerman56 (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

By what standards do you say more accurate? If we wanted to be even more accurate, I guess we could put his year of birth in the article title too. But we don't, it seems far more trouble than gain. And by what standards more common? As to the procedure we're following here being plain weird, IMO it works remarkably well! As does Wikipedia. But neither is perfect, admittedly. Andrewa (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a post from the requested moves page in response to the editor who intiated this discussion. "This page request move is actually very controversial and there is an ongoing disucssion on the James D. Watson page. Currently, many people have objected to the move.Shannon bohle (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)" Landerman56 (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Or just to clarify, it's not from the nominator of course, but from one of the people who object to the proposed move. Commenting on WP:RM like that is not part of the normal procedure, but it does happen from time to time and does not a lot of harm so long as not too many people do it I guess. Discussion belongs here, not on RM. Any sysop about to take action will read this page first. That's part of the job. Andrewa (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary of discussion: Let me summarize the discussion so far. Jerzy has proposed to move the article from James D. Watson to James Watson. These are the main arguments in favour and against the move:

  • In favour: Google gives more hist to "James Watson" than to "James D. Watson" (where only hits about the geneticist are counted); therefore "James Watson" should be considered the most common name as required by Wikipedia policies.
  • Against: (1) "James D. Watson" is the name by which the geneticist signs his books and scientific papers, therefore it should be considered the correct name; (2) "James Watson" is ambiguous, there are 12 articles in Wikipedia about people of that name.

Besides the proposer, two other editors support the move (TJRC and Andrewa). Six editors oppose the move (myself, Shannon bohle, Hardyplants, Koncorde, Landerman56, David D.). The discussion doesn't seem to be solvable by appealing to Wikipedia policies: they are not specific enough to discriminate between the arguments. Maybe we should first work on developing more specific policies (especially about names of published authors) before we come to a conclusion. Eubulide (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good summary. I think when it's this close, it normally means that it doesn't matter which way we go. And I am in the minority. I'd be happy to go with the majority on this. Andrewa (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well put summary. Can we remove the header stating the proposal on this one? The header is really not needed. The proposed move seems premature, furthermore I think it is unreasonable that one editor can slap the header onto the discussion page for such a major change request before making any attempt at discussion. Landerman56 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Correction - the proposer did initiate discussion on the topic but at the same time he slapped the page with the move request. In my opinion that discussion should have taken place before a formal move request was intiated and the clock started ticking. It is not fair to the community for one editor to do that and create artificial deadlines for consensus. Landerman56 (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, our current procedures not only allow this, we encourage it, and I think that's a good thing. I certainly get frustrated by the many tags that are slapped on otherwise good articles and seem to reflect nothing but the POV of the slapper, and then stay there indefinitely achieving nothing other than to make Wikipedia look that much sloppier.
But that's not what is going on here. The notice appears on the talk page, not the article, and does little harm there IMO. There is a well-managed procedure for involving the community in the discussion, and the five days is part of that. But there are no artificial deadlines for consensus... if consensus can't be reached in the time, then either the discussion is closed with no further action taken, or if consensus seems possible with more time the request is relisted.
If you think these procedures can be improved, then by all means make suggestions. But please give those of us who do follow the procedures a fair go in the meantime. Andrewa (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the editor posted a major change without any prior discussion. Then reiterated that within a matter of days if he did not get any opposition then he'd go ahead and make the change. Lack of opposition does not equate to consensus (the artificial deadline I referred to). Also the tag still says there is a deadline. I think it should be removed because it unduly implies that there is a problem that needs to be solved with the change. The original editor who slapped the site with the request has not responded to any of the questions or concerns bought up nor has he/she presented evidence that indeed a problem exists with the current title that the move could solve. Also allow me to correct you about wikipedia procedures. The procedure is to attempt to reach consensus not slap on a deadline for doing so as was done with the banner in this case. The procedure is the deadline comes after a reasonable amount of discussion has been had. The iniator of this certainly has not discussed this prior to making the official move request and as such it has not been done. Had the procedure been followed the move request probably would not have been made officially at all. Landerman56 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The tag should not be removed until the discussion is closed uder normal procedures. There is no need to get consensus before raising a requested move, rather, requested move is one of the ways in which we seek to build consensus. If you think you can improve on these procedures, Wikipedia talk:Requested moves is the place to raise your concerns. Andrewa (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a wiki, and the normal procedure is that users are allowed to move pages without any discussion when they think is reasonable, same as users are allowed to edit pages without prior discussion. When there is disagreement, the move can be reverted and a discussion held. The requested moves procedure is only necessary when administrator intervention is required for technical reasons (that is, when the destination page already exists and is not a simple redirect with no history). I think some of you are treating this proposed move as if it were an irreversible, earth-shattering event. I suggest relaxing a bit. --Itub (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No actually no one is treating it as dire as you portray. We have raise specific and very rational arguments against the proposal. I have asked repeatedly for those involved with the discussion to address the concerns brought up. No one in favor of such a move has done so. As far as the above procedure, if you have read my comments carefully you would have noticed that I am talking about the iniator's comments that if there was no "disagreement" that he would go ahead and make the move by himself after a trivial amount of days. Lack of disagreement is not "Clear Consensus" as the banner says. I was making a very specific point about how the actual procedures of the encyclopedia of which the wiki part serves only as the medium. The format and content is and will always be an encyclopedia. Landerman56 (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the initiator's proposal to perform the move was a bad idea, as I said at the time. They appear to have accepted my advice, and that matter should have ended there. Had they gone ahead, which was never likely IMO, it would have been easily reversed. In raising it here before acting, they did the right thing. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I made an error in my closing statement, which I have now corrected using strikethru. Dekimasuよ! 01:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Further comments

Please excuse me for not fully or speedily participating in this slouch toward Jerusalem.

  1. The concern about a deadline is based on both a conception of consensus worthy of the Sejm that preceded the Partitions of Poland, and, one may suspect, terminally subjective reading of my words.
  2. For the record, my own re-reading of WP:UCN shows i was mistaken in characterizing its content using "precludes". On the other hand, the seasoned Andrewa's comments should demonstrate that WP is not about the enthusiasms of the red-meat-eating Wiki-warriors who show up as experts on the latest crise de jure, but about a style of work that has been evolving into a kind of wisdom for 7 years, as of next month.

--Jerzy•t 14:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Jerzy: I do not understand your comments (above) about "this slouch" and "red-meat-eating". If you want to continue the discussion about the idea of changing the page name from "James D. Watson" to "James Watson", please do so. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand, are you saying that wikiarticles need to all follow the same style? That has never appeared to be the case here. The largest timesinks I have seen are when people try to enforce a consistent style. For example, New York City or New York City, New York or should that be New York City (New York)? What ever it is there will always be some who are unhappy, even disgruntled. David D. (Talk) 15:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
JWSchmidt: I think Jerzy's "slouching" reference is just a misquote of Yeats' The Second Coming. -- TJRC (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I indeed intended to evoke Yeats's distaste for what he seems to me to have seen as a counterfeit, suitable to have been perpetrated by one or more "rude" (crude), slouched beasts, of something noble. I did so to express my own distaste for the discussion, which i find doomed for the time being to ignominious results, in contrast to successes of WP's collective editing that have surprised many.
--Jerzy•t 20:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree I am not sure why Jerzy chooses to name call rather than defend what IMO is an ill conceived page move. Attack ideas not people and we surely will all get along. Landerman56 (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I erred in using the term "Wiki-warriors", and should instead have referred to "Wiki-warring", to avoid any suggestion of describing a fellow editor. On the other hand, our avoidance of "personal attack" is principally about the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. When i criticize specific editors' behavior (which i may in this case have succeeded in avoiding), or criticize patterns of behavior as distinguished from current examples (what i intended), those who disagree are welcome to argue that the behavior was absent or that the behavior is harmless or beneficial, but i do not think it is accurate to complain about "attack[ing] ... people".
--Jerzy•t 20:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It appears someone has done the "redirect" disambiguation, but in a rather uneven fashion. James Watson now points to James Watson with a sole redirect to James D. Watson though who there is a redirect to James Watson (disambiguation). Bit bloody confusing if you ask me. I'm sure User:Dekimasu thought he was doing the right thing but wasn't the decision NOT to go ahead with this?--Koncorde (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the current situation (James Watson redirect to James D. Watson and a link to James Watson (disambiguation)) is a standard way of doing things at Wikipedia and what was decided upon in the earlier discussion on this page. It might seem confusing to some people, but can you suggest a better alternative? --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like someone (a bot) has cleaned up the re-direct so now James Watson leads to James D. Watson - earlier it just went to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Watson&redirect=no which was my issue. I still feel this is presumptuous and that James Watson should direct to the disambiguation page first, then allow people to select the correct entry - rather than directing traffic to possibly the incorrect page first. Linking the disambiguation in this topic however is logical.--Koncorde (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I curiously glanced at User:Dekimasu's contribs, and then at a longer but more focused portion of that record. It turns out that that user's edits to Wikipedia:Requested moves in 2007 exceed 900. I don't presume to guess how that will color this matter for anyone, but it is striking enough that i could imagine later blaming myself, if had walked away from this while effectively keeping that a secret.
--Jerzy•t 03:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Koncorde. Looks like this was done out of turn and without any consensus what so ever. Landerman56 (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Mount Everest begins with a ToP Dab

"Everest" redirects here. For other uses, see Everest (disambiguation).

because even tho "Everest" is the official name of the film, but not of the mountain, uses of "Everest" to mean the mountain far outnumber those meaning either the person or the film.
--Jerzy•t 20:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That "precedent" wouldn't support a move, just a redirect. --Itub (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed the new header. This is a direct continuation of this conversation. I also agree with Itub that the above evidence does not support a move (rename) of the page. I think Jerzy would do well to think about the comments and concerns already brought forth(eg: the title of the article is the author's published name). I encourage discussion on this particular topic and not about Mt. Everest nor by making a premature request for move. Landerman56 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Too Short?

I undid the addition to this page of {{tooshort}}, which

  1. seems intended for articles, not their talk pages, and
  2. seems to call for the editor placing it to start a discussion on the talk page.

The lead seems short to me, but not excessively so. YMMV
--Jerzy•t 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Watson/Archive_1&oldid=1092057669"