Talk:Michael Levin (philosopher)

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

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

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

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

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

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 February 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Philosophy: Philosophers / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Contemporary philosophy

Comments[edit]

lkjytjkg?

Just vandalism, now removed. RossPatterson 04:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His article, "The Case for Torture" was published long before the current terrorism scare and 9/11. There should be some nod to that effect so the article isn't confusing to readers. The current link to the essay might be misleading. --Elecid 03:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC) 68.175.53.205 (talk)[reply]

Professor Michael Levin has never, as far as I can tell, claimed that homosexuality is immoral. I can find no reference for this attribution, and Professor Levin disputes it in an e-mail I sent to him on 30 November 2007. He has, in "Why Homosexuality is Abnormal" (1985, The Monist) and again in "Non-Euclidean Sex" (Think, Jan. 2006) claimed that homosexuality "homosexuality...is a misuse of bodily parts and is consequently less satisfying that heterosexual sex." If there are no immediate objections I will edit the article to read as above. I disagree strongly with Professor Levin's position, but I think it is important to get the position right. --C. A. Evans, Ph.D. Student in Philosophy, CUNY Graduate Center.

Again, as far as I can tell, Professor Levin has never claimed that white people are superior to black people. He has claimed that white people have an on average higher IQ and that there is good evidence that this difference is genetic as opposed to environmental. I will edit the article to express this point if there are no objections. --C. A. Evans, Ph.D. Student in Philosophy, CUNY Graduate Center —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.53.205 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article still stub quality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.105.154 (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Renaissance is a racialist magazine as it states in its Wikipedia entry. I am changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RG415WBFA (talk • contribs) 08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why this Michael Levin[edit]

Shouldn't this article talk about the Michael Levin talked about at http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/israeldiary/Michael_Levin_An_Israeli_Hero_for_Our_time.asp or at http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+levin? (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit?[edit]

It would be nice to get cites for these, if they are even true. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes by Anthon.Eff[edit]

User:Anthon.Eff: you are dissastisfied with the part of the article saying that the theory that white people score higher on IQ tests than black people due to genetic differences (which is endorsed by Levin) has been has been "widely criticized." I agree that the "widely criticized" wording could be improved, but since you have so far failed to make a convincing case that your version (which states that the theory has been "criticized by Leon Kamin and Robert C. Richardson") reflects the article's sources more accurately, I have again reverted you.

Have you actually read the articles by Kamin and Richardson? If not, then your attempt to change this part of the article is inappropriate. If you have read their articles, then please quote the relevant parts here so that other editors can see what they contain and reach a fully informed judgment about this issue. I haven't read them, so I'd find it helpful if you could do that.

It seems drastically misleading to suggest that Kamin and Richardson are the only two people who have criticized the theory that the difference between black and white scores on IQ tests are due to inherited racial factors, and I'd be much surprised if that is what their articles really show. It's wrong to conclude that simply because someone wrote an article criticizing a theory, that the article must show that its author is the only person to have criticized it. So far as I know, the idea that inherited racial differences explain differing IQ scores has plenty of other critics (Richard Lewontin, Michel Schiff, Stephen Jay Gould, are a few of the names that come to mind). UserVOBO (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So find the specific articles criticizing Levin by Lewontin, Gould, etc., if that's so easy. Point is, you can't dis a living person by saying that lots of people disagree with them--you have to say specifically who disagrees with them (check the policy: WP:BLP). --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthon.Eff: I asked you a direct question, which I will repeat. Have you read the articles used as sources here? I repeat again that if the answer is no, then you should not be attempting to change that part of the article, because you cannot know what you are doing. If those articles do not say that only their authors have criticized theories about IQ like Levin's, then this article must not suggest that they are the only two people who have made such criticisms. It seems more likely to me that the articles would show that many people, not only their authors, have criticized such views. Again, if you have actually read them and know what you're talking about, you should quote the articles here to prove that you are using them responsibly. BLP policy, which you invoke, requires that sources be used properly. You seem to be engaged in POV pushing (suggesting that somehow only two people have criticized the highly controversial view that Levin endorses) under the guise of enforcing BLP, an approach that is extremely unfortunate. UserVOBO (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked WP:BLP again and it does not say anything like "you have to say specifically who disagrees with" the subject of a BLP. Anyway, your claim that I must "find the specific articles criticizing Levin by Lewontin, Gould, etc" is misrepresenting the issue - there's no need for articles specifically about Levin, since the sentence under dispute isn't only or specifically about Levin's views. It reads, "Levin agrees with Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn that white people score higher on IQ tests than black people due to genetic differences." UserVOBO (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Michael Levin (philosopher) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: "Widely" is an unsupported attribution or weasel word which must either be documented, per se, with a reliable source or be removed. Without such a source, the use of the word violates WP:GRAPEVINE as unsourced contentious matter about a living person. Under that policy it must be immediately removed (which I intend to do if the word is in the article when I press "save" on this opinion) and even a single replacement of it, if it is still unsourced or poorly sourced, constitutes an edit war due to the exception to the three revert rule set out in WP:GRAPEVINE.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supplement to Third Opinion: Since no one has responded to this opinion yet, let me supplement it with another word or two. While the notion that the absence of the word "widely" implies anything does not, in light of Wikipedia's stated position about weasel words, hold water, I would nonetheless suggest doing this:

a view that has been criticized ~~by Leon Kamin of Princeton University and Robert C. Richardson of the University of Cincinnati~~. [continue with existing references]

The inclusion of the names of those two critics in the text does tend to imply that they are the only two who have criticized Levin. Since that is not, apparently (I've not checked for others), the case, then relegating those two critics entirely to a footnote prevents any such implication. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you appear to have misunderstood what is at issue here. The disputed sentence is this: "Levin agrees with Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn that white people score higher on IQ tests than black people due to genetic differences—a view that has been criticized by Leon Kamin of Princeton University and Robert C. Richardson of the University of Cincinnati." Note that the sentence is not only about Levin - it is about Jensen and Lynn as well. The problem with the information as it stands is not that it implies that Kamin and Richardson are the only two people to have criticized Levin, but that it implies that Kamin and Richardson are the only two people to have criticized the controversial view Levin, along with Jensen and Lynn, supports. That's certainly not the case, and it amounts to a POV distortion of the article to imply that it is. UserVOBO (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the charge that "widely criticized" somehow violates BLP or that it is "unsourced contentious matter about a living person", it's not about Levin himself at all, and nor was it unsourced. It was a sourced statement about a view Levin, among others, endorses, a highly controversial view that is certainly widely criticized. I pointed out some time ago that that wording was problematic and could be improved, but I don't see that it's a BLP violation. UserVOBO (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Kamin is an important academic (Princeton lies very high in the hierarchy). I think his criticism of Levin bears plenty of weight, and there really is no need to bring in Richardson or anyone else. I would support a sentence such as: "Levin agrees with Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn that white people score higher on IQ tests than black people due to genetic differences—a view that has been criticized by scholars such as Leon Kamin of Princeton University." In support, cite both Kamin and Richardson, so that it is clear that someone other than Kamin holds Levin in low esteem. I think that would satisfy BLP, and still convey the idea that Levin is controversial. What do you think VOBO?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested version is a clear improvement. It might be a good idea to give slightly more idea why Kamin and others criticize Levin, but that's basically acceptable. UserVOBO (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bueno! Would you be willing to summarize Kamin's arguments? I think it would be best to do that in a section entitled Criticisms. His book review on Why Race Matters would be sufficient, though Kamin is a life-long critic of the concept of race, and one could easily find plenty of other material in his other writings. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence[edit]

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of sourced content seems to be being removed without discussion.[edit]

I'd like to hear whether the recent editor who is removing sourced portions of the article is reading the sources before deleting them. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source list of possible use for editing this article[edit]

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is not an "evil racist"?[edit]

Hahaha the famous "objectivity" of Wikipedia. Only Whites are "evil racist" if they have a different pov on the equality of races. Jews are not. Interesting also that there is no reference to ADL and SPLC. Hahaha what a joke this site is.KevinFrom (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference costs 14 $ ?[edit]

Are you kidding? What kind of a reference is that? Has wikipedia become a free advertising site for his friends? "a view that has been criticized by scholars such as Leon Kamin of Princeton University.[7]"KevinFrom (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Levin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100129180016/http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=18054 to http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=18054

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there it is, so it must be good[edit]

including the possibility that there is a biologically based dislike of homosexuality

This isn't a sufficient justification, unless all thing biological are inherently moral. (After all, God wouldn't have made us want bad things.)

Contrary to some feminists, there is surely a biological basis to the sometimes aggressive male pursuit of the sex act, but we hardly give this a free pass, just because God (or Darwin) made some men that way.

Does Levin actually endorse the "there it is so it must be good" position? That would be pertinent in this paragraph. — MaxEnt 17:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]