![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"James Dewey Watson (born April 6, 1928) is an American molecular biologist, best known as one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA. Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins were awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".[3]"
Considering the length of his career and the scale of his achievements and the fact that he is still alive, the above is far too short; just compare it to that of Francis Crick for example:
"Francis Harry Compton Crick OM FRS (8 June 1916 – 28 July 2004), (Ph.D., Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, 1953) was an English molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist, and most noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".[2]
His later work, until 1977, at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, has not received as much formal recognition. Crick is widely known for use of the term “central dogma” to summarize an idea that genetic information flow in cells is essentially one-way, from DNA to RNA to protein. Crick was an important theoretical molecular biologist and played an important role in research related to revealing the genetic code.[3]
During the remainder of his career, he held the post of J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. His later research centered on theoretical neurobiology and attempts to advance the scientific study of human consciousness. He remained in this post until his death; "he was editing a manuscript on his death bed, a scientist until the bitter end" said his close associate Christof Koch[4]."
The first paragraph needs to be expanded, especially in the light of recent events, but mainly to do justice to such a world famous/'infamous' (media-wise) scientist; any comments please?
91.108.16.49 ( talk)nitramrekcap 91.108.16.49 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
...He studied at the University of Chicago and Indiana University and subsequently worked at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory in England where he first met Francis Crick.
In 1956 he became a faculty member of Harvard University's Biological Laboratories until 1976, but in 1968 served as Director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, New York and shifted its research emphasis to the study of cancer. In 1994 he became its President for ten years, and then subsequently served as its Chancellor until 2007. Between 1988 and 1992 he was associated with the National Institutes of Health, helping to establish the Human Genome Project. He has written many science books, including the seminal textbook "The Molecular Biology of the Gene" (1965).
91.108.50.27 ( talk) 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi TJRC, point taken! The introductory paragraph was long overdue for expansion (see above) and I had no great desire to get involved in yet another war of words like the one over Rosalind Franklin. As far as I know there is nothing to dispute in the additional material! Yours "91". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.190.55 ( talk) 20:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Theintroductory paragraph states that "After reading Erwin Schrödinger's book What Is Life? in 1946, Watson changed his professional ambitions from the study of ornithology to genetics.[10]".
Actually, in "The Double Helix", James Watson states that it was Francis Crick, not he, who was influenced by Schrodinger' book.
OPragai (
talk)
17:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
For some reason which I can only guess at, some Wikipedia users are trying to sugarcoat what Dr Watson said that led to his regignation. His comments were not in any way related to some sort of scientific study or debate. They were his personal views on a topic which he obviously feels strongly about yet apologized for. His comments are not justified under some sort of scientific freedom since frankly they are not scientific at all. In fact all science has disproved ANY notion of race what so ever. Race is purely a socio-political term and has no scientific definition. Landerman56 ( talk) 06:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I just found an article on Nature: Watson is the first human whose personal DNA was completely sequenzed. I have no idea how this could be added to the article, but I think it is worth mentioning it. Here is the reference: NATURE, 452 (7189): 872-U5; APR 17 2008 and the corresponding abstract (the full article is not free, sorry)
Abstract: The association of genetic variation with disease and drug response, and improvements in nucleic acid technologies, have given great optimism for the impact of 'genomic medicine'. However, the formidable size of the diploid human genome(1), approximately 6 gigabases, has prevented the routine application of sequencing methods to deciphering complete individual human genomes. To realize the full potential of genomics for human health, this limitation must be overcome. Here we report the DNA sequence of a diploid genome of a single individual, James D. Watson, sequenced to 7.4- fold redundancy in two months using massively parallel sequencing in picolitre- size reaction vessels. This sequence was completed in two months at approximately one-hundredth of the cost of traditional capillary electrophoresis methods. Comparison of the sequence to the reference genome led to the identification of 3.3 million single nucleotide polymorphisms, of whi ch 10,654 cause amino- acid substitution within the coding sequence. In addition, we accurately identified small-scale ( 2 - 40,000 base pair ( bp)) insertion and deletion polymorphism as well as copy number variation resulting in the large- scale gain and loss of chromosomal segments ranging from 26,000 to 1.5 million base pairs. Overall, these results agree well with recent results of sequencing of a single individual(2) by traditional methods. However, in addition to being faster and significantly less expensive, this sequencing technology avoids the arbitrary loss of genomic sequences inherent in random shotgun sequencing by bacterial cloning because it amplifies DNA in a cell- free system. As a result, we further demonstrate the acquisition of novel human sequence, including novel genes not previously identified by traditional genomic sequencing. This is the first genome sequenced by next- generation technologies. Therefore it is a pilot for the future challenges of 'pe rsonalized genome sequencing'.
Any suggestions?
Janina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.50.153.36 ( talk) 08:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears there's supposed to be a picture in the "Double Helix" inset, but judging from the Wilkins article, it's a duplicate. Mr. Raptor ( talk) 04:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This is horribly disorganized. Did it grow that way, or did someone vandalize it? ~ MD Otley ( talk) 01:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
James' son, Rufus, has schizofrenia. I think could be mentioned somehow. Best regards, CopperKettle ( talk) 03:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
From an article in Independent:
But those answers may not be easy, for, as I know all too well, genetics can be cruel. My own son may be one of its victims. Warm and perceptive at the age of 37, Rufus cannot lead an independent life because of schizophrenia, lacking the ability to engage in day-to-day activities. For all too long, my wife Ruth and I hoped that what Rufus needed was an appropriate challenge on which to focus. But as he passed into adolescence, I feared the origin of his diminished life lay in his genes. It was this realisation that led me to help to bring the human genome project into existence.
CopperKettle ( talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with this sentence.
In 1994 he became its President for ten years, and then subsequently served as its Chancellor until 2007, when controversy over several racist comments forced him to resign.
Describing these comments as "racist" appears to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. A significant number of people, both inside and outside the relevant fields, consider Watson's comments to have been a valid interpretation of the Data that exists about this topic. One noteworthy viewpoint that goes against the idea of his comments being racist is expressed in this entry from the well-known science blog Gene Expression.
This is not merely a "fringe" viewpoint, as it has also been expressed in peer-reviewed publications, which cannot by definition be fringe. I would like to edit this sentence of the article to something more neutral, such as "when he was forced into retirement by controversy over several comments about the relationship between race and intelligence", with the last three words a link to the Wikipedia article about that topic.
Captain Occam ( talk) 06:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
""racist" appears to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy" how so?
Even Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, a position inherited from Watson[50], said
I am deeply saddened by the events of the last week...in the aftermath of a racist statement...that was both profoundly offensive and utterly unsupported by scientific evidence.
The scientist Francis collins called the statements racist. Hardyplants ( talk) 09:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm freedom and dignity.
An ideology that tacitly appeals to biological equality as a condition for human emancipation corrupts the idea of freedom. Moreover, it encourages decent men to tremble at the prospect of ‘inconvenient’ findings that may emerge in future scientific research.
To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief...
The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity....
To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers.
This is not a claim of racial 'superiority' or 'inferiority', either in terms of legal worth or even in terms of overall talent - since groups all have different strengths and weaknesses. It is simply the recognition that people of different genetic heritage, on average, reveal different talents wherever they are found in the world, and there is one explanation that best accounts for these observations: evolution.
In other words, Watson was thinking like a scientist. Which is exactly why he was punished.
Watson was thinking like a scientist huh?
"The 79-year-old geneticist said he was “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.". He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
Yeah, that is real scientific. That quote should be added by the way and I think I will do so.
Savagedjeff ( talk) 07:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for not reading the debate so far on this, but I would note that the article mentions the racism controversy in about four different places with then other aspects of his life discussed in between. I would prefer it to be in the lead if necessary, and then dealt with in full at some point. But at the moment the article is sort of peppered with the racism controversy, and inevitably this means some content is repeated. I have no devotion to this article and I'm now going to scuttle off to look elswhere, but I leave my observation with you. -- bodnotbod ( talk) 20:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Why worry? You've won. He's 16% African and has 2 X chromosomes which makes him a woman; what white nationalist will march to his lead while giving him a 'Heil Hitler' salute now? 72.201.19.165 ( talk) 05:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Didn't this article have mention of some of his other controversies?, for example in May 1973, the Times reported some of his statements in which he supported that a child should "not [be] declared alive until three days after birth." And was reported as saying "The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering." (May 28, 1973) [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theruteger ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I really laughed at the last line of the article. Isn't patience supposed to be a virtue? -- MoebiusFlip ( talk) 07:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Did he made this comment?
Why does it matter that he's an atheist? It says nothing in the body of the article to suggest that he himself gave a damn about his being one--no books, articles, or lectures on the topic--just a footnote about some rabbi making an issue of it and an incidental anecdote. Shouldn't the infobox also mention whether his second toe is longer than his big toe, and whether he likes cheese or not? This strikes me as religious POV-pushing, to go around tagging all atheists. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 16:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The "Controversies" section is longer than the "Biography". A real encyclopedia would have treated the controversies in a few sentences. We're beating up on a dead guy. Even Cotton Mather let up once the witch had been hanged. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 19:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
67.142.172.26 ( talk) 22:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is much better. We should not be picking apart the paragraph of the article for this or that "Gotcha". Watson has already gotten Gotcha! to the max and we should not be adding to that silly media blowout because it is not NPOV. Let the reader read the whole paragraph and get the whole context over at Wikiquote because including that whole paragraph would take up too much room in a section that is seems oversized compared to man's obvious historic importance.-- Livingrm ( talk) 16:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that section should be eliminated. Exactly what relevance does Gates' evaluation of Watson have in this article? Who declared Gates the expert on racialism, and BTW, where is Gates' Nobel Prize in anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.142.241 ( talk) 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I notice that there are a number of external links on this page, e.g.
Please consider adding this link to an in depth video of James Watson telling his life story. The video is freely available on the Web of Stories website ( http://webofstories.com):
Fitzrovia calling ( talk) 09:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
One controversial turn in Watson's life relates to his comments on human intelligence in different groups. 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. It is especially important to get these issues right in the biography of a living person. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 14:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems a little strange to put that right after his name, given that he isn't British, and has received a ton of other honorary titles/memberships. Tijfo098 ( talk) 09:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Revision 402159057 looks fine to me. It is a good summary of the collaborative effort that went into the discovery. The citation is a high-quality source and back up the edit. Watson's "Double Helix" also acknowledges what discoveries he built upon. This is a critical part of how science actually works. Javaweb ( talk) 18:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb
"In 1951, the chemist Linus Pauling in California published his model of the amino acid alpha helix, a result that grew out of Pauling's efforts in X-ray crystallography and molecular model building. Watson found out about Pauling's model quickly because it was communicated to him via Pauling's son, Peter Pauling, who had a copy of the manuscript. Watson claimed that such a model (with three central phosphate chains held together by hydrogen bonds) was easily recognized as incorrect because in an aqueous environment the phosphate groups would be ionized thus would not display hydrogen bonding and would repel each other"
This makes it sound like Pauling described the alpha helix as having three central phosphate chains etc, when it was of course Pauling's model of DNA that was described thus. Page 159 "The Double Helix". The alpha helix and Pauling's DNA structure were not announced at the same time. Revise? 139.80.123.2 ( talk) 07:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I found this way too short for its own good. The guy is a genius; why should he get a flimsy two sentence description of his personal life? I've lived on Long Island for most of my life, and I've met him twice; I can say more about him from pure deduction than that weakling of a section does. Somebody who knows him well should make a major edit to that part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.109.7 ( talk) 05:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
James Watson said (quote) "Francis winged into The Eagle to tell everyone within hearing distance that we had found the secret of life." (Page 111, Chapter 26, "The Double Helix)".
Why does this quotation from James Watson need to be taken with the proverbial 'pinch of salt'?
The fact that the person said to have made the statement could not remember having said it!
In his book "genes, girls, and gamow", James Watson states (quote): "During my absence, the first newspaper article that reflected an interview with Francis Crick came out. It was in the Sunday Telegraph and reached a large audience." (from page 21, Chapter 4: Cambridge July-August 1953.)
The only problem being that the Sunday Telegraph did NOT exist in 1953, and repeated searches of the newspaper archives have NOT found any trace of such an article, with a Crick interview!
So Watson may not be an entirely reliable source for this quotation, even when repeated by the BBC; I suggest that the text and the BBC reference need to be qualified to reflect the above?
IF ANYONE CAN CONFIRM DETAILS OF THE JUNE 1953 BRITISH SUNDAY NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, DO PLEASE ADVISE THEM ASAP! Martin Packer 213.120.97.230 ( talk) 13:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This section is too long, in terms of an overall biography. Yes, there was much media attention, but we dont' have to repeat it all here. Apparently at one time, his extensive quotes in the Sunday Times article were put in Wikiquote; that is better than including them all here. Parkwells ( talk) 21:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
of Anglo-Saxon origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.66.152 ( talk) 14:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
In his book "genes, girls, and gamow", James Watson states (quote): "During my absence, the first newspaper article that reflected an interview with Francis Crick came out. It was in the Sunday Telegraph and reached a large audience." (from page 21, Chapter 4: Cambridge July-August 1953.) The error was repeated by Victor K. McElheny in the biography "Watson and DNA" published in 2003.
The only problem being that the Sunday Telegraph did NOT exist in 1953, and repeated searches of the newspaper archives have NOT found any trace of such an article, with a Francis Crick interview! So Watson may not be an entirely reliable source for this quotation, even when repeated by the BBC; I suggest that the text and the BBC reference need to be qualified to reflect the above?
IF ANYONE CAN CONFIRM DETAILS OF THE JUNE 1953 BRITISH SUNDAY NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, DO PLEASE ADVISE THEM TO ME ASAP! Martin Packer 213.120.97.230 ( talk) 12:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This part is important because it tells when and what the general public heard of one of the great discoveries in human history. Before I add it back, any thoughts?
--
Javaweb (
talk)
01:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
RE-INSTATED!
"The news reached readers of The New York Times on Friday, May 15, 1953; Victor K. McElheny, in researching his biography, "Watson and DNA: Making a Scientific Revolution", found a clipping of a six-paragraph New York Times article written from London and dated May 16, 1953, with the headline "Form of 'Life Unit' in Cell Is Scanned." The article ran in an early edition and was then pulled to make space for news deemed more important. (The New York Times subsequently ran a longer article on June 12, 1953)."
213.120.97.230 ( talk) 13:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
NEW YORK TIMES (U.S.A.): Saturday, June 13, 1953
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/science/dna-article.pdf
CLUE TO CHEMISTRY
OF HEREDITY FOUND
______________________________________
American and Briton Report
Solving Molecular Pattern
Of Vital Nucleic Acid
____________
TESTS BY X-RAY PLANNED
___________________________
Work Done in England, If It
Is Confirmed, Should Make
Biochemical History
_______________
Special to The New York Times
LONDON, June 12 - A scientific partnership between an American and a British biochemist at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge has lead to the unravelling of the structural pattern of a substance as important to biologists as uranium is to nuclear physicists.The substance is nucleic acid, the vital constituent of cells, the carrier of inherited characters and the fluid that links organic life with inorganic matter.
The form of nucleic acid under investigation is called DNA (desoxyribonucleic acid) and has been known since 1869.
But what nobody understood before the Cavendish Laboratory men considered the problem was how the molecules were grooved into each other like the strands of a wire hawser so they were able to pull inherited characters over from one generation to another.
Further Tests Slated
The two biochemists, James Dewey Watson, a former graduate student of the University of Chicago, and his British partner, Frances H.C.Crick, believe that in DNA they have at last find the clue to the chemistry of heredity. If further X-ray tests prove what has largely been demonstrated on paper, Drs. Watson and Crick will have made biochemical history.
Dr. Watson has now returned to the United States, where he intends to join Dr. Linus Pauling, of California, who has done most of the pioneer work on the problem.
[In Pasadena, Calif., Dr. Pauling said that the New Crick-Watson solution appeared to be somewhat better than the proposal for the structure of the nucleic acids worked out by Dr. Pauling and associates at the California Institute of Technology. The California solution was published in the February, 1953, issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.]
Dr. Crick may leave Britain, too, when he has done more work on the problem. Right now, he said "it simply smells right" and confirms research in many institutions, particularly the Rockefeller Foundation in the United States and at King's College in London.
The acid DNA, Dr. Crick explained is a "high polymer" - that is, its chemical components can be disentangled and rearranged in different ways.
In all life cells, including those of man, DNA, is the substance that transmits inherited characteristics such as eye colour, nose shape and certain types of blood and diseases. The transmission occurs at the mitosis or cell division when a tangle of DNA containing chromosomes becomes thicker and the cell separates into two daughter cells.
Forming of Molecular Chain
Although DNA has never been Drs. Watson and Crick knew it was composed of horizontal hook-ups of bases (sugars and phosphates) piled one above the other in chain-like formations. The problem was to find out how these giant molecules could be fitted together so they could duplicate themselves exactly.
By a method of scientific doodling with hand-drawn models of the molecules, Drs. Watson and Crick worked out which molecules could be fitted together with regard to the fact that some molecules were more rigid than others and had critical angles of attachment. Some months ago they decided that the only possible inter-relation of the molecules was in the form of two chains arranged in a double helix - like a spiral staircase, with the upper chain resembling the staircase handrail and the lower resembling the outside edge of the stairs.
New evidence for the double DNA chains in helical form now has been obtained from King's College Biophysics Department in London, where a group of workers extracted crystalline DNA from the thymus gland of a calf and bombarded it with X-rays.
The resulting X-ray diffraction photographs showed a whirlpool of light and shade that could be as the components of the double helix.
Dr. Crick emphasized that years of work still must be applied to the helical carriers of life's characteristics. But a working model to aid in the genetical studies of the future now has been paid out by Drs. Watson and Crick - or so most biochemists here believe.
Looks Good, Pauling Says.
Reached by telephone in Pasadena, Dr. Pauling said last night that the Crick-Watson proposals for the structure of the nucleic acids "looks very good". Dr. Pauling has just returned from London where he talked with Dr. Crick and with Dr. Watson, who was formerly a student at California Institute of Technology.
Dr. Pauling said that he did not believe the problem of understanding "molecular genetics" had been finally solved, and that the shape of the molecules was a complicated matter. Both the California and Crick-Watson explanations of the structure of the substances that control heredity are highly speculative, he remarked.
2.27.127.232 ( talk) 15:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Read the second paragraph of the protest in Greece section... That is definitely not neutral point of view, constantly stressing how awesome the Greek university hosts are when it's really not relevant... I would edit it myself except that I don't know anything about the event in question and have never edited Wikipedia before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.80.25 ( talk) 01:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jebus989 ( talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 19:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm happy to take this review. I've given the article a preliminary going over and will provide comments shortly. Jebus989 ✰ 19:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments Overall, this article will need a lot of work to bring to GA standards. Referencing is the primary concern but the overall organisation could also be improved, as could the weighting of certain sections.
Specifics:
There are other issues, mostly lack of references, but I will continue if/when points begin to be addressed. As more general commentary, I think the article is generally well-written, and handles difficult sections without bias. However, similarly to the Crick GA assessment, it is a solid B-class, but some way off a GA at the moment. Jebus989 ✰ 20:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Due to the serious lack of references and other issues above, I have failed this nomination and the article will not be promoted to GA at this time Jebus989 ✰ 11:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Being a Wikipedia editor does not give you the right to vandalise the FRANCIS CRICK and JAMES WATSON articles; the late Rosalind Franklin was not a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. Please desist P.Schrey!
Martin Packer, U.K. Researcher for "Francis Crick: Hunter of Life's Secrets" by Professor Robert Olby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.32.42 ( talk) 09:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The reverted edit was not vandalism but was not supported by the reference. The Nobel Prize citation in the article does not mention Franklin. Editor Schrey, if you think her role is being slighted, please provide reliable sources to back up edits. In the meantime, the James_D._Watson#Use_of_King.27s_College_results section covers the controversy quite well. -- Javaweb ( talk) 15:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
For the record ROSALIND FRANKLIN had no involvement in the "discovery of DNA" either; the structure of DNA was elucidated by JAMES WATSON and FRANCIS CRICK. No other editor will be able to prove otherwise. The suggestion that ROSALIND FRANKLIN was involved is not supported by the facts. M.D.P.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It looks like the comment preceding his resignation is a contentious topic, but can't we at least agree that that last sentence doesn't belong in the lead section? It looks like it's a definite case of undue weight, and just because the news received digital coverage doesn't mean that it takes precedent over the coverage for the long and distinguished career. (Someone reading this would presumably be familiar with the subject matter, so no need to list things out.) Unfortunately there was no Guardian or Associated Press to digitally pick up many of these stories when they broke, so the coverage is in print. The body of the article still goes over these comments. Dreambeaver (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing in this bio that covers the following -
In May of 1973, just four month after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion, James Watson (who won a Nobel prize for his work in discovering the double helix design of DNA) expressed his views. Writing in Prism, a publication of the American Medical Association, Watson stated, "If a child were noI t declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.96.4 ( talk) 06:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I removed that item because there is no source saying it's provocative. It's simply a quote from a book written by Watson. We can't use the encyclopedia's voice to assume a statement provocative. We need someone else saying it is, or commenting on it in some shape or fashion. As it stands, there's no justification for cherry picking that particular quote above any other in the book. I am removing it again per WP:BLPSOURCES specifically. This is a contentious, unsourced opinion about the book quotation. — Torchiest talk edits 21:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
He's just another jerk who got the Nobel. God, what else is new. It'd be great that after these people won their "prize" everybody just quit paying attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 ( talk) 00:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
What was this? Completely irrelevant rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc2467 ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
There was some assertion about genetic testing showing that "James Watson is 16% Black": http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/watsons-black-dna-ultimate-irony/?_r=0 can that be confirmed and should it be worked into the article? -- 41.150.200.56 ( talk) 12:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
James Watson. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
He is in the category "American people of African descent" but I cannot see any African or African-American ancestors mentioned in his "early years" section. But see above on genetic testing (16% African?) Hugo999 ( talk) 23:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
He did retire publicly around the 2007 controversy, but I remember him being reinstated soon thereafter. He is still listed as chacnellor emeritus to this day. http://www.cshl.edu/gradschool/Non-Research-Faculty/james-d-watson 168.7.235.141 ( talk) 20:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)bdg
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:James D Watson.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 6, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-04-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 23:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on James Watson. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I just reverted the latest edit by Landerman56, which he seems to have originally made here. This issue was discussed at great length:
And the consensus was that it does not belong in the article. Klortho ( talk) 16:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
This scientist provided no evidence. In fact this is what led to his resignation. The referenced material clearly agrees his comments were racist. If you personally disagree then you should edit the article and provide sourced evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to put it back since in the article it clearly states his comments were about skin color. Read his quote which is referenced in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Read the article that is referenced already. If that reference is invalid then please change it if you have substantial supporting documentation that it is wrong. If what he said was scientifically sound then please show the references to support his statements. Otherwise the reasoning for his comments is clear as the article states. If you disagree then that's your POV which is not based on fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Landerman56 shows a campaign is in progress and edits like this are edit warring, against consensus, and unencyclopedic editorial commentary. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The consensus for quite some time from the referenced material is the lead is fine as is. If you have further concerns you can source reputable references to back up your claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 July 2016
Follow up from the discussion above: it appears that this user, Landerman56, has been making disruptive edits to this page since 2007, and has often been suspected of being a sockpuppet account. I added more information about this to the complaint on the Admin noticeboard. I've never encountered this situation before -- any advice or help would be appreciated. Klortho ( talk) 23:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no disruption. I will continue to make good faith edits to this page. If anyone disagrees with the long established sourced material then I implore you to find new creditable sources. For example the term "geographic ancestry" was never used in any sourced material however the word "black" was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I've altered the sentence in the lead discussing Watson's 2007 remarks, for reasons described here Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive241#James_Watson. I presented background facts and arguments there and waited a considerable pause for responses from @ Ianmacm: and @ Landerman56:, frequent editors of this page who were engaged in discussion there. Now @ Klortho: has reverted my edit.
For reference, here is the new text:
With regard to the word racist, the comments are unambiguously racist, and this description is brought up by numerous RS (e.g., The Root and Henry Louis Gates, Slate The Atlantic, the Los Angeles Times). Prior discussion by @ Captain Occam: argued that "racist" is controversial because of have a blog post by Jason Malloy, identified in a New York Times article as: "Jason Malloy, 28, an artist in Madison, Wis., who wrote a defense of Dr. Watson for the widely read science blog Gene Expression." [2] Malloy is neither an expert on the psychology of intelligence, nor on what constitutes a racist remark, but he is an avid amateur researcher in the WP:FRINGE viewpoint of "human biodiversity," and runs a blog called humanvarieties.org.
With regard to the meaning of the comments, Watson himself acknowledged the implications of the remarks and apologized: "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways that they have. To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief." [3]
Racism is a political position, among other things, and it's completely possible for a statement to be objectively racist, just as a remark can be pro-abolition or anti-clerical.-- Carwil ( talk) 16:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The word racist is not inherently controversial. In the case of James Watson's comments it is a simple fact that they were racist. There is zero credible scientific evidence to back any controversy over this matter. James Watson himself has admitted they were and his views have been widely condemned as being racist. To say otherwise or to hide this does a disservice to our Wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for responding reasonably on the talk page. It really is a nice change. I think you've put your finger on the heart of this edit controversy: you say it has been repudiated, but it hasn't been. I can understand that anyone who believed that it has would feel that the narrative in the article should be woven around this crucial point. I think that's why I and others ofter make reference to the gene expression blog post even though it's not used a source -- because it's the best clear deconstruction of the core issues, and provides plenty of data and references that show that what Watson said is not only true, but comports with the consensus science in the relevant specialties. A lot of people, like me, who understand this, feel that the central theme of this story is an unjust persecution of one of our leading scientists. Regarding what should be in the article, I understand it needs to comport with WP:UNDUE, but at the very least, it should not perpetuate myths (and esp. not in WP voice) that led to this travesty in the first place.
So, in what way can you justify describing this as "widely repudiated"? Keep in mind that we're not even talking about the radioactively hot-button nature-nurture question. Your suggested edit implies that somehow, the hundreds of studies that have documented a gap in IQ test scores either are all fatally flawed, or else that IQ test scores have nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Klortho ( talk) 14:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Carwill on this and I think this change should be made immediately. I'll wait for further discussion however the personal opinion of a single editor will not further delay this very important update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The edit is completely reasonable change based on consensus on this page. Please do not revert thoroughly discussed edits. You may suggest an edit and we can then talk about it. The article as it stood was clearly misleading and a disservice to wikipedia readers. This change is more in line with other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Landerman56 (
talk •
contribs)
07:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC) -->
That blocked user seems to think that numerical tests do not result in statistics. See his last edit. Collect ( talk) 23:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
So, after the above discussion, acknowledgment from @ Klortho: that Watson's comments were "widely repudiated," and a week of silence, I made the edit inserting this phrase:
Now, @ Collect: has reverted with the unsatisfactory (to me) explanation "not. this is a clear overstepping at this point" and the rather limited argument above "consensus for the claims as worded in the edit essayed today fails." In short, there are editors who don't like this change. (Collect doesn't come out and claim to be one of them. But perhaps this will happen.) If there is an objection to the text, it had better be based on something more than "I don't like it."
Our BLP policy limits "Contentious material about living persons … that is unsourced or poorly sourced" but there is no question of sourcing here. There's as best I can tell no question that Watson's comments said that Africans and black Westerners are less intelligent. If anything, I've gone out of my way to not say "us" (his word) describes whites or Europeans. That this is verifiable can be seen by reading any of the sources writing on the controversy. Indeed, Klortho's argument above about why these comments are scientific (despite Watson's disavowal of their scientific merit) is precisely about the comparative intelligence of Africans and white Westerners.-- Carwil ( talk) 11:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Suggested wording
Which is in accord with his statements. The controversy about that statement is fully covered elsewhere in the biography. Collect ( talk) 12:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Landerman56 (
talk •
contribs)
13:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)-->
First: Headlines are not news articles. They are written by "headline writers" to get readers. Second, you do not have consensus here for your insisted-upon claim. The article you cite says "He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade." He also said that geographically separated groups will not have identical DNA. He does not say Blacks are inferior to others. Thus your source does not support your attempted claim. He does refer to testing statistics - but statistics are not "racist" as far as I can tell. So finally - if you want an RfC, try for one. Until then it is clear that WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS do not favour your crusade. Collect ( talk) 13:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help), andMy sense is that we're reaching a loop where arguments end with "well, it's not required by policy, but I don't like it." On the other side we have WP:LABEL (which discourages "controversial") and WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
I think that a WP:RFC may be the only way out of this. However, here are two more tries. Both would place a period after "2007." In both suggestions, I'm open to either "white people" or "others" being the text we use:
Patiently yours,-- Carwil ( talk) 21:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"James Dewey Watson (born April 6, 1928) is an American molecular biologist, best known as one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA. Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins were awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".[3]"
Considering the length of his career and the scale of his achievements and the fact that he is still alive, the above is far too short; just compare it to that of Francis Crick for example:
"Francis Harry Compton Crick OM FRS (8 June 1916 – 28 July 2004), (Ph.D., Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, 1953) was an English molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist, and most noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material".[2]
His later work, until 1977, at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, has not received as much formal recognition. Crick is widely known for use of the term “central dogma” to summarize an idea that genetic information flow in cells is essentially one-way, from DNA to RNA to protein. Crick was an important theoretical molecular biologist and played an important role in research related to revealing the genetic code.[3]
During the remainder of his career, he held the post of J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. His later research centered on theoretical neurobiology and attempts to advance the scientific study of human consciousness. He remained in this post until his death; "he was editing a manuscript on his death bed, a scientist until the bitter end" said his close associate Christof Koch[4]."
The first paragraph needs to be expanded, especially in the light of recent events, but mainly to do justice to such a world famous/'infamous' (media-wise) scientist; any comments please?
91.108.16.49 ( talk)nitramrekcap 91.108.16.49 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
...He studied at the University of Chicago and Indiana University and subsequently worked at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory in England where he first met Francis Crick.
In 1956 he became a faculty member of Harvard University's Biological Laboratories until 1976, but in 1968 served as Director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, New York and shifted its research emphasis to the study of cancer. In 1994 he became its President for ten years, and then subsequently served as its Chancellor until 2007. Between 1988 and 1992 he was associated with the National Institutes of Health, helping to establish the Human Genome Project. He has written many science books, including the seminal textbook "The Molecular Biology of the Gene" (1965).
91.108.50.27 ( talk) 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi TJRC, point taken! The introductory paragraph was long overdue for expansion (see above) and I had no great desire to get involved in yet another war of words like the one over Rosalind Franklin. As far as I know there is nothing to dispute in the additional material! Yours "91". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.190.55 ( talk) 20:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Theintroductory paragraph states that "After reading Erwin Schrödinger's book What Is Life? in 1946, Watson changed his professional ambitions from the study of ornithology to genetics.[10]".
Actually, in "The Double Helix", James Watson states that it was Francis Crick, not he, who was influenced by Schrodinger' book.
OPragai (
talk)
17:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
For some reason which I can only guess at, some Wikipedia users are trying to sugarcoat what Dr Watson said that led to his regignation. His comments were not in any way related to some sort of scientific study or debate. They were his personal views on a topic which he obviously feels strongly about yet apologized for. His comments are not justified under some sort of scientific freedom since frankly they are not scientific at all. In fact all science has disproved ANY notion of race what so ever. Race is purely a socio-political term and has no scientific definition. Landerman56 ( talk) 06:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I just found an article on Nature: Watson is the first human whose personal DNA was completely sequenzed. I have no idea how this could be added to the article, but I think it is worth mentioning it. Here is the reference: NATURE, 452 (7189): 872-U5; APR 17 2008 and the corresponding abstract (the full article is not free, sorry)
Abstract: The association of genetic variation with disease and drug response, and improvements in nucleic acid technologies, have given great optimism for the impact of 'genomic medicine'. However, the formidable size of the diploid human genome(1), approximately 6 gigabases, has prevented the routine application of sequencing methods to deciphering complete individual human genomes. To realize the full potential of genomics for human health, this limitation must be overcome. Here we report the DNA sequence of a diploid genome of a single individual, James D. Watson, sequenced to 7.4- fold redundancy in two months using massively parallel sequencing in picolitre- size reaction vessels. This sequence was completed in two months at approximately one-hundredth of the cost of traditional capillary electrophoresis methods. Comparison of the sequence to the reference genome led to the identification of 3.3 million single nucleotide polymorphisms, of whi ch 10,654 cause amino- acid substitution within the coding sequence. In addition, we accurately identified small-scale ( 2 - 40,000 base pair ( bp)) insertion and deletion polymorphism as well as copy number variation resulting in the large- scale gain and loss of chromosomal segments ranging from 26,000 to 1.5 million base pairs. Overall, these results agree well with recent results of sequencing of a single individual(2) by traditional methods. However, in addition to being faster and significantly less expensive, this sequencing technology avoids the arbitrary loss of genomic sequences inherent in random shotgun sequencing by bacterial cloning because it amplifies DNA in a cell- free system. As a result, we further demonstrate the acquisition of novel human sequence, including novel genes not previously identified by traditional genomic sequencing. This is the first genome sequenced by next- generation technologies. Therefore it is a pilot for the future challenges of 'pe rsonalized genome sequencing'.
Any suggestions?
Janina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.50.153.36 ( talk) 08:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears there's supposed to be a picture in the "Double Helix" inset, but judging from the Wilkins article, it's a duplicate. Mr. Raptor ( talk) 04:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This is horribly disorganized. Did it grow that way, or did someone vandalize it? ~ MD Otley ( talk) 01:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
James' son, Rufus, has schizofrenia. I think could be mentioned somehow. Best regards, CopperKettle ( talk) 03:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
From an article in Independent:
But those answers may not be easy, for, as I know all too well, genetics can be cruel. My own son may be one of its victims. Warm and perceptive at the age of 37, Rufus cannot lead an independent life because of schizophrenia, lacking the ability to engage in day-to-day activities. For all too long, my wife Ruth and I hoped that what Rufus needed was an appropriate challenge on which to focus. But as he passed into adolescence, I feared the origin of his diminished life lay in his genes. It was this realisation that led me to help to bring the human genome project into existence.
CopperKettle ( talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with this sentence.
In 1994 he became its President for ten years, and then subsequently served as its Chancellor until 2007, when controversy over several racist comments forced him to resign.
Describing these comments as "racist" appears to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. A significant number of people, both inside and outside the relevant fields, consider Watson's comments to have been a valid interpretation of the Data that exists about this topic. One noteworthy viewpoint that goes against the idea of his comments being racist is expressed in this entry from the well-known science blog Gene Expression.
This is not merely a "fringe" viewpoint, as it has also been expressed in peer-reviewed publications, which cannot by definition be fringe. I would like to edit this sentence of the article to something more neutral, such as "when he was forced into retirement by controversy over several comments about the relationship between race and intelligence", with the last three words a link to the Wikipedia article about that topic.
Captain Occam ( talk) 06:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
""racist" appears to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy" how so?
Even Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, a position inherited from Watson[50], said
I am deeply saddened by the events of the last week...in the aftermath of a racist statement...that was both profoundly offensive and utterly unsupported by scientific evidence.
The scientist Francis collins called the statements racist. Hardyplants ( talk) 09:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm freedom and dignity.
An ideology that tacitly appeals to biological equality as a condition for human emancipation corrupts the idea of freedom. Moreover, it encourages decent men to tremble at the prospect of ‘inconvenient’ findings that may emerge in future scientific research.
To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief...
The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity....
To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers.
This is not a claim of racial 'superiority' or 'inferiority', either in terms of legal worth or even in terms of overall talent - since groups all have different strengths and weaknesses. It is simply the recognition that people of different genetic heritage, on average, reveal different talents wherever they are found in the world, and there is one explanation that best accounts for these observations: evolution.
In other words, Watson was thinking like a scientist. Which is exactly why he was punished.
Watson was thinking like a scientist huh?
"The 79-year-old geneticist said he was “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.". He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
Yeah, that is real scientific. That quote should be added by the way and I think I will do so.
Savagedjeff ( talk) 07:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for not reading the debate so far on this, but I would note that the article mentions the racism controversy in about four different places with then other aspects of his life discussed in between. I would prefer it to be in the lead if necessary, and then dealt with in full at some point. But at the moment the article is sort of peppered with the racism controversy, and inevitably this means some content is repeated. I have no devotion to this article and I'm now going to scuttle off to look elswhere, but I leave my observation with you. -- bodnotbod ( talk) 20:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Why worry? You've won. He's 16% African and has 2 X chromosomes which makes him a woman; what white nationalist will march to his lead while giving him a 'Heil Hitler' salute now? 72.201.19.165 ( talk) 05:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Didn't this article have mention of some of his other controversies?, for example in May 1973, the Times reported some of his statements in which he supported that a child should "not [be] declared alive until three days after birth." And was reported as saying "The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering." (May 28, 1973) [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theruteger ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I really laughed at the last line of the article. Isn't patience supposed to be a virtue? -- MoebiusFlip ( talk) 07:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Did he made this comment?
Why does it matter that he's an atheist? It says nothing in the body of the article to suggest that he himself gave a damn about his being one--no books, articles, or lectures on the topic--just a footnote about some rabbi making an issue of it and an incidental anecdote. Shouldn't the infobox also mention whether his second toe is longer than his big toe, and whether he likes cheese or not? This strikes me as religious POV-pushing, to go around tagging all atheists. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 16:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The "Controversies" section is longer than the "Biography". A real encyclopedia would have treated the controversies in a few sentences. We're beating up on a dead guy. Even Cotton Mather let up once the witch had been hanged. -- Milkbreath ( talk) 19:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
67.142.172.26 ( talk) 22:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is much better. We should not be picking apart the paragraph of the article for this or that "Gotcha". Watson has already gotten Gotcha! to the max and we should not be adding to that silly media blowout because it is not NPOV. Let the reader read the whole paragraph and get the whole context over at Wikiquote because including that whole paragraph would take up too much room in a section that is seems oversized compared to man's obvious historic importance.-- Livingrm ( talk) 16:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that section should be eliminated. Exactly what relevance does Gates' evaluation of Watson have in this article? Who declared Gates the expert on racialism, and BTW, where is Gates' Nobel Prize in anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.142.241 ( talk) 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I notice that there are a number of external links on this page, e.g.
Please consider adding this link to an in depth video of James Watson telling his life story. The video is freely available on the Web of Stories website ( http://webofstories.com):
Fitzrovia calling ( talk) 09:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
One controversial turn in Watson's life relates to his comments on human intelligence in different groups. 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. It is especially important to get these issues right in the biography of a living person. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 14:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems a little strange to put that right after his name, given that he isn't British, and has received a ton of other honorary titles/memberships. Tijfo098 ( talk) 09:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Revision 402159057 looks fine to me. It is a good summary of the collaborative effort that went into the discovery. The citation is a high-quality source and back up the edit. Watson's "Double Helix" also acknowledges what discoveries he built upon. This is a critical part of how science actually works. Javaweb ( talk) 18:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb
"In 1951, the chemist Linus Pauling in California published his model of the amino acid alpha helix, a result that grew out of Pauling's efforts in X-ray crystallography and molecular model building. Watson found out about Pauling's model quickly because it was communicated to him via Pauling's son, Peter Pauling, who had a copy of the manuscript. Watson claimed that such a model (with three central phosphate chains held together by hydrogen bonds) was easily recognized as incorrect because in an aqueous environment the phosphate groups would be ionized thus would not display hydrogen bonding and would repel each other"
This makes it sound like Pauling described the alpha helix as having three central phosphate chains etc, when it was of course Pauling's model of DNA that was described thus. Page 159 "The Double Helix". The alpha helix and Pauling's DNA structure were not announced at the same time. Revise? 139.80.123.2 ( talk) 07:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I found this way too short for its own good. The guy is a genius; why should he get a flimsy two sentence description of his personal life? I've lived on Long Island for most of my life, and I've met him twice; I can say more about him from pure deduction than that weakling of a section does. Somebody who knows him well should make a major edit to that part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.109.7 ( talk) 05:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
James Watson said (quote) "Francis winged into The Eagle to tell everyone within hearing distance that we had found the secret of life." (Page 111, Chapter 26, "The Double Helix)".
Why does this quotation from James Watson need to be taken with the proverbial 'pinch of salt'?
The fact that the person said to have made the statement could not remember having said it!
In his book "genes, girls, and gamow", James Watson states (quote): "During my absence, the first newspaper article that reflected an interview with Francis Crick came out. It was in the Sunday Telegraph and reached a large audience." (from page 21, Chapter 4: Cambridge July-August 1953.)
The only problem being that the Sunday Telegraph did NOT exist in 1953, and repeated searches of the newspaper archives have NOT found any trace of such an article, with a Crick interview!
So Watson may not be an entirely reliable source for this quotation, even when repeated by the BBC; I suggest that the text and the BBC reference need to be qualified to reflect the above?
IF ANYONE CAN CONFIRM DETAILS OF THE JUNE 1953 BRITISH SUNDAY NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, DO PLEASE ADVISE THEM ASAP! Martin Packer 213.120.97.230 ( talk) 13:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This section is too long, in terms of an overall biography. Yes, there was much media attention, but we dont' have to repeat it all here. Apparently at one time, his extensive quotes in the Sunday Times article were put in Wikiquote; that is better than including them all here. Parkwells ( talk) 21:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
of Anglo-Saxon origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.66.152 ( talk) 14:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
In his book "genes, girls, and gamow", James Watson states (quote): "During my absence, the first newspaper article that reflected an interview with Francis Crick came out. It was in the Sunday Telegraph and reached a large audience." (from page 21, Chapter 4: Cambridge July-August 1953.) The error was repeated by Victor K. McElheny in the biography "Watson and DNA" published in 2003.
The only problem being that the Sunday Telegraph did NOT exist in 1953, and repeated searches of the newspaper archives have NOT found any trace of such an article, with a Francis Crick interview! So Watson may not be an entirely reliable source for this quotation, even when repeated by the BBC; I suggest that the text and the BBC reference need to be qualified to reflect the above?
IF ANYONE CAN CONFIRM DETAILS OF THE JUNE 1953 BRITISH SUNDAY NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, DO PLEASE ADVISE THEM TO ME ASAP! Martin Packer 213.120.97.230 ( talk) 12:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This part is important because it tells when and what the general public heard of one of the great discoveries in human history. Before I add it back, any thoughts?
--
Javaweb (
talk)
01:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
RE-INSTATED!
"The news reached readers of The New York Times on Friday, May 15, 1953; Victor K. McElheny, in researching his biography, "Watson and DNA: Making a Scientific Revolution", found a clipping of a six-paragraph New York Times article written from London and dated May 16, 1953, with the headline "Form of 'Life Unit' in Cell Is Scanned." The article ran in an early edition and was then pulled to make space for news deemed more important. (The New York Times subsequently ran a longer article on June 12, 1953)."
213.120.97.230 ( talk) 13:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
NEW YORK TIMES (U.S.A.): Saturday, June 13, 1953
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/science/dna-article.pdf
CLUE TO CHEMISTRY
OF HEREDITY FOUND
______________________________________
American and Briton Report
Solving Molecular Pattern
Of Vital Nucleic Acid
____________
TESTS BY X-RAY PLANNED
___________________________
Work Done in England, If It
Is Confirmed, Should Make
Biochemical History
_______________
Special to The New York Times
LONDON, June 12 - A scientific partnership between an American and a British biochemist at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge has lead to the unravelling of the structural pattern of a substance as important to biologists as uranium is to nuclear physicists.The substance is nucleic acid, the vital constituent of cells, the carrier of inherited characters and the fluid that links organic life with inorganic matter.
The form of nucleic acid under investigation is called DNA (desoxyribonucleic acid) and has been known since 1869.
But what nobody understood before the Cavendish Laboratory men considered the problem was how the molecules were grooved into each other like the strands of a wire hawser so they were able to pull inherited characters over from one generation to another.
Further Tests Slated
The two biochemists, James Dewey Watson, a former graduate student of the University of Chicago, and his British partner, Frances H.C.Crick, believe that in DNA they have at last find the clue to the chemistry of heredity. If further X-ray tests prove what has largely been demonstrated on paper, Drs. Watson and Crick will have made biochemical history.
Dr. Watson has now returned to the United States, where he intends to join Dr. Linus Pauling, of California, who has done most of the pioneer work on the problem.
[In Pasadena, Calif., Dr. Pauling said that the New Crick-Watson solution appeared to be somewhat better than the proposal for the structure of the nucleic acids worked out by Dr. Pauling and associates at the California Institute of Technology. The California solution was published in the February, 1953, issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.]
Dr. Crick may leave Britain, too, when he has done more work on the problem. Right now, he said "it simply smells right" and confirms research in many institutions, particularly the Rockefeller Foundation in the United States and at King's College in London.
The acid DNA, Dr. Crick explained is a "high polymer" - that is, its chemical components can be disentangled and rearranged in different ways.
In all life cells, including those of man, DNA, is the substance that transmits inherited characteristics such as eye colour, nose shape and certain types of blood and diseases. The transmission occurs at the mitosis or cell division when a tangle of DNA containing chromosomes becomes thicker and the cell separates into two daughter cells.
Forming of Molecular Chain
Although DNA has never been Drs. Watson and Crick knew it was composed of horizontal hook-ups of bases (sugars and phosphates) piled one above the other in chain-like formations. The problem was to find out how these giant molecules could be fitted together so they could duplicate themselves exactly.
By a method of scientific doodling with hand-drawn models of the molecules, Drs. Watson and Crick worked out which molecules could be fitted together with regard to the fact that some molecules were more rigid than others and had critical angles of attachment. Some months ago they decided that the only possible inter-relation of the molecules was in the form of two chains arranged in a double helix - like a spiral staircase, with the upper chain resembling the staircase handrail and the lower resembling the outside edge of the stairs.
New evidence for the double DNA chains in helical form now has been obtained from King's College Biophysics Department in London, where a group of workers extracted crystalline DNA from the thymus gland of a calf and bombarded it with X-rays.
The resulting X-ray diffraction photographs showed a whirlpool of light and shade that could be as the components of the double helix.
Dr. Crick emphasized that years of work still must be applied to the helical carriers of life's characteristics. But a working model to aid in the genetical studies of the future now has been paid out by Drs. Watson and Crick - or so most biochemists here believe.
Looks Good, Pauling Says.
Reached by telephone in Pasadena, Dr. Pauling said last night that the Crick-Watson proposals for the structure of the nucleic acids "looks very good". Dr. Pauling has just returned from London where he talked with Dr. Crick and with Dr. Watson, who was formerly a student at California Institute of Technology.
Dr. Pauling said that he did not believe the problem of understanding "molecular genetics" had been finally solved, and that the shape of the molecules was a complicated matter. Both the California and Crick-Watson explanations of the structure of the substances that control heredity are highly speculative, he remarked.
2.27.127.232 ( talk) 15:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Read the second paragraph of the protest in Greece section... That is definitely not neutral point of view, constantly stressing how awesome the Greek university hosts are when it's really not relevant... I would edit it myself except that I don't know anything about the event in question and have never edited Wikipedia before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.80.25 ( talk) 01:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jebus989 ( talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 19:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm happy to take this review. I've given the article a preliminary going over and will provide comments shortly. Jebus989 ✰ 19:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments Overall, this article will need a lot of work to bring to GA standards. Referencing is the primary concern but the overall organisation could also be improved, as could the weighting of certain sections.
Specifics:
There are other issues, mostly lack of references, but I will continue if/when points begin to be addressed. As more general commentary, I think the article is generally well-written, and handles difficult sections without bias. However, similarly to the Crick GA assessment, it is a solid B-class, but some way off a GA at the moment. Jebus989 ✰ 20:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Due to the serious lack of references and other issues above, I have failed this nomination and the article will not be promoted to GA at this time Jebus989 ✰ 11:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Being a Wikipedia editor does not give you the right to vandalise the FRANCIS CRICK and JAMES WATSON articles; the late Rosalind Franklin was not a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. Please desist P.Schrey!
Martin Packer, U.K. Researcher for "Francis Crick: Hunter of Life's Secrets" by Professor Robert Olby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.32.42 ( talk) 09:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The reverted edit was not vandalism but was not supported by the reference. The Nobel Prize citation in the article does not mention Franklin. Editor Schrey, if you think her role is being slighted, please provide reliable sources to back up edits. In the meantime, the James_D._Watson#Use_of_King.27s_College_results section covers the controversy quite well. -- Javaweb ( talk) 15:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
For the record ROSALIND FRANKLIN had no involvement in the "discovery of DNA" either; the structure of DNA was elucidated by JAMES WATSON and FRANCIS CRICK. No other editor will be able to prove otherwise. The suggestion that ROSALIND FRANKLIN was involved is not supported by the facts. M.D.P.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It looks like the comment preceding his resignation is a contentious topic, but can't we at least agree that that last sentence doesn't belong in the lead section? It looks like it's a definite case of undue weight, and just because the news received digital coverage doesn't mean that it takes precedent over the coverage for the long and distinguished career. (Someone reading this would presumably be familiar with the subject matter, so no need to list things out.) Unfortunately there was no Guardian or Associated Press to digitally pick up many of these stories when they broke, so the coverage is in print. The body of the article still goes over these comments. Dreambeaver (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing in this bio that covers the following -
In May of 1973, just four month after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion, James Watson (who won a Nobel prize for his work in discovering the double helix design of DNA) expressed his views. Writing in Prism, a publication of the American Medical Association, Watson stated, "If a child were noI t declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.96.4 ( talk) 06:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I removed that item because there is no source saying it's provocative. It's simply a quote from a book written by Watson. We can't use the encyclopedia's voice to assume a statement provocative. We need someone else saying it is, or commenting on it in some shape or fashion. As it stands, there's no justification for cherry picking that particular quote above any other in the book. I am removing it again per WP:BLPSOURCES specifically. This is a contentious, unsourced opinion about the book quotation. — Torchiest talk edits 21:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
He's just another jerk who got the Nobel. God, what else is new. It'd be great that after these people won their "prize" everybody just quit paying attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 ( talk) 00:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
What was this? Completely irrelevant rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc2467 ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
There was some assertion about genetic testing showing that "James Watson is 16% Black": http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/watsons-black-dna-ultimate-irony/?_r=0 can that be confirmed and should it be worked into the article? -- 41.150.200.56 ( talk) 12:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
James Watson. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
He is in the category "American people of African descent" but I cannot see any African or African-American ancestors mentioned in his "early years" section. But see above on genetic testing (16% African?) Hugo999 ( talk) 23:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
He did retire publicly around the 2007 controversy, but I remember him being reinstated soon thereafter. He is still listed as chacnellor emeritus to this day. http://www.cshl.edu/gradschool/Non-Research-Faculty/james-d-watson 168.7.235.141 ( talk) 20:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)bdg
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:James D Watson.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 6, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-04-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 23:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on James Watson. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I just reverted the latest edit by Landerman56, which he seems to have originally made here. This issue was discussed at great length:
And the consensus was that it does not belong in the article. Klortho ( talk) 16:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
This scientist provided no evidence. In fact this is what led to his resignation. The referenced material clearly agrees his comments were racist. If you personally disagree then you should edit the article and provide sourced evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to put it back since in the article it clearly states his comments were about skin color. Read his quote which is referenced in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Read the article that is referenced already. If that reference is invalid then please change it if you have substantial supporting documentation that it is wrong. If what he said was scientifically sound then please show the references to support his statements. Otherwise the reasoning for his comments is clear as the article states. If you disagree then that's your POV which is not based on fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Landerman56 shows a campaign is in progress and edits like this are edit warring, against consensus, and unencyclopedic editorial commentary. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The consensus for quite some time from the referenced material is the lead is fine as is. If you have further concerns you can source reputable references to back up your claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 July 2016
Follow up from the discussion above: it appears that this user, Landerman56, has been making disruptive edits to this page since 2007, and has often been suspected of being a sockpuppet account. I added more information about this to the complaint on the Admin noticeboard. I've never encountered this situation before -- any advice or help would be appreciated. Klortho ( talk) 23:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no disruption. I will continue to make good faith edits to this page. If anyone disagrees with the long established sourced material then I implore you to find new creditable sources. For example the term "geographic ancestry" was never used in any sourced material however the word "black" was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I've altered the sentence in the lead discussing Watson's 2007 remarks, for reasons described here Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive241#James_Watson. I presented background facts and arguments there and waited a considerable pause for responses from @ Ianmacm: and @ Landerman56:, frequent editors of this page who were engaged in discussion there. Now @ Klortho: has reverted my edit.
For reference, here is the new text:
With regard to the word racist, the comments are unambiguously racist, and this description is brought up by numerous RS (e.g., The Root and Henry Louis Gates, Slate The Atlantic, the Los Angeles Times). Prior discussion by @ Captain Occam: argued that "racist" is controversial because of have a blog post by Jason Malloy, identified in a New York Times article as: "Jason Malloy, 28, an artist in Madison, Wis., who wrote a defense of Dr. Watson for the widely read science blog Gene Expression." [2] Malloy is neither an expert on the psychology of intelligence, nor on what constitutes a racist remark, but he is an avid amateur researcher in the WP:FRINGE viewpoint of "human biodiversity," and runs a blog called humanvarieties.org.
With regard to the meaning of the comments, Watson himself acknowledged the implications of the remarks and apologized: "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways that they have. To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief." [3]
Racism is a political position, among other things, and it's completely possible for a statement to be objectively racist, just as a remark can be pro-abolition or anti-clerical.-- Carwil ( talk) 16:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The word racist is not inherently controversial. In the case of James Watson's comments it is a simple fact that they were racist. There is zero credible scientific evidence to back any controversy over this matter. James Watson himself has admitted they were and his views have been widely condemned as being racist. To say otherwise or to hide this does a disservice to our Wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for responding reasonably on the talk page. It really is a nice change. I think you've put your finger on the heart of this edit controversy: you say it has been repudiated, but it hasn't been. I can understand that anyone who believed that it has would feel that the narrative in the article should be woven around this crucial point. I think that's why I and others ofter make reference to the gene expression blog post even though it's not used a source -- because it's the best clear deconstruction of the core issues, and provides plenty of data and references that show that what Watson said is not only true, but comports with the consensus science in the relevant specialties. A lot of people, like me, who understand this, feel that the central theme of this story is an unjust persecution of one of our leading scientists. Regarding what should be in the article, I understand it needs to comport with WP:UNDUE, but at the very least, it should not perpetuate myths (and esp. not in WP voice) that led to this travesty in the first place.
So, in what way can you justify describing this as "widely repudiated"? Keep in mind that we're not even talking about the radioactively hot-button nature-nurture question. Your suggested edit implies that somehow, the hundreds of studies that have documented a gap in IQ test scores either are all fatally flawed, or else that IQ test scores have nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Klortho ( talk) 14:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Carwill on this and I think this change should be made immediately. I'll wait for further discussion however the personal opinion of a single editor will not further delay this very important update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The edit is completely reasonable change based on consensus on this page. Please do not revert thoroughly discussed edits. You may suggest an edit and we can then talk about it. The article as it stood was clearly misleading and a disservice to wikipedia readers. This change is more in line with other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Landerman56 (
talk •
contribs)
07:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC) -->
That blocked user seems to think that numerical tests do not result in statistics. See his last edit. Collect ( talk) 23:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
So, after the above discussion, acknowledgment from @ Klortho: that Watson's comments were "widely repudiated," and a week of silence, I made the edit inserting this phrase:
Now, @ Collect: has reverted with the unsatisfactory (to me) explanation "not. this is a clear overstepping at this point" and the rather limited argument above "consensus for the claims as worded in the edit essayed today fails." In short, there are editors who don't like this change. (Collect doesn't come out and claim to be one of them. But perhaps this will happen.) If there is an objection to the text, it had better be based on something more than "I don't like it."
Our BLP policy limits "Contentious material about living persons … that is unsourced or poorly sourced" but there is no question of sourcing here. There's as best I can tell no question that Watson's comments said that Africans and black Westerners are less intelligent. If anything, I've gone out of my way to not say "us" (his word) describes whites or Europeans. That this is verifiable can be seen by reading any of the sources writing on the controversy. Indeed, Klortho's argument above about why these comments are scientific (despite Watson's disavowal of their scientific merit) is precisely about the comparative intelligence of Africans and white Westerners.-- Carwil ( talk) 11:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Suggested wording
Which is in accord with his statements. The controversy about that statement is fully covered elsewhere in the biography. Collect ( talk) 12:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Landerman56 (
talk •
contribs)
13:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)-->
First: Headlines are not news articles. They are written by "headline writers" to get readers. Second, you do not have consensus here for your insisted-upon claim. The article you cite says "He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade." He also said that geographically separated groups will not have identical DNA. He does not say Blacks are inferior to others. Thus your source does not support your attempted claim. He does refer to testing statistics - but statistics are not "racist" as far as I can tell. So finally - if you want an RfC, try for one. Until then it is clear that WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS do not favour your crusade. Collect ( talk) 13:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help), andMy sense is that we're reaching a loop where arguments end with "well, it's not required by policy, but I don't like it." On the other side we have WP:LABEL (which discourages "controversial") and WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
I think that a WP:RFC may be the only way out of this. However, here are two more tries. Both would place a period after "2007." In both suggestions, I'm open to either "white people" or "others" being the text we use:
Patiently yours,-- Carwil ( talk) 21:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)