This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Academic Journals This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article. History of Science This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view. Gmeisenberg ( talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article. Anamika1988 ( talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. Deleet ( talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article. This user has declared a connection. ( [1])

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

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Mankind Quarterly, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included: Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles. Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not. Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited. Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies ( neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

Archives

Archive 1

I was manually looking up scholar google for Mankind Quarterly articles to find those with "political activism from the extreme rightwing of the political spectrum." Perhaps I didn't take enough time, but I couldn't find any rightwing political activism there. The "political" issues I found discussed there by some authors were mainly about educational policy in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and similar places. Interesting note: Omar Khaleefa, who published several articles in the Mankind Quarterly, disappeared some years ago after running up against Sudanese authorities because of his advocacy for educational reforms in the country. If political activism is so important for Wikipedia, should this be mentioned in the article? At least, because the article is only about politics, can the editors please add citations of articles that were actually written in the journal that qualify as rightwing political activism? Then readers can verify whether the claims of political activism are justified, or whether it's all bogus and slander. The present article seems to have not a single source of this kind cited. I couldn't even find much about genetic explanations of race differences. In one debate about geographic differences in economy and IQ, the controversy was only between the importance of sunlight versus the importance of economic history (Federico Leon & Mayra Antonelli-Ponti (2018): UV radiation theory and the Lynn (2010) Italy debate. Mankind Quarterly 58, 621-649. Vittorio Daniele: Solar radiation, IQ and regional disparities in Italy. Mankind Quarterly 58, 654-665). None of the commentators defended genetic explanations. An article about a journal should be about what is actually written in the journal, not about what dubious outside sources have at various times claimed about it. Doesn't Wikipedia have a "neutral point of view" policy? Anamika1988 ( talk) 13:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources with a strong preference for independent sources. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. According to those reliable sources, Mankind has a long history of whitewashing extremist pseudoscience by presenting it as mainstream, or by distorting the underlying statistics. Your personal research into the journal doesn't change that. Wikipedia isn't a platform for fringe pseudoscience. Grayfell ( talk) 20:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Including a reference in an article is not publishing original research. References and links are required to give readers the means to verify the claims made in the article. Most of the references cited are polemics by fringe individuals (Kincheloe etc). These are not works by reputable scholars and are not "reliable sources" about the journal. They are reliable sources only about the subculture to which these authors belong. The claims of these individuals can be verified or falsified by factual information about the journal, but the article systematically suppresses this information. For example, there is the claim that it is a white supremacist journal, but the article does not mention what proportion of editors and authors are of mainstream white origin. The journal website shows immediately that many are not. Few of the editors and authors are from places where white supremacists are endemic. You refuse to cite evidence that would support or invalidate your claims. Systematically excluding evidence is not Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is that every substantive claim made in an article needs to be supported by evidence. In this case, the only evidence that can support or refute the claims made is what has been written in the Mankind Quarterly. These sources belong in the reference list. You must provide evidence whenever a substantive claim is made. For example, when you claim Newton wrote that the sun revolves around the Earth, you have to cite the work in which Newton made that statement. You cannot refuse to do so by claiming Newton was a heretic and therefore is not a reliable source. I can only conclude that you do not want readers to inspect the factual sources of the statements made in the article. Anamika1988 ( talk) 17:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC) reply

This is indeed a strange article. Because it is so adamant that Mankind Quarterly as a hereditarian and racist journal, I took the time to check this on google scholar. For the early years I got only the abstracts, but some of the recent stuff is there full text. This is what I found: In the sixties, when there was a good deal of controversy, the journal was indeed "racist" in the sense that about half of the articles were related to racial characteristics or race differences, both physical and mental/cultural. This went down only a bit in the 70s, but from 1980 to the present, there was very little related to race, less than 10%. This is in part because the physical anthropology which the journal covered prominently in the 60s and 70s was replaced by cultural anthropology since about 1980, especially of the historical kind. People like Edgar Polome and Marija Gimbutas were contributors at that time. Throughout the 80s and to some extent later, the Mankind Quarterly is better described as a journal of historical anthropology, and certainly not a "racist" journal. Most recently, the emphasis shifted again, and now a large part is about developing countries and especially IQ studies from these countries. Richard Lynn is a coauthor of most of these. Nothing of this is reflected in the Wikipedia article.

About the characterization of the journal as "hereditarian", I checked the discussion sections of some of the more recent papers that were available full text. Here I found that some authors who wrote about IQ in exotic countries or sex differences and similar attributed their results to cultural and environmental causes while others preferred genetic or other biological explanations. But mostly the papers are empirical and simply present their results. Without access to full text I can only guess that this was different in the 60s and 70s, but more recently there isn't much of a hereditarian slant. I also found very little related to eugenics for all periods, all the way from 1960 to present. Not zero, but less than 5%. Again this is not what I expected based on the Wikipedia article.

Some of the "reliable sources" that Grayfell mentions are more than suspect. When I looked up the reference in Kincheloe's "measured lies", I found that on the same page (page 39) from which the Wikipedia article quotes, the author writes that "contributors and advisors to the Mankind Quarterly include Corrado Gini and Ottmar von Vershauer". Kincheloe did not seem to know (or care) that these people were long dead when he wrote this in 1996. Corrado Gini died 1965, and Otmar von Verschuer (not Ottmar von Vershauer) died 1969. Some other sources, including William Tucker and Gavin Schaffer, are more scholarly, not as scientists but as historians. Their writings about the Mankind Quarterly are mainly about its role in the 60s and to some extent the 70s. We have to be cautious about these sources, too. They belong to an intellectual tradition that tends to attribute progress in behavioral genetics and intelligence research to a racist conspiracy. This is not mainstream and it limits the credibility of these sources.

Perhaps this is research and therefore not acceptable for Wikipedia, but this kind of information is publicly available for everyone who bothers to look it up, and Wikipedia articles shouldn't disseminate things that just aren't true. Burlika ( talk) 13:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply

It can't be a coincidence that in the last few weeks we've had User:Burlika whose only edit is to this page, User:Anamika1988 who only seems to be editing MQ related pages with their 18 edits, and now the above editor whose first edit is here. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The other SPA was Gmeisenberg... It possibly could be the same person, although old accounts seem abandoned, avoiding concurrent edits... — Paleo Neonate – 23:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Concerning the sources, the article already says that the journal was criticized during the "Bell Curve wars". The Bell Curve wars were polemic rather than scientific in nature. Therefore there is no disagreement about the nature of the sources. In addition, the quotations from these sources in the article prove that these are polemical rather than scholarly sources. No serious scholar would write about "tainted sources", "scientific racism's keepers of the flame" etc. It is also agreed that only one side in the Bell Curve wars is cited in the article. So much about NPOV. More to the point, the article has very little verifiable information about the journal. It's mainly name-calling. Therefore I just made a few cautious additions to remedy this deficiency, without deleting anything: 1. Added one more sentence about the kinds of articles that the journal publishes, and another one about the subjects that are most prominently represented in the journal. Justification: This is standard information about academic journals. The additions reflect the content of recently published articles (all available on Google Scholar), and are essential information about any journal. 2. I folded the section about editors into the introductory part. Justification: This is basic information about the journal that should be up front. We are not dealing with a big and important journal justifying an article with many sections. 3. One sentence with information about geographical origins of the editorial board members is added. Justification: In addition to place of publication, this provides additional information about the geographical reach of the journal. This is especially important here because international orientation is a main feature of the journal. This is also reflected in the authors. According to Google Scholar, of the 61 authors who published in Mankind Quarterly in 2017, 19 were from Europe, 9 from North America or Oceania, 7 from the former Soviet Union, 14 from Middle East or North Africa, 6 from Asia, 4 from Latin America or the Caribbean, and 2 from sub-Saharan Africa. An unusually large percentage of 45% of articles qualified as international collaborations. While info about authors may be prohibited research, the origins of the editors are simple factual information verifiable with a single citation. 4. One sentence from the introductory (and main) part has been moved to the Criticism section. Justification: This sentence consists of quotes from activists mainly from the time of the Bell Curve Wars. It is puerile name-calling with zero factual information, therefore it doesn’t belong here. We have to separate the adult stuff from the culture warfare. Yucahu ( talk) 22:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Why did you post this here, and not the section above? This comment doesn't relate to this topic, making it disruptive. You still haven't answered Doug Weller's questions, which is important. Constantly introducing new complaints while ignoring other people's responses is not appropriate behavior.

Further, all of your comments, and most of the comments of your "predecessors" on this page, have been original research. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. If a reliable source compiles this information and presents the conclusion that the journal has somehow rehabilitated its abysmal reputation, let's see it. As a primary, involved sources with an abysmal reputation for accuracy and fact checking, Mankind is not a reliable source for anything other than the most routine, least controversial details. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy or promotion, and as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is especially not interested in whitewashing WP:FRINGE topics like scientific racism.

So, regarding this topic. Right now Gmeisenberg, Burlika, Anamika1988, and now Yucahu are all SPAs, all use the same formal grammar and wall-of-text long paragraphs, show enthusiasm for sampling the journal itself to WP:SYNTH conclusions about its ideology, are strongly familiar with the journal's history and contributors, and are only shallowly familiar with NPOV. I consider SPI a last resort, but if this becomes any more disruptive than it already is, I will start one. Grayfell ( talk) 23:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Grayfell, you are obfuscating things. What new complaints are you talking about? The fact is simply that we have here a crappy article with zero factual information. It is an embarrassment for Wikipedia. All the edits that I made and that you deleted were pieces of factual information. Describing kinds of articles published by the journal is not research. Listing journal content is not research. And listing national origins of editors from the journal website is not research. Why do you not want this in the article? Info of this kind is standard in articles about academic journals. You are abusing the No Research argument to keep relevant information out of the article. You mention scientific racism. So you admit that you have an agenda, and that factual information of the kind that I added doesn’t fit with your agenda. Right? Please describe your agenda. What are the claims that you are pushing? Be specific. What is uncontroversial is that the journal was founded by people who believed in the importance of race differences at a time when this view was falling out of favor due to political developments. Although it is sectarian jargon and therefore not very appropriate for Wikipedia, you can call this “scientific racism” if you like, in the same sense that others have written about “international finance Jewry” to describe certain real-world phenomena. The origin of the journal belongs in a specific historical context more than half a century ago. What you seem to claim is that the journal is racist now. If this is your point, you have to provide verifiable evidence for this. Facts, in other words, not remote guilt by association and retweets of ancient tirades. You have not done this. If you can find verifiable evidence, this should be included in the article, together with any available counterevidence. That’s how things are meant to work. Yucahu ( talk) 16:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

We need independent sources, not editors, to describe the journal. We would normally list only people who are notable enough to have their own articles, and rely upon those articles to mention their national origins. That's the way we work - or rather should work, you will always find articles that don't follow our policies and guidelines. The term "scientific racism" is perfectly appropriate, by the way. I'm concerned about your comment about people writing about "international finance Jewry" to describe real-world phenomenon. If you want another editor to discuss their agenda, perhaps you should explain that first. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The proposal is not to list individual editors, either with or without their countries, but only the countries where editors come from. This is not done with most journals, but should be done here because the presence of people from developing countries (e.g., Middle East) and historically excluded ones (e.g., ex-Soviet Union) is sufficiently unique that it provides important information about the journal, for example for people from these countries who want to submit a paper for publication. The independent source is the journal website. The analogy between scientific racism and international finance Jewry is obvious. Both terms are "ethnic markers" that identify the writer as member of a (fringe) community. Both were created to disparage people (Jews and scientists, respectively), and both are associated with conspiracy theories. Hitler blamed international finance Jewry for the German defeats in both world wars (therefore the holocaust), and those fighting scientific racism blame scientists for the problems of minority groups in America. That's why it looks bad to have this stuff in Wikipedia articles, except those that deal specifically with these ideologies. The broader problem with this article is that it has all the trappings of an attack page on some snarky portal. There is the sectarian lingo, the retweeted insults, selective omission of facts, twisting of sentences to imply things for which no evidence is presented... We should not underestimate the intelligence of Wikipedia users. When people read the Wikipedia article and then they check the abstracts on the journal website or the published papers on Google Scholar, they will conclude that the Wikipedia article is rubbish. Actually, they will conclude that immediately when they read the article. At the very least, the article should be structured properly to present only basic info about the (real)journal in the lead, only info about the history in the history section, and only info about controversies in the criticism section. Yucahu ( talk) 17:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply

THe journal is not an independent source, we would need independent secondary sources showing that the origin of the editors is signficant, see WP:UNDUE. And no, the lead is a summary of the article, we aren't going to keep any of the main points out of the lead. See WP:LEAD. You are asking us to break our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Struck sock edits this time as User:Grayfell has also replied. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply

There is some edit-warring going on about whether this (admittedly crappy) journal should be described as "peer-reviewed academic journal". Some editors want to remove this as "puffery", but in my eyes, neither "peer-reviewed" nor "academic" are badges of honor, but just neutral descriptors. Being a "peer-reviewed academic journal" does not guarantee that the peer-review is actually good or that the academic stuff is not perhaps in the realm of fringe or even pseudoscience. -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

For now I will accept that this is peer reviewed in some capacity, and "academic" is vague enough to be a distraction. So if these are accurate, does that mean they belong in the first sentence? Are these descriptors helping people to understand the topic, or are they confusing things by emphasizing specific qualities beyond their significance? Peer review exists as an assurance of quality, to put it simply. Why else bother with this process? So while, of course, the reviews might be terrible or incompetent or conflicted, the underlying assumption is that this is a positive trait. Otherwise it would be no more significant that the font size or mailing address or similar trivial qualities. In this sense it's a lot like "award winning". The awards could be "Worst of the year" but that's not what's implied, and that's the problem. As I see it, indirectly implying that something is a positive trait, and listing it as a defining trait, is a form of puffery. Grayfell ( talk) 23:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Well-said. To the average reader, these descriptions are badges indicating that the journal is respectable and reliable. Sure, many of us know that there are too many predatory journals (this one isn't predatory) that also use that description, but we aren't the average reader. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Do we have articles on Astrology journals that are described as "peer-reviewed academic journals"? If so, then this journal could also be so described, no? Pascalulu88 ( talk) 01:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think we should adapt our writing because we think our readers aren't sophisticated enough to understand us. And as soon as people read beyond the opening phrase, they'll see that this is generally considered to be a crappy journal, peer review and academic notwithstanding. But let me propose an alternative wording that might satisfy us all, by just reordering the lead a bit:

Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed academic journal that has been described as a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment" and a "white supremacist journal",[1] "scientific racism's keepers of the flame",[2] a journal with a "racist orientation" and an "infamous racist journal",[3] and a "journal of 'scientific racism'".[4] It covers physical and cultural anthropology, including human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, linguistics, mythology, archaeology, etc., and aims to unify anthropology with biology. It is published by the Ulster Institute for Social Research in London.

How about this? -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply

I think it makes more sense to describe what a journal covers before quoting a barrage of descriptions from critics. If you were describing a book to someone, would you first give them quotes from a bunch of reviews (e.g. "most thorough book written", "extreme in detail") and then tell the person what the book is about (e.g. history of Roman Empire)? Probably not. So I would reverse the order above, but the version above is OK with me as well. Deleet ( talk) 17:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply

There's a double standard being employed here which no one seems to be highlighting: If we are to claim that, because a descriptor has secondary positive effects, we should be weary about including said descriptor in the first line or even at all, we would have to apply this consideration to every article. We don't because Wikipedia aims for neutrality, and the only reason why there's controversy here is because this journal has been accused of scientific racism and the people removing the descriptors don't want to give the journal any incidental praise even if the descriptors are factually true. It is as though there were a band of people meticulously editing Adolf Hitler's article opening paragraph to remove descriptors like "dictator" and "leader", in fear that, by leaving descriptors which incidentally praise him, we are somehow complicit in creating a soapbox for anti-Semitism. This is bias, full stop. 2601:42:800:A9DB:247A:471F:BF64:D64D ( talk) 22:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Bottom line is that you need independent reliable sources for "peer reviewed" and "academic". That's all there is to it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• But we can call it a journal, can we? Or do we need an independent source for that, too? Should we call it a periodical? Any source for that? Do we have an independent source for who publishes it? No? Then that should go, too. Any independent source for who the editor-in-chief is? Or do we throw that out, too? This is getting ridiculous. Saying that it is a peer-reviewed academic journal is as much puffery as saying that it's cover is read (oops, we have no independent source for that, just the cover itself). -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply

I took the time to look for some sources for this, mainly using Google Books and Google Scholar. Here's some I found:

• The Cattell Controversy: Race, Science, and Ideology, p. 148: "only five years earlier in the Mankind Quarterly, the academic journal that had spearheaded the scientific attempt to prevent blacks from obtaining equal opportunity"
• Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science p. 304: "he has also published the academic, racist journal the Mankind Quarterly."
• Index Copernicus: "MQ is a peer-reviewed academic journal of anthropology in its widest sense, including psychology, behavioral genetics, cultural behavior, mythology and history of religion."
• Kentucky Tech anthropology guide: The journals that are peer reviewed are marked with an asterisk, including Mankind Quarterly.

@ Randykitty: Could you give your input about how to proceed? It seems clear from the discussion on this page that there isn't consensus for the removal of the terms "peer reviewed" and "academic", and the editors restoring this change have not engaged with the arguments against it.

There is a similar situation on the Linda Gottfredson article, involving the same two editors, so I'd appreciate you giving your input there as well. Deleet ( talk) 05:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Hi, thanks for these sources. The Index Copernicus is not very important (they mostly present user-contributed stuff) and close to being "fake", but the books are fine. What should be done here is clear. For years this article started with "peer-reviewed" and "academic" in the first sentence of the lead. This was boldly changed in mid-December, but then challenged. Per WP:BOLD, this means that the stable version should be restored and the issue discussed on the talk page. I also note that this article is under discretionary sanctions. What should happen is that the editor who has been edit-warring to keep "academic" and "peer-reviewed" out of the lead would self-revert until the discussion here comes to a consensus to change the lead. As for the Gottfredson article, yes, I saw that something similar is going on there. For the moment I don't intend to get involved, but I would like to warn any editors involved that that article is also under discretioonary sanctions (and they should especially read what is said on the talk page about "tag team editing". -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Given the silence here, I am going to restore the long-term stable version (i.e. "peer-reviewed academic journal"). As there was disagreement about my compromise proposal, I will not implement that at this time. Please do not revert back until consensus has been reached at this discussion. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply

The Cattell link doesn't contain the cited text on 148, but it certainly says some things about Mankind's reputation. Perhaps the book itself does, but the linked version doesn't describe the journal as academic or peer-reviewed. At least, not for me, but Google is like that, so... The available content on the journal describes it not as a scientific or academic work, but as part of a walled garden of scientific racism. A source which characterizes the journal in ideological terms cannot be used to justify a vague, unsupportable adjective implying its methodological legitimacy. This is directly contrary to the substance of the source, which is to discount the journal's legitimacy.

The Aryan Idols source also seems to have difficulty with Google's OCR, but if we wanted to call it "academic, racist journal" we would be having a different conversation, wouldn't we?

As noted, the Index Copernicus page is a routine listing which was almost certainly provided by the journal itself, making it useless. The last one is even more flimsy. What is the Kentucky Tech "anthropology guide"? It appears to be a single page handout for undergrad class or similar. No author or instructor or anything at all explaining what it is or where it came from other than the URL. Without context, it's absolutely nothing.

I'm sure there are more sources that someone with a point to prove could cobble together, but that's not good practice. Anybody can google "mankind quarterly peer review" and regurgitate it on a talk page. We judge sources in context, and the two usable source presented strongly support a context of racism and pseudoscience first, with other qualities as secondary. Ignoring the context to pull adjectives out of a source is cherry-picking. Nobody is disputing that these terms apply, in some broad sense, we are disputing that they belong as part of the very first sentence, and we are disputing that they provide a neutral, helpful summary to readers.

So again, which reliable sources treat "peer reviewed" as a defining trait, above and beyond "racist"? Grayfell ( talk) 02:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

You're turning things around. For 99.9% of all academic journals on which we have articles, we accept "peer-reviewed academic journal" if a periodical describes itself as such. Just as we accept "monthly journal" from their own website, without asking for an independent source. Then, if there are peer-review failures that have been documented (think Sokal hoax, for example), we discuss those in the article. The same should be done here. MQ describes itself as "peer-reviewed academic journal". We have good sources that tell us that this is basically an academic "walled garden" as you call it. We also have good sources that document that it publishes crap and is a racist rag. All that stuff belongs in the article. But just as we accept MQ's claim that they publish on a quarterly basis, just so should we call it a "peer-reviewed academic journal". There really is no risk that people will only read the first line and think "wow, this is a respected journal!" In addition, we could modify the first line as I proposed above and then even a lazy reader who doesn't go farther than the first line knows exactly what they are dealing with. I'm pinging DGG, who as academic librarian may have something to contribute to this discussion. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Peer-reviewed academic journal is a very loose descriptor. The nature and rigor of the review in different journals can vary very widely. Even some of the parasitic journals are technically peer-reviewed--the articles are indeed set out for review, but the recommendation is expected to be to accept them, and almost always is. Judging the quality of the peer review is a key step in evaluating a journal. There are common small abuses of the system--papers written by members of the editorial board are sometimes not reviewed further, or sent to reviewers who will know to recommend they be accepted. This was the case for 2 papers of mine (admittedly in a second rate journal), but also for one in a first rate journal where my advisor was the North American editor. Some journals of the highest standard have not been formally peer reviewed. In earlier years PNAS would publish anything submitted by a member of the academy, and Nature under a previous editor sometimes published papers just atthe editor's discretion.

There are also exceptions to peer review in journals that are basically peer-reviewed. If there is a news or editorial section, material there is usually published at the discretion of the editor. If the first article in an issue is a review, as is the case for many journals, the reviews are done by invitation of the editor, and are not necessarily pee-reviewed. Book reviews are almost never peer-reviewed, and it is at the discretion of the editor to send a book to a friend or enemy of the book's author. If the journal publishes a special issue, the papers are accepted at the discretion of the special issue editor--they maybe sent for review, or they may not. Once when I edited a special issue, I made sure everything was peer reviewed, because some of the authors I wanted could claim credit only for explicitly peer-reviewed articles.

With respect to MQ, peer review is not a ay or avoiding bias. Editors use their own judgement is deciding where to send articles for review. In any field where there is consistent major controversy, there are normally journals whose editors tend to support each of the positions, and the articles are sent to reviewers of the same persuasion. There have been fields where all the major journals have been of one particular position, and that leaves authors of another tendency the choice between getting their friends together and starting a new journal, or publishing in a more general journal, sometimes an obscure one that may never have heard of the controversy.

It's a very rough standard. To use it as the only standard in the academic world indicates in my opinion less than first rate academic judgement, whether by an instructor in limiting sources used for a student paper, or academic administrators evaluating faculty for tenure. But it is in wide use, and it's one of the basic things people want to know. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you for that helpful perspective.

As I said multiple times, I don't think anyone is disputing that Mankind is peer-reviewed in some capacity, so that's not the issue I have with it being in the lede. We should be clear about what the goal of this Wikipedia article is. I absolutely do think that some editors will read the first sentence and then misinterpret that to mean this is a respected journal. This is a legitimate risk, and giving misleading impressions is the kind of thing Wikipedia should be concerned about for obvious reasons. As DGG points out, it's clearly not as simple as a basic fact, since it's often used as a pass/fail test for legitimacy, but its a flawed one, at best. People who have experience with academic publishing are going to have different perspectives on this than people who don't. We have to accommodate that and hopefully explain this in language both audiences will understand.

This is about describing this specific journal as academic and peer reviewed. This journal is primarily known for its ideological slant and historical association with pseudoscience. If other journals with similar documented histories have similar issues let me know (seriously), and perhaps we should discuss this elsewhere. We have to evaluate this article based on its own sources and its own merits.

Again, I do think a significant subset of readers are likely to see "peer reviewed" and "academic", misinterpret what that actually means, and read no further. The lede, and even the the first few words of the lede, are frequently the only thing people see. It's tempting to be dismissive of this as lazy, but there are legitimate reasons for this, especially for mobile users. Grayfell ( talk) 22:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• In that case I would once again like to point to my compromise proposal above, which avoids any misinterpretation, even if all people read is the first sentence of the article. -- Randykitty ( talk) 05:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, absolutely. I would accept this as an improvement over the current wording. The first paragraph should mention two things: what it is (an anthropology journal), and why it's noteworthy (very poor reputation, racism). If "peer reviewed" fits into that, that's fine, but we should be careful not to create a false impression. I admit this is awkward and seemingly fussy, but this is important. Grayfell ( talk) 23:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC) reply

We must remember that “sending the right message” is secondary to describing the journal in an encyclopedic manner. The lede should first include its description as a peer-reviewed academic journal and the branches of science it specializes in, before the charged criticisms are noted. It is neutral and fair to add them at the end of the lede since many independent sources do address the journal as such, but to include them in the first sentence is contrary to how we address other journals and denies the journal fair representation. That said, I agree with Randy’s proposal so long as the order is reversed — fair description first, criticism second. 2601:42:800:A9DB:B127:69FF:2D5E:EA54 ( talk) 05:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Nobody said anything about "sending the right message", and I'm not sure what's encyclopedic about misleading information. Ignoring context and reliable sources to treat this journal like other, superficially similar journals is not impartial, it's partial. They are specifically saying that this isn't like other, respected journals. Presenting this as similar to other journals implies it has a level of credibility which has not been demonstrated by any reliable source I have seen. We treat this journal in proportion to how sources treat it. That's how Wikipedia determines "fair representation". Therefor we should not feel obligated to present this the same as other journals. Sources do not treat this as prestigious or even legitimate, they treat it as obscure, pseudo-scientific and fringe. There's nothing wrong with writing a Wikipedia article to clearly indicate what sources say about a topic. Grayfell ( talk) 00:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply

I fail to see what is "misleading" about saying that this is a peer-reviewed journal of scientific racism. Obviously, the "peers" reviewing for such a journal would be other scientific racists, otherwise it would soon stop being racist and rejoin mainstream science. And like it or not, but many of these scientific racists (for example, J. Philippe Rushton, Glayde Whitney, Arthur Jensen, or Gerhard Meisenberg) are academics, so what's the problem with calling the journal they publish in an "academic journal"? Being an academic (just like being an academic journal) does not mean that one is a good academic. It's just a job description. Same for peer-reviewed. Now if you have sources that state that the peer-review here is non-existent or crappy, that can be added to the article (just as we do for predatory publishers such as OMICS Publishing Group). In any case, the article and its sources already make it abundantly clear that this is a crappy journal, even with "peer-reviewed academic" included. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply

This source is cited at Roger Pearson (anthropologist) for the claim that Pearson used many pseudonyms for the journal to praise and review his own work:

• Tucker, William H. (2007). The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. University of Illinois Press. ISBN  978-0-252-07463-9. {{ cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv ( help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored ( help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored ( help)

I don't currently have access to this source, so I am not willing to add or remove it from an article, but I accept that this claim is valid. This is not real peer review, this is deception.

If we accept that the "peers" might not be credible or reliable, or even exist, why does being peer reviewed actually matter? To me, this starts to look similar to "award winning". It's implying something that might be factually accurate, but which doesn't seem particularly meaningful either way. Even without this, a journal which is peer-reviewed by pseudoscientists (such as scientific racists) is, fundamentally, no more legitimate than one which is not peer reviewed at all. So who, other than scientific racists, actually cares? This is why it seems misleading. People who don't fully understand what "peer reviewed" means might not realize the significance of this detail, and those who already accept scientific racism aren't going to care either way. So why should we?

I have mixed feelings about "academic". It is potentially promotional, but this is an academic journal, not a general magazine, and the term makes this clear. Grayfell ( talk) 01:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Per my now-defunct Quackford English Ducktionary, this is not peer-reviewed, it's appear-reviewed. :-) Guy ( Help!) 17:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply

"Appear-reviewed"! Yes.

I have made Randykitty's proposed change, since there seems to be total consensus among unblocked editors.

I'm going to try and track down Tucker's book, and if it's useful, I will expand this article based on that. If this does challenge the legitimacy of this "peer review", we can reevaluate at that time. Grayfell ( talk) 22:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

The other thing to consider is that our emphasis and WP:DUE weight depends on the weight and focus of the sources. If they describe themselves as peer-reviewed, but that gets little focus or attention in the sources, then it shouldn't be given prominence in the article, either. Or, more specifically - what sources are we relying on to describe it as peer-reviewed? It is obviously not a RS about anything and this is clearly too self-serving a claim to be cited via WP:ABOUTSELF. Neither do I think that the indexes and lists above are sufficient - they generally rely on self-reporting; they're not actual RS coverage. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

User:IntoThinAir, I saw your edit with the Mehler, Barry (December 1989) source. Do you think you could find something newer? I don't object to the edit or source, but as noted in WP:RS would be nice to have a more recent one. Deleet ( talk) 15:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply

"Mankind Quarterly" is not a reliable source for its own article. There is long-standing consensus for the current lead and several reliable sources are provided explaining why the journal is regarded as controversial. Mathsci ( talk) 00:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

As I've said before, I do not think the lead properly explains just how fringe this journal is. Emphasizing its peer-reviewed status as a simplistic fact still falsely implies a level of legitimacy which is not supported by reliable independent sources.

I just came across this incident from 2020:

• Agrawal, Nina (31 October 2020). "A Cal State professor published eugenics-linked papers. Now come calls for a reckoning". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 3 September 2022.
• Fagone, Jason (1 November 2020). "An East Bay professor is teaching racist theories on intelligence. Students and faculty want him out". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 3 September 2022.
• Reichman, Hank (2 November 2020). "Complaints About Professor Highlight Differences Between Free Speech and Academic Freedom". ACADEME BLOG. American Association of University Professors. Retrieved 3 September 2022. - WP:NEWSBLOG?
• Marasigan, Kelsey. "Academic Senate Votes to Censure Eugenics Professor". The Pioneer (student paper). Retrieved 3 September 2022.

Gregory Christainsen is an economist and emeritus professor at California State University, East Bay. He's been published in Mankind Quarterly (at least) twice in 2016 and again in 2020. In 2020, it came out that his teaching included pseudoscience about racial IQ rankings, as well as his work for Mankind. This lead to a closer look at earlier work with ISIR and Intelligence (journal).

The school's senate (who are Christainsen's peers in the conventional sense) voted to censure Christainsen, citing his work with Mankind and other papers as a demonstration of academic malpractice. According to the school paper, a knock-on effect of this was a petition to remove the dean of Christainsen's department from his position.

The connection drawn by sources from this incident to Mankind specifically is not as clear as I would like, but it does say something about what being published in Mankind can do to someone's career. Grayfell ( talk) 00:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply

The controversy section is also a bit brief. It received a significant amount of controversy from the moment it was founded; there are entire fairly significant papers devoted to criticising it from the moment it was founded (eg. [2]) up to today. Comas' critique seems particularly worth mentioning in-depth because it appears to have gotten a lot of followup coverage both at the time and more recently. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply

In agree with you both, and I support bold edits to bring this article more into line with the way its subject is discussed in reliable, independent sources. Another option would be to eliminate the "Controversy" section and simply fold it into "History", as is suggested by the essay WP:CRITICISM. After all, the History section is mostly devoted to controversy and criticism already, which is only proper per NPOV. That aspect could certainly be expanded. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply

I like the idea of merging the criticism section with the history section. As you say, the journal always been controversial. Grayfell ( talk) 22:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply

How can you expect the lead to be anymore damning? Before people even know what it is about they are told it is a bad thing that should never be read.

What use is there of a controversy section if the whole article is covered in diatribes about the journal's racism? The grammar of the controversy section also needs to be touched up "supporting eugenics,[32] racist or fascist.[33][34". Is it eugenicist? Is it racist? Is it facist? Is it 2 of the 3? Is it fascist but not racist? Is it racist but not fascist? ~~ Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy ( talk) 15:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC) reply

What use is there of a controversy section Indeed. See WP:CSECTION.

If you want something positive, you need reliable sources saying something positive. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC) reply

here: [3] on a prominent far-right website, you can read an endorsement of Mankind Quarterly, which is supposedly a "groundbreaking racialist journal". Pearson, the publisher of the journal, just to give you an account of his personal beliefs alone, said later on in the interview: "I thoroughly enjoyed Montana. The people were very nice, and even the people at the university were. There were no real Left-wingers, and I can’t remember any colored people on the faculty. it was amazing. It was a very happy time there." He was chairman of the WACL which was basically a world right wing extremist network. Mankind Quarterly has deep ties to right wing extremism. Freyheytlid ( talk) 07:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

that link got removed: in hindsight I'm quite glad it did. that's a vile page. Regardless, Mankind Quarterly is a vital part of the racist pseudoscience establishment. This is an established fact Freyheytlid ( talk) 07:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

This is a minor point, but it bugs me. The article (as of this writing) lists Richard Lynn as the editor-in-chief as of 2023. He's clearly not the current editor-in-chief (since he died last year.) I'll probably change it to something else. But I'm not sure he was even the editor-in-chief in 2023; according to archive.org, it changed to Gerhard Meisenberg in 2022. Simple enough, right? We can say Meisenberg is editor-in-chief and list Lynn as a past one, cited to... archive.org, which is not great, but it's not that exceptional of a point and we can probably find a better source. Except that today, Meisenberg is just listed as "editor". What does that change mean? Are there any secondary sources tracking the ins and outs of Mankind Quarterly's editor-in-chief? -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

You ought to differentiate between this journal, the English "Mankind Magazine" and the longstanding publication "Mankind Magazine" which is American and which has been publishing popular history articles since the 1960s. Those are quite popular, many are available via various sellers, and have nothing to do with this one. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more, lurking hither and yon. 70.48.36.39 ( talk) 18:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply