This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Savanna principle page were merged into Satoshi Kanazawa on 13 September 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
With Wikipedia's credibility always at stake, I wonder does this page meet the WP:PROF (notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements), or is it merely a vanity project?
IP address 90.206.101.27 removed my edit (I wasn't logged in) yesterday claiming it was inaccuarate:
However, flaws were later identified in the statistical analysis, meaning that many of the results were not statistically significant.Andrew Gelman (April 7,
2007). "Letter to the editors regarding some papers of Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa".
Journal of Theoretical Biology. 345 (3): 597–599.
doi:
10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.11.005. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
It was published in a peer-reviewed journal (the same one the original article was in)? Why is it inaccurate? - 3mta3 ( talk) 12:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added it back in, and changed the wording slightly so as to actually reflect the journal articles. - 3mta3 ( talk) 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand why certain mention of articles that refute Kanazawa's claim in his recent article. The point of the section "Academic Criticism" (which was changed to Psychology Today Controversy) is to insert facts about the controversy and what he wrote.
Kanazawa based his article much in part that Black women have higher testosterone levels than other women since "Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races." Kanazawa never gave a scientific study for this statement. In fact, an article by the University of Southern California based on a study by the Journal 'Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention' discovered that African-American women have naturally higher levels of estrogen than Caucasian women.
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/12897.html
Furthermore, a USA Today article based on a Swiss study showed that both Hispanic and Caucasian males have more naturally occurring testosterone levels than African males.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2009-03-11-testosterone-tests_N.htm
- Why is this being removed? There is a statement in this Wiki Article that refutes the results of the study Kanazawa came to so why can't all his results be refuted? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Airvenus (
talk •
contribs)
19:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Funny that no one (including this article's author/s) deemed it controversial that Kanazawa also stated that black men were more attractive than white (or asian) men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.68.51 ( talk) 05:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, an open letter concerning Kanazawa is mentioned but its referenced PDF is dead. Anyone find a new source for it? Henry Stanley ( talk) 15:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Made some edits and have left comments on BLP Noticeboard. -- BweeB ( talk) 20:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That version is extremely contrived. The attacks on Kanazawa began with Feministing ( [1]) and racialicious.com ( [2]) less than a day after the blog post. The review in Psychology Today was a week after, the letter to epjournal was two weeks after. Pretending that the scientists were the driving force is disingeous to the extreme. JORGENEV 22:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This guy has some hateful views on Muslims; advocated a Muslim holocaust (really he does). This stuff deserves a note somewhere.
From these two articles of his: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-we-are-losing-war http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201001/what-s-wrong-muslims
Article criticizing him: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/evolutionary-psychologist-says-black-women-are-scientifically-ugly-advocates-muslim-holocaust/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.67.59 ( talk) 03:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
---I created the section with a brief summary of the first article. The second article takes some more time to make note of. I did read the second though. It is clear he does not like Muslims and flaunts weak data and juvenile logic to support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.67.59 ( talk) 03:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE ---Seems like one user is accusing me of taking a quote out of context. The quote was, unfortunately, accurate in representing his opinion.
For now another user has sided with him and any mention of his views on Muslims has been taken out.
Maybe my addition was bloated. I still feel some note, in a new section, should be made of his comments on Muslims. ---
The current article reads "In May 2011, he [...] hypothesized that the rater's preference for physical markers of estrogen levels, which he asserted were lower in blacks, was the culprit", and cites the article in Psychology Today (though there is no link). As can be seen here and in PDF here, the article does not mention estrogen.
Later in the paragraph it says "His explanation has generally been considered incorrect as there is no evidence that black women have lower levels of estrogen than other groups" with a link to this article at the Scientific American. The article does present evidence that black women do not have lower levels of estrogen, though as I've noted Kanazawa does not mention estrogen. He does say "The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone". And the article does say "Yet high estrogen levels and low testosterone is a leading cause of fibroids, which significantly impact Black women, especially Black women who are overweight", though this is less compelling.
I'm going to remove these statements and maybe the paragraph can be filled out later. Genialimbecile ( talk) 06:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Re this: the source uses "mischaracterised", and there really ought to be no difficulty in our using a close synonym for that word: "misrepresented". Okay? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The reference to "Sinned against, not sinning" by 23 "scientists" defending Kanazawa was thankfully removed from the intro by User:Volunteer Marek with the edit summary:
This information should be present (and sourced) next to the remaining reference made to the piece.-- Jules.LT ( talk) 14:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Satoshi Kanazawa. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
As written, this is a smear piece.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 17:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
https://tishushu.tumblr.com/post/5548905092/here-is-the-psychology-today-article-by Family Guy Guy ( talk) 20:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Savanna principle page were merged into Satoshi Kanazawa on 13 September 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
With Wikipedia's credibility always at stake, I wonder does this page meet the WP:PROF (notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements), or is it merely a vanity project?
IP address 90.206.101.27 removed my edit (I wasn't logged in) yesterday claiming it was inaccuarate:
However, flaws were later identified in the statistical analysis, meaning that many of the results were not statistically significant.Andrew Gelman (April 7,
2007). "Letter to the editors regarding some papers of Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa".
Journal of Theoretical Biology. 345 (3): 597–599.
doi:
10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.11.005. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
It was published in a peer-reviewed journal (the same one the original article was in)? Why is it inaccurate? - 3mta3 ( talk) 12:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added it back in, and changed the wording slightly so as to actually reflect the journal articles. - 3mta3 ( talk) 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand why certain mention of articles that refute Kanazawa's claim in his recent article. The point of the section "Academic Criticism" (which was changed to Psychology Today Controversy) is to insert facts about the controversy and what he wrote.
Kanazawa based his article much in part that Black women have higher testosterone levels than other women since "Africans on average have higher levels of testosterone than other races." Kanazawa never gave a scientific study for this statement. In fact, an article by the University of Southern California based on a study by the Journal 'Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention' discovered that African-American women have naturally higher levels of estrogen than Caucasian women.
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/12897.html
Furthermore, a USA Today article based on a Swiss study showed that both Hispanic and Caucasian males have more naturally occurring testosterone levels than African males.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2009-03-11-testosterone-tests_N.htm
- Why is this being removed? There is a statement in this Wiki Article that refutes the results of the study Kanazawa came to so why can't all his results be refuted? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Airvenus (
talk •
contribs)
19:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Funny that no one (including this article's author/s) deemed it controversial that Kanazawa also stated that black men were more attractive than white (or asian) men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.68.51 ( talk) 05:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, an open letter concerning Kanazawa is mentioned but its referenced PDF is dead. Anyone find a new source for it? Henry Stanley ( talk) 15:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Made some edits and have left comments on BLP Noticeboard. -- BweeB ( talk) 20:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That version is extremely contrived. The attacks on Kanazawa began with Feministing ( [1]) and racialicious.com ( [2]) less than a day after the blog post. The review in Psychology Today was a week after, the letter to epjournal was two weeks after. Pretending that the scientists were the driving force is disingeous to the extreme. JORGENEV 22:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This guy has some hateful views on Muslims; advocated a Muslim holocaust (really he does). This stuff deserves a note somewhere.
From these two articles of his: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-we-are-losing-war http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201001/what-s-wrong-muslims
Article criticizing him: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/evolutionary-psychologist-says-black-women-are-scientifically-ugly-advocates-muslim-holocaust/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.67.59 ( talk) 03:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
---I created the section with a brief summary of the first article. The second article takes some more time to make note of. I did read the second though. It is clear he does not like Muslims and flaunts weak data and juvenile logic to support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.67.59 ( talk) 03:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE ---Seems like one user is accusing me of taking a quote out of context. The quote was, unfortunately, accurate in representing his opinion.
For now another user has sided with him and any mention of his views on Muslims has been taken out.
Maybe my addition was bloated. I still feel some note, in a new section, should be made of his comments on Muslims. ---
The current article reads "In May 2011, he [...] hypothesized that the rater's preference for physical markers of estrogen levels, which he asserted were lower in blacks, was the culprit", and cites the article in Psychology Today (though there is no link). As can be seen here and in PDF here, the article does not mention estrogen.
Later in the paragraph it says "His explanation has generally been considered incorrect as there is no evidence that black women have lower levels of estrogen than other groups" with a link to this article at the Scientific American. The article does present evidence that black women do not have lower levels of estrogen, though as I've noted Kanazawa does not mention estrogen. He does say "The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone". And the article does say "Yet high estrogen levels and low testosterone is a leading cause of fibroids, which significantly impact Black women, especially Black women who are overweight", though this is less compelling.
I'm going to remove these statements and maybe the paragraph can be filled out later. Genialimbecile ( talk) 06:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Re this: the source uses "mischaracterised", and there really ought to be no difficulty in our using a close synonym for that word: "misrepresented". Okay? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The reference to "Sinned against, not sinning" by 23 "scientists" defending Kanazawa was thankfully removed from the intro by User:Volunteer Marek with the edit summary:
This information should be present (and sourced) next to the remaining reference made to the piece.-- Jules.LT ( talk) 14:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Satoshi Kanazawa. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
As written, this is a smear piece.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 17:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
https://tishushu.tumblr.com/post/5548905092/here-is-the-psychology-today-article-by Family Guy Guy ( talk) 20:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)