Talk:Jared Diamond/Archive 1

2236:

has been corrected by The Observer/Guardian. iMediaEthics is not a blog but an award winning news site. My report won a major journalism award, single best digital article in the Mirror Awards, last year beating out Columbia Journalism Review, The New York Magazine and other news outlets. Mondo Times, a global directory of media outlets, lists iMediaEthics as a Media Business News site. Google publisher recognizes us as a news site--Not a blog. The fact that our investigation led to the historic law suit --and that the ONLY media report (Balter, Science)you do list links to our report and has ZERO criticism of it, should be the endorsement needed to include here once again. It is also shameful that this single reference to the lawsuit here on Diamond's page that was recommended is behind a pay wall so almost no one will read it.

1052:

wheelchair-bound status discrepancy. There seems to be a dispute as to whether there are any factual inaccuracies, but this wiki reads as if it's settled fact that the New Yorker article contains notable factual inaccuracies and is not a faithful account of the 'stori' related to Diamond by Wemp. Major actors in the drama seem to have huge axes to grind politically and poor reputations for scholarship. Forbes reports: "The New Yorker counters that the story was vigorously fact-checked by a trusted editorial staffer and stands by its account. Science reports: 'David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, also defends the magazine’s story: “It appears that the New Yorker and Jared Diamond are the subject of an unfair and, frankly, mystifying barrage of accusations.”' Not that these are gospel either. --

1980:

mention any kind of victory or other follow-up on her website (and the site certainly suggests that she would have). If the outcome of the lawsuit was that Diamond did something wrong, then we have some updating to do. It’s been several years now, and if he did nothing problematic, then the section needs to come way, way down in emphasis (as well as tone) to meet BLP. If the lawsuit is now over, but was never deemed notable enough by any 3rd party sources useable on the mainpage (the unfortunate nature of news reporting), then we also need to take it way down, probably even farther. (Otherwise WP would have all kinds of BLPs containing false allegations that have been dismissed, but with articles making them sound like open cases, questioning the reputations of academics.)

114:---Regarding "Ethnic differences: Variation in human testis size": Diamond's 1986 commentary in Nature was not an "early work"-- he has papers going back to at least 1966 (Science 151:1102-1104). The only trait for which there was a trend from high to low in frequency among Africans, Caucasians, and East Asians was dizygotic twinning rate. Diamond speculated that dizygotic twinning rate might be correlated with testis size and female hormone levels, but noted that data were insufficient to address the question. It doesn't seem to me that Diamond's commentary is in the least contradictory to his later work, nor does it have an important bearing on his more recent books. The whole sentence would not survive a proper rewrite of the article. 131.210.4.95 28 xi.2005 2705:

digital encyclopaedia means that we can maintain a sense of timeliness that would be impossible in a printed volume - I also think that's exactly why controversies should have their own section, since in a decade the content of Diamond's books and their legacy might diverge greatly, right? Hi @Joe - I really do think the appearance of an article can sway readers, and apart from the reasons I've just mentioned, separating the Diamond's work from its reception makes the whole thing easier to read. I get that you're worried about trolls, but I trust that there'll be people looking out, including me. ; )

2276:

court case is active or not, but typically we don't publish information about someone accused with a crime until they have been found guilty. Also please understand that I am coming into this with simply a quick review of the article and want to help you as best possible, so please be patient and help me understand what you'd like to see done, and hopefully this can be cleared up shortly. In the mean time, because you have a documented conflict of interest, and apparently have been in a contentious edit war with other editors, please refrain from editing the page for a little while. Thank you!

800:

you opened the discussion. If consensus of editors watching this article is that it doesn't belong to the Race and intelligence controversy category, then the category tag needs to be removed from the article, and correspondingly the notice to editors tag up above could be removed from this talk page. Currently, the notice is exhaustively attached to the talk pages of all articles in the category (and to the talk pages of a few other articles that were in edit-wars related to the recent ArbCom case). Thanks very much for your comment. --

111:---Diamond isn't an opponet of 'genetic arguments to account for racial differences'. He's an opponent of explaing the relative sophisication achieved by the races via arguments of genetic racial superiority. The previous wording suggested that Diamond's didn't think genes played any difference in racial varaiance at all. Clearly, Diamond is aware that skin color and other racial-specific features (nose shape, type of hair, general body size) are caused by genes. I may have made a run-on sentence, however. 69.250.25.213 1087:

been dismissed immediately--Diamond would certainly spot that the plaintiff is not the man he knew for several years--and yet as far as I know it is ongoing. So I've reverted your edit for now, but if you can provide a source for the doubt on (not a comment), then by all means re-add it. My understanding of the sources is that the inaccuracy of the article is not questioned, but whether that inaccuracy is Diamond's fault or not, and if it is whether he acted in bad faith, is still a matter of debate. —

1100:

filed suit, despite your implication that i have. But claiming the Mandingos are not the same person is sort of OR, so I'll let that revert stand. Undoing the rest, as allowing defamatory statements by the wiki itself is totally unaceptable. The inaccuracy of the article is questioned; the encyclopedia CANNOT represent opinion such as this as fact. Lastly, you reverted a sentence move that was neccessary to keep cited facts with their citation, providing no justification.--

31: 368:. You could try constructing such a section here first, or at least bring together information you've found here. An alternative approach might be to add any criticism to the appropriate section of the main article. Because it separates subjects and criticism of them, creating a separate criticism section is often less effective than noting dissent at the relevant subsection. Just my two cents. Cheers, -- 2569:"Scanning section headings is a poor way to judge the POV/NPOV of an article." What about people reading this Knowledge (XXG) article? Newbies and civilians like myself, that is - unfortunately, most people will scan section headings to get the gist of a larger body of text. They're really useful especially here on Knowledge (XXG) - like in the article about Chomsky, pretty much makes it readable. 1871:. (What was Gould's professional relationship with Diamond like, I wonder?) I'm not saying I have any idea about whether there was some academic feud here potentially relating to Shearer's "allegations." I am saying that if there were genuine significance to this aspect of the BLP, then for someone with 2.4 million google hits, we would have no trouble finding sources that easily fit 2529:"In many cases they are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.") 2267:

appears to have been a lot of discussion over this in the past and I would like to have a fresh start. If you could help me a couple of ways, I think we can find a good resolution to this article. (1) please give me a quick 2-3 sentence statement about what is the overarching problem with this article and generally what needs to be done to address that; (2) please have

2343:

case was withdrawn by mutual consent following the death of tribesmen lawyer. They deleted Diamond words as the screen shot proves. The correction states: "This article was amended on 9 January 2013 to make it clear that the libel lawsuit against Jared Diamond filed by Daniel Wemp and Isum Mandingo was withdrawn by mutual consent and that further action is pending."

2401:, what you are talking about would likely need to be contained within a 4-8 sentence paragraph. Please feel free to write a proper, well researched and sources, paragraph that you propose to be included. Those sources should be very specific so that someone can follow behind you and verify the articles you reference support your statements. I hope that helps. 2339:

checking the article that was quickly corrected, after reading Diamond’s words-"I am happy to say the case was dismissed"- they believed Diamond just as the Observer reporter had done. But belief and editorial opinion is not fact. And Diamond, by mentioning the case and providing incorrect information, personally gave the case weight and significance.

2735:, sections titled "controversies" or "criticism" are strongly discouraged and only used in rare situations. This article is not one of those rare situations. Material about controversies may be included, of course, but the names of the sections should be topical (e.g. names of his books, names of key events in his life, etc). -- 1789:(following BLP) that claims should not be on the page until/unless strong RS's can be found. There exist folks who hold whatever beliefs about Diamond's conclusions, and cherry-picking comments like 'he should have known better' is neither encyclopedic nor in keeping with BLP. It's probably best to go through these one by one: 140:“Bands are the tiniest societies, consisting typically of 5 to 80 people, most or all of them close relatives by birth or by marriage. In effect, a band is an extended family or several related extended families.” (GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL: THE FATES OF HUMAN SOCIETIES, Jared Diamond, New York, London: Norton, page 267.) 2587:

argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think.' I know some of the folks who look after this page are real Diamond fans - but I really think it would benefit from being a bit clearer.

2452:• Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. 2248:

discussion, has given the topic of the lawsuit against him much more weight. But I don't accept that it did not have weight in the first instance. That tribesmen sue a famed scientist in US civil court, just like we do in the US, is significant in the history of American media and history of anthropology.

2639:

be covered (but isn't) since it had a major scientific impact, it would only have been seen as a "controversy/criticism" back in the day. It was a big deal then, it's a footnote now. Since it's impossible to judge the long-term significance from this vantage, and since these things almost always look

2475:

Hi! Could someone tell me why there's no controversy or criticism section on this page? I agree it needs to be NPOV but I'm not sure why there isn't one here. I don't think it's WP:UNDUE either - Diamond's work has not been universally praised and considering the lists of awards & honours on this

2463:

I have provided links but not the full references. I figured that these can be completed when the discussion is done and the section is restored. In addition to numerous media reports --far beyond what I have cited here, numerous academic papers and scholarly blogs and publications cite this lawsuit.

2439:

Cuts Sentence 6: "Wemp contends he told Jennings the story was "inaccurate, inaccurate". Sentence 7: "According to anthropologist Pauline Wiessner, an expert on tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea, young men often exaggerate or make up entirely their exploits in tribal warfare; she stated that Diamond

1736:

In order words, although I appreciate Joe Roe's caution that removing the text that I did might leave a door open for future problems, it is BLP that guides our edits. Although BLP says I should again remove the problematic material, I do not oppose further discussion first. (Joe: Perhaps you might

1699:

problem on this page. The subject is someone with a list of awards as long as my arm, including some of the most prestigious awards in all of academia. That 25% of the main page text is about (unfounded?) claims from a plaintiff seeking enormous sums of money is not particularly encyclopaedic. The

1680:

I think these were good faith attempts to improve the neutrality of the article, just a bit narrow in following through on citations. And in fairness, the article as a whole could do to be more clearly sourced. But removing sourced and (I hope) balanced criticism just leaves the door open for someone

1099:

The lawsuit response admits to a several claimed facts in the complaint, among which are neither any assent to any inaccuracies in the article, nor any assent to the Mandingo of the article not being wheelchair-bound. I never suggested that the Wemp mentioned in the article is not the same Wemp that

1086:

article is the main source for the second paragraph of the section, and the New Yorker's counterpoint about fact-checking is also noted. I haven't seen anybody suggest that the Wemp mentioned in the article is not the same Wemp that filed suit. It seems to me if that were the case the suit would have

1023:

been worked out. The section as it stands I think does a good job of reviewing how things stand now, though of course it could be longer. The cultural anth blogosphere have continued to take potshots at Diamond over the last year, but I think until the case is settled there will be no new significant

670:

Manx, Scottish, and Irish would best be described as three dialects of Gaelic, comparable to the multitude of dialects of Italian. As for the language famillies issue, I can attest that fluent French speakers have an advantage learning Spanish and Italian, and from what I know of those two languages,

416:

The description is far too truncated and does damage to the sense of his arguments. For one, nowhere does he say advanced civilization which overtook simpler ones only arose in Eurasia. That would be an absurd claim. The article leaves out any of the major mechanics he describes which gave certain

1979:

Finally, to help decide what emphasis this should receive on the page, what was the outcome of the lawsuit? Academics getting sued or found guilty of something make the news much more easily than do academics getting exonerated, and I can't find any report of the outcome. Shearer doesn't appear to

1836:

Again, no essential problem with describing the allegation, but it is again missing the context (that anyone can sue anyone for anything, and we have no idea who's right), especially with regard to the general standard that BLP hold us do. Again, the source is a problem: www.imediaethics.org is the

1366:

I reverted the good faith inclusion by ‎Dhawk790 concerning his criticisms of Romney. I'm thinking that it may be topical because of the current election, but is really a bit undue in the larger scheme of things, making it more news than encyclopedic. Of course, if a consensus decides otherwise, I

1118:

Wiessner's summation") and, for your part, you did not explained why you moved it so I didn't realise you had a problem with the citations. I've moved the sentence back and duplicated the citation; hope that is an acceptable compromise. After all, an article's structure and flow should really depend

799:

Do you mean remove the category tag from this article? If it is your (source-based) impression that Diamond is not really an author whose writings are relevant to that issue, and other editors share the same impression, I don't think anyone connected to the ArbCom case would object to that. I'm glad

2634:

Controversies come and go. There's always a tendency to emphasise the latest flare-up, even though in the long run these may be seen as irrelevant. Back in the 70s, there was controversy over Diamond's ideas regarding bird distributions in the Pacific, and whether these should really be interpreted

2456:

I have already provided evidence that iMediaEthics (formerly known as StinkyJournalism) is accepted as a legitimate news site. 2 to 4 professional editors review every article published, depending on its length and complexity, which sets us at the highest standard in the journalism industry. Hence,

2326:

Forbes, Associated Press, The Guardian, even the The New York Post as well as and science blogs and journals globally reported that iMediaEthics (then Stinky Journalism) sent an expedition to find Wemp, who turned out, as iMediaEthics reported, to have no idea he was in an New Yorker article(which

2275:

either for or against Jared Diamond, but rather a place for reliably source, verifiable and notable information about a living person; (4) wikipedia is also not a journal or new source, we don't rush to have information about a current or developing story or court case, it isn't clear to me if this

2266:

Rhonda, I was asked to take look at this page because it was filed over at the conflict of interest noticeboard. It is clear that you have a conflict of interest, but I don't want you to feel stonewalled or rejected. I would like to help you work through the issues you find with this article. There

2243:

The fact that Knowledge (XXG) stated the lawsuit was dismissed and then now states it wasn't, deserves an explanation and inclusion of the wording of the correction. Diamond himself gave the issue weight by citing it to The Observer. My additions should stand and the original section restored in my

1051:

Thanks; I hadn't noted the dates. I haven't read the original article. But even basic facts such as whether the plaintiffs and the characters with similar names in the New Yorker article are the same people seems to be in dispute. That they're not the same is another possible explanation for the

648:

Gaelic is not a language family, so it's not valid to compare it with the Romance or Germanic language families. I speak English and I certainly didn't find it "extremely simple" to learn German; I doubt a French speaker would find it simple to learn, say, Romanian or Portuguese either. We really

487:

I do not understand why the Controversy section is featured so high in the overall article structure. While it seems to be important, whole Diamond's life and work seem to precede it chronologically, in volume of events and their significance. Moreover, it is difficult to judge now the substance of

2704:

Hi, it's 178.86.6.79 here - just created an account, so excited! Yeah, I know what you mean @Guettarda - but Knowledge (XXG) is awesome because it's a work in progress, no? In ten years this page will be completely different - while it's always important to maintain a sense of perspective, being a

2346:

Diamond’s new book is filled with contrasts between traditional tribal conflict resolutions with civil litigation in the US, according to The Observer. “There is no mention of the Wemp tale, although highly relevant to Diamond's thesis, in The World Until Yesterday. Caution appears to have won the

2342:

But it was factually wrong. It is important that he was publicly caught bending the truth. His statement was in error and has to be corrected. It is not for Knowledge (XXG) editor to hide this important fact as they are trying to do in their edits. As the Observer reported in their correction, the

2330:

1. Informants were named by Diamond without permission (Diamond and the New Yorker admit this in Balter’s Science article cited now but behind a pay wall). Diamond and the New Yorker said he was following journalistic rules and hence why he named people. However in his new book, Diamond says (page

2299:

My main problem is the basic facts and references are missing since the deletion of the entire section on Diamond’s legal case. This censorship based upon an editorial judgement creates the elimination of a historically important and unique case of a famed scientist being sued in US civil court by

2295:

You mention the need for “reliably sourced, verifiable and notable information about a living person.” I agree and this is precisely why the article failed after the almost total deletion after years of relative stability of the section on Diamond being sued by tribesmen. There is no criminal case

2247:

This is, no doubt, a historically significant that tribesmen would sue a famed researcher. Diamond's new book features and contrasts civil disputes in the US and Papua New Guinea. Diamond personal experience of this litigation, in light of his new book, which was not published during your previous

2239:

Diamond's New Yorker article's title nor link for it is included! When I add it back--something reasonable so researcher can look it up--Joe Roe who was one of those behind this whole section being taken down suddenly reappears and deletes it. By what standards do you mention a nameless New Yorker

2235:

Wow is right. Diamond told the Observer the case was dismissed but this was a falsehood that the Observer corrected and cut out that false claim. It obviously benefits Diamond to have this case disappear in life and Knowledge (XXG). . The error about the lawsuit being dismissed is an error that

1397:

Fair point. I thought it was pretty relevant because it was published in a major publication (like the "Vengeance is Ours" subsection), dealt with a real world application of Diamond's theories, and dealt with Diamond's criticism of a presidential candidates take on his work, which I just read was

728:

I doubt he'd answer such a banal question. I don't see that it's that important. It's enough to state that he has an aptitude for languages, you don't have to go into childish counting and listing. Besides, who decides what's constitutes "speaking a language" -- do you demand native-level fluency?

612:

It is not odd at all, though it is slightly unusual for the average human. If I were to learn Manx Gaelic to an excellent level of fluency, it would be extremely simple at that point to learn Irish and Scottish forms of Gaelic. This is a generic rule that can be applied to other language families;

503:

It's not so much that the controversy section is high up but that the "list" sections are unusually long. It makes sense for information-heavy sections like bibliographies should be at the end of the article, and you'll notice that's how most articles are. I do agree, however, that the controversy

122:

I have been an avid reader of Discover magazine since the early 80's, and I recall Diamond as a frequent contributor to the magazine, so I was surprised when only three of his articles were listed. This bibliography is incomplete, but I am unsure of the proper procedure to do so. Am I correct in

2672:

Are you really arguing that we should structure the article based on the assumption that people won't actually read it? Reception/criticism of Diamond's work is perfectly at home in the Work section, and each of his books' respective articles have lengthier criticism sections where appropriate. I

2417:

Please understand, I cited sources above but not in full as this is only a discussion. I take the position that the original deleted section needs to be added back and updated. I will work from what was there and update it. I appreciate you efforts to be helpful and to communicate about resolving

2334:

2. Diamond said Wemp told him that Wemp and Isum were leaders in a tribal fight and were responsible for 30 killings. He confirms in Science that he never spoke to Isum or check if this were true before repeating it on New Yorker pages, telling Balter that he relied what he was told by on Daniel.

1573:

The books are fairly straightforward, but it was a bit difficult judging which articles are "significant" enough to be remained in the main article. I ended up excluding any that were (a) were mainly technical/written for a specialist audience or (b) just reporting on other papers and conferences

2338:

I was concerned too that Knowledge (XXG) editors were gleeful, as the talk page shows, and quickly posted a link to the Observer article. They were fooled by the Observer’s initial statement about the lawsuits dismissal that seem to justify their removal of the section on the lawsuit. Instead of

2335:

Diamond also reported in New Yorker that Isum was paralyzed and in a wheelchair for eleven years after Wemp’s hired assassin’s spear cut his spine. In their interviews with Balter, the fact that Isum was able bodied as demonstrated by photos we took was never disputed, by New Yorker or Diamond.

2012:

Well I have to say I'm surprised. I would have thought if anyone was going to accuse that section of being POV it would have been in the other direction (since that is indeed where my POV lies). The quoted "detailed quotes" and the Wiessner quote were both intended to be positives, in defence of

1813:

No problem introducing the issue, although some contextualizing would be appropriate. (We have no idea whether the complaint is reasonable or just puffery from folks who didn't like how they looked in print.) The problem is the source: The source does not mention the lawsuit! (It is a link to

1316:

anyone can just pick up the book, or look at the preview on Amazon, and see Diamond on the contents page to verify it), nor do I understand the need for it to be an "important part" of his life – we're just putting it in the bibliography, not devoting a section to it or anything. I think I'll go

460:

I also think the discussion about Guns, Germs & Steel is truncated or cursory. Indeed while Prof. Diamond argues against genetic differences between people as origins of technological disparity he does indeed advance the case that one culture can be objectively superior to another and even

1894:

Sentence 4-5: "Diamond and the New Yorker both stood by the article, maintaining that it was a faithful account of the story related to Diamond by Wemp while they worked together in 2001 and again in a formal interview in 2006. They said that the article was based on "detailed notes", that both

2586:

There are big sections for awards and publications here, but what's wrong with two or three well-cited, objectively-worded sentences in a separate section to keep the reception of Diamond's works apart from descriptions of the works themselves? Also, doesn't Jimbo say, 'I think that almost any

671:

I expect that they would confer even greater advantages to anyone who speaks one and seeks to learn the other. To respond to the initial comment, I think Mr. Diamond's academic career demonstrates that he is a very intelligent man, lending plausability to the claim that he speaks 12 langauges.

598:

Yeah, that kind of caught my eye, too! Maybe some people have a real facility for language, or start learning several when they’re very young and that really helps them start developing the skill. In any case, this is the kind of thing that I also agree would be good to include a citation.

143:

Jared divides human societies into four main categories: bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states. And bands are how we lived for most of human history, pretty much the entire time we were hunters-gatherers. As I understand it, we have been just as smart as we are right now for at least the last

532:

Okay, I think it's a little more balanced now. The 'boards' and 'awards' sections are still a little long though but I'd like to find away to include the information in the article a little more seamlessly instead of just removing it. Regarding the controversy section I removed the summary of

1788:

section that caught my eye, yes. I am not saying that the section should be entirely removed or that the lawsuit oughtn't be mentioned on the page together with whatever BLP-appropriate sources. I'm saying essentially that the section should be proportionate to the rest of the article and

2240:

article as behind a lawsuit but do not include the title or link? Because the full reference adds weight? Nonsense. The fact this section is deleted just in time for the Diamond's big January book tour (the people wanting to delete it started I think Dec 31)is too much of a coincidence.

2498:

Please read the previous discussions on this talk page, they're nearly all about criticism in some form or other. In particular, see the section immediately preceding this one, which is an ongoing discussion on whether to (re) include a section on the controversy surrounding his article

2387:

Thank you for your lengthy explanation of the situation you are wanting to include. However I will need verifiable resources to substaintiate what you are saying, you vaguely mention reference materials without specifics. The effort is on your part to come up with specific web links or

1914:

article is decently even handed, but the mainpage summary of its contents plays up criticisms and downplays Diamond's evidence and supporters. Putting the phrase "detailed notes" into quotes is technically correct, but the ambiguity leaves the reader with the POV that these were merely

2296:

involved here. There is no rush with new reporting . Just a historical time line of facts backed by media reports that cited and relied upon our report. Michael Balter's report in Science (that you source) investigated our facts and links to our report without any criticism of it.

1674: 96:, Diamond's field work includes "...17 expeditions to New Guinea and neighboring islands, to study ecology and evolution of birds; rediscovery of New Guinea's long-lost goldenfronted bowerbird; other field projects in North America, South America, Africa, Asia, and Australia." 2013:

Diamond and the New Yorker. More generally, the intention behind maintaining a separate section on the controversy was to include detail that showed that there was very much two sides to the story in a way a passing mention might not. Put it down to overcompensating, maybe.

1940:

Sentence 7: "According to anthropologist Pauline Wiessner, an expert on tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea, young men often exaggerate or make up entirely their exploits in tribal warfare; she stated that Diamond would have been naïve to accept Wemp's stories at face

2446:• We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. 2016:

I've periodically tried to find updates on the lawsuit and haven't found anything either. In light of that I think you're right: an entire section is now probably undue weight. I'd be in favour of slimming it down to a sentence or two in the main biography or work

2510:

and having no criticism/controversy in the article. You'll notice both personal controversies (i.e. Vengeance is Ours) and criticisms of his work are mentioned throughout the article. Scanning section headings is a poor way to judge the POV/NPOV of an article.

533:

Shearer's article (but kept a reference to it) since it's the lawsuit itself that is noteworthy not someone writing an article about it. I'm open to the re-including some of the controversy details if they can be properly substantiated and balanced though. --

504:

section has an "undue weight" feeling to it right now. I'll see what I can do about moving some of the cruft into the main article and slimming down the controversy section (since, for the moment, it seems not much as happening with the accusations). --

855:

Even a brief look at the comment section of that article reveals there are severe issues with it that have yet to be worked out. While I'm not saying this should not be included, the accusations are only just beginning to surface and we should tread

1895:

Diamond and the magazine did all they reasonably could to verify the story, and that in a recorded phone interview conducted in August 2008 by Chris Jennings, a fact checker for the New Yorker, Wemp did not raise any significant objections."

547:

I don't see that the section needs to be any longer unless a developing case demands. Nice job overall, thanks, obviously a major task. The Harvard bachelor's degree was (possibly still is) an A.B., from the Latin wording; I've fixed that.

746:

An inquiry of Jared Diamond's linguistic accomplishments is not banal, childish nor silly. Shame on you, Joseph, for suggesting it. A detailed list of his spoken languages could inspire young people to strive for 13, 14 or even 20 spoken

1960:

article. That article contains both positives and negatives, often from the same people, but mostly it’s the negatives making it to the mainpage. (Although the positives can be added to the mainpage to match the relative balance in the

1629:

that removed some unsourced material on criticism of GG&S. I restored it with a source. But I'm slightly puzzled as to why just that sentence was removed since the majority of the "Work" section isn't directly sourced – it's mostly a

1421:, I would agree that it actually fits there much better, as it would give the event much more context and isn't undue since the incident was about that book to begin with. Had I seen it there, I likely wouldn't have batted an eye lash. 992:

Indeed. As someone pointed out, "Even a brief look at the comment section of that article reveals there are severe issues with it that have yet to be worked out." I would say that these convince me it's not a reliable source in the

461:

gives the example in the 20th century of neighboring New Guinea tribes exercising control over other tribes by being more enthusiastic for newly acquired agricultural or entrepreneural methods as compared to the other tribes.

2673:

don't see any reason to have a dedicated criticism section here other than for the sake of appearances. (And I'm not arguing that we should follow the above argument because Jimbo said it, I'm saying it is a good argument.)

2322:

in New York State Courts--not Papua New Guinea. One of the first reports about the case was published by Forbes, states that two New Guinea Tribesmen "challenge a story depicting them as rapists, murderers and pig thieves.”

622:

Another point to consider is that it is not our place to judge his claim. This is an encyclopaedia, not a debate forum. At best, it is appropriate to cite sources for and against his reputed facility for learning and using

1416:

I'm not rigid in the idea, but because it has a political element, I just wanted to put more eyes on it to make sure we weren't accidentally tilting the article. Political season here can do that. And taking a look at

2392:

by reviewing various articles and inconsistencies and "putting the dots together". Knowledge (XXG) is no the place to be an investigative reporter, but rather to represent (re-present) the facts as already collected by

574:

The miscellaneous section says that Diamond speaks a dozen languages. I find this extremely hard to believe. Is it more accurate to say he has a familiarity with a dozen languages? This information needs to be cited.

2388:

periodical/issue/page number to validate your claims. Also those references must clearly show what you are talking about. That information must be presented in the article. From an initial view, it appears you are

1578:

articles). What's left is a bit of an odd collection, but looks broadly representative to me. I suggest we stick to those criteria in future, and leave a comprehensive listing to the forked bibliography article.

2300:

Papua New Guinean tribesman for libel per se. If it had no merits, the court would have thrown it out during the 14 months in was in the NY State courts. But that is not what happened. To outline the history:

348:

This guy certainly has his critics. Can we compile some basic general criticisms of his thought and methodology and organize it into a criticism section? Right now, this article is head-over-heels for this

2317:

A year later, after finding out about the article, the two men accused of killings and other crimes mentioned in the article, Hup Daniel Wemp and Henep Isum Mandingo, filed a lawsuit against Diamond and

1722:"(BLP) policy extends that principle (of verifiability), adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." 1829:

Sentence 2: "Mandingo and Wemp claimed the article, an account of feuds and vengeance killings in the New Guinea highlands, misrepresented and embellished their involvement in inter-tribal violence."

1662:

reference to Roland Shearer's article. I'd dispute that the source is not reliable: being formatted a blog doesn't automatically make something not RS and StinkyJournalism (now apparently renamed

1867:. Shearer is not some professional journalist dispassionately pursuing a story, as the page intimates. She is "an artist, art historian and adjunct journalism lecturer" as well as the widow of 2464:

If need be, I will form a bibliography but if I do it should be included in this page. For private use, if you need the Balter article in Science to read, send me an email request.

1706:"Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be 383:

Too bad I'm a nobody, because I can smash holes into his research and make both his books sink faster than the titanic. So somebody famous out their has to have dismantled his work.

2251:

We need to add the section back. I can rebut all the claims if necessary but am hoping that the aforementioned points will suffice, and at minimum what I just added will be restored

1933:

As I say, no problem to summarize the allegations themselves, but what exactly does this add to the BLP? Moreover, the source is again Shearer's website, not that of a 3rd party.

2051:

Excellent. (And I have found myself in exactly the same position you describe!) I agree with you suggestion about appropriate weight. Let me suggest the following (using the

2397:. If your conclusions are correct, I really hope you can find sources to support your claims. Also it seems you are very passionate about this article, and according to 1837:

blog site of the person/group who sparked the allegations! It does not meet WP's standards for "third-party" neutrality even for regular articles, never mind for BLPs.

1852:

article contained factual inaccuracies – most notably that Mandingo was fit and healthy, not, as claimed by Diamond, wheelchair-bound after being injured in fighting."

1234: 277:

There were some discussions of opinions and personal viewpoints which were not related to improving the article and they were several months old so I deleted them.

1700:

subject of the BLP has 2.4 million google hits. Any significant criticism would be easily available in well-regarded RS's and should be reflected proportionately.

692:

I sent 2 emails to Jared Diamond requesting a list of his 12 spoken languages. I received no response. Perhaps an administrator can try to contact him at UCLA:

2457:

this is why we have very few errors and certainly NO allegations from Diamond or the New Yorker or the tribesmen, that we have committed any libel or error.

905:. There are certain kinds of statements WP cannot make in its own voice. We have to be extra careful, even with sourcing. And the case has yet to be tried. 1500:

It seems strange to me that the article doesn't mention the scandal about his 2008 New Yorker article in which he fabricated many facts. Details are here:

322:

A book by Dr. Benny Peiser details how Diamond greatly exaggerated the "collapse" of Easter Island in the 17th century. Something to look into perhaps?

1312:

Unless I'm missing something, I really don't see why Diamond's chapter shouldn't be listed. Such a trivial fact doesn't need to be directly source (per

1240: 578: 420: 2460:

It is notable that neither Diamond nor the New Yorker have EVER requested that we should correct even one error of fact in public or private forums.

1440: 1386: 1367:

have no problem with it being restored, but my gut feeling is that it takes some neutrality and balance out of the article, rather than adds to it.

780:

The arbcom notice has got me curious as to why this article is in the category "Race and intelligence controversy". The category has been there for

1562:

which made it unwieldy. It seemed a shame to waste the effort by just deleting the more obscure articles, so I forked the complete list off to

1703:

I'm puzzled why Joe Roe is puzzled about my removal of the relevant text. The WP policy on this is quite clear and repeatedly emphasized:

1243: 303: 1676:) so in this context it's being used as more of a primary source, and was appropriately phrased as such (i.e. "Roland Shearer alleges...") 1976:(Speaking of proportionate, the list of articles is rather excessive. I think it could be edited down to just the highest impact pubs.) 1343: 971: 582: 468: 398: 329: 197: 2169: 1481: 1433: 1379: 1178: 919:

You will have to be more specific. It is proven that he is a fraudster. Just look at the evidence. He is the James Frey of science. -

365: 350: 2605: 2483: 1204:

on the ominous impact of the Internet • Nicholas Christakis on the structure and rules of social networks, both “real” and online •

255: 226: 1906:

cite is the good one, and even though the mainpage includes the basic denial of the allegations, the summary of the content of the

1296:

titled "Citing a chapter in a book with different authors for different chapters and an editor". Otherwise, it's misleading. -

2436:

However, I made some updates and took into consideration discussion comments above and incorporated two questionable inclusions

2327:

Diamond admits to Balter in Science as Diamond last spoke to Wemp in 2005 ). All the media discussion involves two key issues:

1235:

http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/john-brockman/culture/_/R-400000000000000455110?in_merch=Global_SubjectLanding_New%20Arrivals_US

432: 85: 1171: 964:

These accusations are rubbish. The suit filed against him appears to have been malicious, as are many of the comments here.

177: 1887:

cite is, of course, the good one here. The current summary of the information in it, however, is terribly POV (see below).

1622:. Rather than try to squeeze the reasons into an edit summary, I thought it would be better to explain them properly here: 488:

the controversy and factual state of events. Consequently, in my view, this section should be moved down in the article. --

196:

The article states he can speak "New Melanesian". AS far as I know there is no such language. What is this referring to? --

861:

We of course should certainly NOT be indulging in the kind of juvenile vandalism you have been in your last few edits. --

66: 2433:

Dear Tiggerjay, I have left the original section Revision as of 16:10, 24 November 2011 (edit) more or less as it was.

1183: 1761:

section, rather than the GG&S which was criticism of the book rather than Diamond himself, but best to be clear.

1241:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/culture-john-brockman/1100567886?ean=9780062023131&itm=2&usri=john%2Bbrockman

2423: 2355: 2256: 1563: 805: 518:

That sounds like a reasonable plan, though any outright cruft should perhaps simply be moved out. Please proceed.

181: 38: 1526: 729:

The ability to hold a conversation? Ask for a carton of milk? Or will comprehension do? It's a silly question. —

1247: 784:, but if Diamond has ever weighed in on the issue, it's not mentioned in the article. I suggest we remove it. — 307: 2271:

on wikipedia, in the end, we all want a proper article represented on here; (3) understand that wikipedia is

1806:

magazine article entitled "Vengeance Is Ours: What Can Tribal Societies Tell Us About Our Need to Get Even?""

975: 586: 472: 1485: 1347: 676: 600: 394: 354: 333: 201: 145: 2609: 2487: 2479: 2157: 1723: 1567: 1477: 1398:

also featured in Romney's book. I think it should stay, but do you think it would be better suited for the

1303: 1251: 967: 464: 386: 325: 299: 259: 251: 230: 222: 2213: 2165: 2082: 1987: 1744: 1596: 1428: 1418: 1374: 1300: 1293: 442: 428: 2732: 2523: 1953: 1864: 1729: 1728:"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" 837: 2758: 2710: 2419: 2376: 2351: 2252: 1845: 801: 766: 752: 716: 702: 632: 451: 390: 93: 672: 1543: 1509: 761:

Again, is any administrator willing to contact Jared Diamond for a list of his 12 spoken languages?--

424: 2272: 1501: 1292:

with the author=Jared, editor=Brockman, chapter=(whatever his chapter title is), per the example in

2740: 2645: 2406: 2281: 2193: 1802: 1505: 910: 553: 523: 124: 104: 81: 1949: 1860: 1757:

strictly. Could you clarify which problematic material you're referring to, though? I assume the

1649: 1455: 1407: 1321: 1286: 538: 509: 493: 373: 173: 47: 17: 2398: 2224: 1966: 1696: 1607: 816:

Since there doesn't appear to be any objections, I've gone ahead and removed the category tag. —

649:

need to know what those 12 languages of Diamond's are for the claim to have any meaning at all.

158:

It is weird to read the bibliography in reverse chronological order. I am going to change it to

2209: 2161: 2078: 1983: 1868: 1740: 1619: 1592: 1422: 1368: 1297: 1197: 1175: 2754: 2706: 2311: 2130:. A year later, two of the men mentioned in the article filed a lawsuit against Diamond and 2127: 2065: 1793: 1737:

consider a note at the BLP noticeboard for other guidance on the application of the policy?)

1669:). More importantly, it was Roland Shearer's article which kicked off the controversy about 1559: 1225: 1221: 1019:

Bear in mind it's been over a year since the article was published so a lot of those issues

924: 884: 845: 762: 748: 712: 698: 447: 282: 2268: 2228: 2115:

I would avoid the word tribesmen, which in this context could seem slightly paternalistic:

1872: 1754: 1711: 1642: 1611: 1339: 1268: 1192:

on why societies collapse and how we can make better decisions to protect our own future •

902: 711:

Is any administrator willing to contact Jared Diamond to confirm his 12 spoken languages?--

1271:. If the book, itself, or the publisher, had a web page, it might be a reasonable source. 1136: 1105: 1057: 1002: 89: 2394: 2389: 1631: 994: 296:

Why is there no mention of the factual errors and ambiguity in "guns germs and steel"?

2736: 2641: 2402: 2305: 2277: 2132: 2121: 2070: 2059: 1695:

Thank you for acknowledging my intent, which was indeed to repair the rather egregious

1209: 906: 549: 519: 219:, it should refer to a creole language that is the lingua franca of Papua New Guinea. 100: 1313: 79:

I tried to post the link in the article history but it truncated. I will link to the

2310:

describing the role of Daniel Wemp, his driver for bird watching, in a tribal war in

1539: 1451: 1403: 1329: 1217: 1120: 1088: 1025: 948: 864: 818: 786: 731: 534: 505: 489: 369: 163: 97: 2762: 2744: 2714: 2679: 2675: 2649: 2613: 2535: 2531: 2517: 2513: 2491: 2427: 2410: 2359: 2285: 2260: 2217: 2202: 2198: 2148: 2144: 2086: 2026: 2022: 1991: 1926:

Sentence 6: "Wemp contends he told Jennings the story was "inaccurate, inaccurate".

1767: 1763: 1748: 1687: 1683: 1600: 1585: 1581: 1489: 1459: 1445: 1411: 1391: 1351: 1333: 1201: 1193: 1184:

http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Leading-Scientists-Societies-Technology/dp/0062023136

1140: 1126: 1109: 1094: 1061: 1031: 1006: 979: 955: 928: 914: 888: 871: 849: 825: 809: 793: 770: 756: 738: 720: 706: 680: 653: 635: 603: 590: 557: 542: 527: 513: 497: 476: 454: 402: 377: 358: 337: 311: 286: 263: 234: 205: 186: 148: 127: 2506:

Although I will note there's a difference between having no criticism/controversy

2020:

Also agreed on the slightly overzealous list of articles that was added recently.

1667: 1641:) that removed a reliable source and replaced it with a citation needed tag. It's 2350:

The time line of facts must be restored. It is established in the public record.

1205: 920: 880: 841: 693: 278: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1797: 1655:

template exists to draw attention to link rot without removing cited material.

1132: 1101: 1053: 998: 2068:. A year later, two of the PNG tribesmen filed a lawsuit against Diamond and 1527:

http://www.imediaethics.org/News/149/Jared_diamond%5Cs_factual_collapse__.php

2443:

I also took into consideration the guidelines to which I believe I comply

1213: 245: 2331:

472) “That was also formerly my practice…it was my practice in the past.”

2196:

for adding the mention in today's Guardian that the lawsuit was dismissed.

1792:

Sentence 1: "On April 21, 2009, Henep Isum Mandingo and Hup Daniel Wemp of

1666:) well established journalistic source published by a reputable nonprofit ( 2292:

TiggerJay, I appreciate your friendliness. Thank you for your questions.

1114:

Moving that sentence broke the flow of the prose ("Jennings on Wemp -: -->

2640:

bigger at the moment, it's important to maintain a sense of perspective.

1634:

of the main articles on the respective books which are all amply sourced.

1168:

Culture: Leading Scientists Explore Societies, Art, Power, and Technology

650: 2142:

But since we're agreed in principle, I'll go ahead and make the change.

1919:

detailed notes, whereas the original article does exactly the opposite.

1719:"Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively" 838:

http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-149.php

2377:

http://www.imediaethics.org/images/The_Observer_uk_Diamond_feature.pn

1277:

The citation, as you wrote it, doesn't indicate Jared's contribution.

697:

If that fails, we can try to contact UCLA's geography department. --

840:. I recommend changing the entire article to highlight this fact. - 244:

Indeed, a quick search suggests that the correct link appears to be

2136:

claiming the article defamed them, seeking $ 10 million in damages.

2074:

claiming the article defamed them, seeking $ 10 million in damages.

1956:. It is also an example of the POV summary of the contents of the 1784:

It was the problems with the grossly insufficient sourcing of the

92:

refers to Diamond as an evolutionary biologist. According to the

2440:

would have been naïve to accept Wemp's stories at face value."

2303:

In 2008, Diamond published an article, “Vengeance is Ours,” in

1663: 318:

Criticism about his comments about Easter Island in "Collapse"

25: 2604:

Thanks for answering, though! Still finding my feet here. :D

2064:

describing the role of revenge in warfare among tribesmen in

1554:

As mentioned above, the "Selected publications" was recently

1450:

Sounds great. I'll put it over there. Thanks for the input.

2476:

page I'm not convinced this article is NPOV without one.

1474:

Is there a source that states that Diamond went to RLS?

446:, so the description here should not be very lengthy. -- 1875:, rather than needing to rely on websites produced by a 1681:

else to put it back in in more libellous form later on.

1708:

removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

1659: 1638: 1626: 1555: 877: 781: 1716:"Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." 211:

Judging by the text accompanying the appendix titled

2635:

as the product of competitive exclusion. While this

2526:

has this quote from Jimbo Wales which puts it well:

2126:

describing the role of revenge in tribal warfare in

1879:

in the event, treating her as if she were a neutral

1267:

None of those is a source for the connection, under

1212:on the new political reality of the digital era • 1673:(verified in the immediately preceeding citation 1645:for references to have a working hyperlink, and 1859:Here's where the page really goes to town with 1186: 273:Erased some old non-article related discussions 1116:Wemp on Jennings" vs. "Jennings on Wemp -: --> 417:regions developmental advantages over others. 8: 1274:Why is it an important part of Jared's life? 1131:Yay for compromise and consensus. Cheers!-- 144:150,000 years, we just lived differently. 123:assuming Knowledge (XXG) uses APA style? -- 1969:emphasis relative to the rest of the page.) 2390:performing original synthesis and research 1618:I've reverted a couple of recent edits by 2119:In 2008, Diamond published an article in 2057:In 2008, Diamond published an article in 1220:on the responsibilities of human power • 217:The Rise and Fall of the Third Chinpanzee 1753:I of course agree we should be applying 2369: 1519: 1228:on the Net as a global “knowledge web” 1161:Add Mr. Diamond's contribution to book. 136:We typically lived in very small groups 1818:.) The source should probably be the 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2208:Wow! (And ditto for MarmadukePercy). 2192:Well, that was well timed. Thanks to 1965:article, all of this is still wildly 1160: 7: 1844:Sentence 3: "The lawsuit came after 1800:lawsuit against Diamond over a 2008 1327:template as Arthur Rubin suggested. 1119:on its content, not its citations. — 2552:Hi Joe - I'm still not sure, sorry! 2471:No controversy / criticism section? 1282:The latter could be fixed by using 945:We both know that's not true :) -- 836:He is obviously a fraudster - see 24: 1537:There's an entire section on it. 1188:Contributors and topics include; 879:. My edits certainly were not. - 776:Race and intelligence controversy 213:Neo-melanesian in one easy lesson 1814:Diamond's original piece in the 1496:Jared Diamond's Factual Collapse 1495: 613:Italianate, Germanic, and so on. 248:. I have updated the article. 29: 1200:on the evolution of cultures • 440:There is a separate article on 1910:article is terribly POV. The 1591:Excellent. Looks much better. 1317:ahead and put it in, with the 1: 2149:17:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC) 2087:15:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC) 2027:11:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC) 1992:19:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC) 1768:16:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC) 1749:15:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC) 1658:The most significant change, 1601:15:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC) 1586:12:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC) 707:02:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 681:02:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 477:19:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 338:06:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 312:04:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 287:08:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC) 128:18:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC) 2763:10:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC) 2745:08:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC) 2715:15:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 2680:15:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 2650:15:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 2614:14:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 2536:14:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 2518:14:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 2492:13:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 2428:10:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC) 2411:03:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC) 2360:00:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC) 2286:22:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC) 2261:19:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC) 1688:15:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC) 1362:Reverted criticism of Romney 1338:Thank you User:Joey Roe ... 1141:03:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 1127:07:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 1110:18:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC) 1095:16:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC) 1062:16:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC) 1032:14:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC) 1007:07:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC) 739:14:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC) 721:05:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC) 264:19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC) 235:19:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC) 187:11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 2399:our policy regarding weight 2218:14:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC) 2203:11:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC) 1544:21:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1490:02:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 1352:21:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC) 1334:08:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC) 1304:21:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 1252:18:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 1115:Wiessner's summation -: --> 826:20:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 810:22:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 794:20:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 206:03:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 88:, instead. In the article, 2781: 2395:reliable 3rd party sources 1564:Jared Diamond bibliography 1510:14:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 1460:13:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 1446:13:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 1412:12:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 1392:12:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 1264:three problems with that: 1224:on the next Renaissance • 1216:on what cultures value • 956:21:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 929:21:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 915:21:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 889:21:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 872:21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 850:07:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 771:19:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 757:22:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 403:17:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 2269:good faith in the editors 2172:) 15:44, 31 December 2012 1948:Same problems as before: 1796:filed a $ 10 million USD 1196:on the origins of art • 654:15:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC) 636:05:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 604:05:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 570:Speaks a dozen languages? 378:07:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 359:07:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 149:05:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 107:23:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) 558:22:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 543:20:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 528:18:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 514:18:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 498:14:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 455:22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 1117:Wemp on Jennings -: --> 980:10:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 591:00:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 162:chronological order. − 2753:Okay, fair enough. :D 1419:Guns, Germs, and Steel 1294:Template:Cite book/doc 1230: 443:Guns, Germs, and Steel 75:Evolutionary biologist 2055:article as the RS): 1846:Rhonda Roland Shearer 1822:article, noted below. 1470:Roxbury Latin School? 1260:There are (at least) 581:comment was added by 435:) 19:01, 4 July 2006. 423:comment was added by 412:Guns, Germs and Steel 42:of past discussions. 2522:(On the last point, 1556:expanded quite a bit 1400:Gun Germs, and Steel 2194:User:MarmadukePercy 2153:Great; looks good! 483:Controversy section 82:Scientific American 1566:as recommended by 953: 876:This is vandalism 869: 601:FriendlyRiverOtter 154:Bibliography order 146:FriendlyRiverOtter 18:Talk:Jared Diamond 2501:Vengeance is Ours 2482:comment added by 2174: 2160:comment added by 1869:Stephen Jay Gould 1848:alleged that the 1759:Vengeance is Ours 1671:Vengeance is Ours 1620:User:James Cantor 1480:comment added by 1444: 1436: 1431: 1390: 1382: 1377: 1198:Daniel C. Dennett 970:comment added by 947: 863: 594: 467:comment added by 436: 405: 389:comment added by 340: 328:comment added by 314: 302:comment added by 266: 254:comment added by 237: 225:comment added by 185: 72: 71: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2772: 2731:As explained in 2494: 2420:Rhonda.R.Shearer 2379: 2374: 2352:Rhonda.R.Shearer 2312:Papua New Guinea 2253:Rhonda.R.Shearer 2231:issues continued 2173: 2154: 2128:Papua New Guinea 2066:Papua New Guinea 1794:Papua New Guinea 1654: 1648: 1560:User:Duncan.Hull 1529: 1524: 1492: 1438: 1434: 1429: 1402:article? Thanks 1384: 1380: 1375: 1326: 1320: 1291: 1285: 1226:W. Daniel Hillis 1222:Douglas Rushkoff 1123: 1091: 1028: 982: 954: 951: 870: 867: 821: 802:WeijiBaikeBianji 789: 734: 576: 479: 418: 384: 323: 297: 249: 220: 192:"New Melanesian" 171: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2780: 2779: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2477: 2473: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2375: 2371: 2233: 2155: 1652: 1646: 1616: 1552: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1525: 1521: 1498: 1475: 1472: 1364: 1324: 1318: 1289: 1283: 1163: 1121: 1089: 1026: 965: 949: 946: 865: 862: 834: 819: 787: 778: 732: 577:—The preceding 572: 485: 462: 419:—The preceding 414: 346: 320: 294: 275: 194: 160:reverse reverse 156: 138: 120: 94:Edge Foundation 90:Michael Shermer 77: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2778: 2776: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2748: 2747: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2504: 2472: 2469: 2455: 2432: 2418:this matter. 2416: 2414: 2413: 2381: 2380: 2368: 2367: 2363: 2320:The New Yorker 2306:The New Yorker 2291: 2289: 2288: 2232: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2210:— James Cantor 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2133:The New Yorker 2122:The New Yorker 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2079:— James Cantor 2076: 2071:The New Yorker 2060:The New Yorker 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2018: 2014: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1984:— James Cantor 1981: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1943: 1942: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1928: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1902:As I say, the 1897: 1896: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1883:of them. The 1854: 1853: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1831: 1830: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1808: 1807: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1741:— James Cantor 1738: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1726: 1720: 1717: 1714: 1701: 1678: 1677: 1656: 1635: 1615: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1593:— James Cantor 1551: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1531: 1530: 1518: 1517: 1513: 1497: 1494: 1471: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1363: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1307: 1306: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1244:216.250.156.66 1237: 1231: 1210:Evgeny Morozov 1179:978-0062023131 1162: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1041: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 986: 984: 983: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 894: 893: 892: 891: 858: 857: 833: 830: 829: 828: 813: 812: 777: 774: 744: 743: 742: 741: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 641: 640: 639: 638: 627: 626: 625: 624: 617: 616: 615: 614: 607: 606: 571: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 484: 481: 458: 457: 413: 410: 408: 381: 380: 345: 342: 319: 316: 304:81.179.120.240 293: 292:factual errors 290: 274: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 239: 238: 193: 190: 155: 152: 137: 134: 132: 125:William Moates 119: 116: 110: 76: 73: 70: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2777: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2729: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2681: 2678: 2677: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2638: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2537: 2534: 2533: 2528: 2527: 2525: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2516: 2515: 2509: 2505: 2502: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2470: 2468: 2465: 2461: 2458: 2453: 2450: 2447: 2444: 2441: 2437: 2434: 2430: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2391: 2386: 2385: 2378: 2373: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2321: 2315: 2313: 2309: 2307: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2274: 2273:not a soapbox 2270: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2230: 2226: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2201: 2200: 2195: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2147: 2146: 2141: 2137: 2134: 2131: 2129: 2123: 2120: 2117: 2116: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2077: 2075: 2072: 2069: 2067: 2061: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2028: 2025: 2024: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1982: 1978: 1975: 1968: 1964: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1939: 1938: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1925: 1924: 1918: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1893: 1892: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1842: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1828: 1827: 1821: 1817: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1804: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1769: 1766: 1765: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1725: 1724:WP:BLPSOURCES 1721: 1718: 1715: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1704: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1686: 1685: 1675: 1672: 1668: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1651: 1644: 1643:not mandatory 1640: 1636: 1633: 1628: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1621: 1613: 1609: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1584: 1583: 1577: 1574:(most of the 1571: 1569: 1568:WP:MOS-BIBLIO 1565: 1561: 1557: 1549: 1545: 1542: 1541: 1536: 1535: 1528: 1523: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1493: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1469: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1437: 1432: 1426: 1425: 1420: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1383: 1378: 1372: 1371: 1361: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1344:141.218.36.44 1341: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1332: 1331: 1323: 1315: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1305: 1302: 1299: 1295: 1288: 1281: 1276: 1273: 1270: 1266: 1265: 1263: 1259: 1258: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1242: 1238: 1236: 1232: 1229: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1218:Stewart Brand 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1190:Jared Diamond 1185: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1177: 1173: 1172:John Brockman 1169: 1165: 1164: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1124: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1092: 1085: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1033: 1029: 1022: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 981: 977: 973: 972:83.192.139.52 969: 963: 957: 952: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 930: 926: 922: 918: 917: 916: 912: 908: 904: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 890: 886: 882: 878: 875: 874: 873: 868: 860: 859: 854: 853: 852: 851: 847: 843: 839: 831: 827: 823: 822: 815: 814: 811: 807: 803: 798: 797: 796: 795: 791: 790: 783: 775: 773: 772: 768: 764: 759: 758: 754: 750: 740: 736: 735: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 718: 714: 709: 708: 704: 700: 695: 694: 682: 678: 674: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 655: 652: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 637: 634: 633:75.180.34.240 631: 630: 629: 628: 621: 620: 619: 618: 611: 610: 609: 608: 605: 602: 597: 596: 595: 592: 588: 584: 583:216.12.16.176 580: 569: 559: 555: 551: 546: 545: 544: 540: 536: 531: 530: 529: 525: 521: 517: 516: 515: 511: 507: 502: 501: 500: 499: 495: 491: 482: 480: 478: 474: 470: 469:70.139.190.35 466: 456: 453: 449: 445: 444: 439: 438: 437: 434: 430: 426: 422: 411: 409: 406: 404: 400: 396: 392: 391:Meltwaternord 388: 379: 375: 371: 367: 363: 362: 361: 360: 356: 352: 343: 341: 339: 335: 331: 330:67.86.114.110 327: 317: 315: 313: 309: 305: 301: 291: 289: 288: 284: 280: 272: 265: 261: 257: 253: 247: 243: 242: 241: 240: 236: 232: 228: 224: 218: 214: 210: 209: 208: 207: 203: 199: 198:86.148.57.131 191: 189: 188: 183: 179: 175: 170: 169: 168: 161: 153: 151: 150: 147: 141: 135: 133: 130: 129: 126: 117: 115: 112: 108: 106: 102: 98: 95: 91: 87: 84: 83: 74: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2733:WP:CRITICISM 2674: 2636: 2530: 2524:WP:CRITICISM 2512: 2507: 2500: 2478:— Preceding 2474: 2466: 2462: 2459: 2454: 2451: 2448: 2445: 2442: 2438: 2435: 2431: 2415: 2372: 2364: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2319: 2316: 2304: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2197: 2191: 2162:James Cantor 2156:— Preceding 2143: 2135: 2125: 2118: 2073: 2063: 2056: 2052: 2021: 1962: 1957: 1954:WP:BLPGOSSIP 1916: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1865:WP:BLPGOSSIP 1849: 1819: 1815: 1801: 1785: 1762: 1758: 1730:WP:BLPREMOVE 1707: 1682: 1679: 1670: 1664:iMediaEthics 1617: 1580: 1575: 1572: 1553: 1550:Bibliography 1538: 1522: 1514: 1499: 1482:72.93.84.209 1476:— Preceding 1473: 1439: 1424:Dennis Brown 1423: 1399: 1385: 1370:Dennis Brown 1369: 1365: 1328: 1298:Arthur Rubin 1261: 1202:Jaron Lanier 1194:Denis Dutton 1189: 1187: 1167: 1083: 1040: 1020: 985: 901:Please read 835: 817: 785: 779: 760: 747:languages.-- 745: 730: 710: 696: 691: 673:NorthernNerd 573: 486: 459: 441: 415: 407: 382: 366:72.78.159.73 351:72.78.159.73 347: 321: 295: 276: 216: 212: 195: 166: 164: 159: 157: 142: 139: 131: 121: 118:Bibliography 113: 109: 80: 78: 60: 43: 37: 2755:Runner Five 2707:Runner Five 2606:178.86.6.79 2484:178.86.6.79 2449:Due weight 1877:participant 1637:Two edits ( 1206:Clay Shirky 966:—Preceding 832:Controversy 782:a long time 763:Bureaucracy 749:Bureaucracy 713:Bureaucracy 699:Bureaucracy 463:—Preceding 448:bcasterline 385:—Preceding 324:—Preceding 298:—Preceding 256:86.146.98.3 250:—Preceding 227:86.146.98.3 221:—Preceding 36:This is an 2365:References 1850:New Yorker 1816:New Yorker 1803:New Yorker 1798:defamation 1515:References 1122:Joseph Roe 1090:Joseph Roe 1027:Joseph Roe 1024:details. — 856:carefully. 820:Joseph Roe 788:Joseph Roe 733:Joseph Roe 623:languages. 425:Dutchsatyr 344:Criticism? 101:Viriditas 2737:Noleander 2642:Guettarda 2403:Tiggerjay 2278:Tiggerjay 2244:view. 1950:WP:GOSSIP 1917:so-called 1861:WP:GOSSIP 1786:Vengeance 1650:dead link 1627:This edit 1502:JettaMann 1322:cite book 1287:cite book 1214:Brian Eno 997:sense. -- 907:Hertz1888 550:Hertz1888 520:Hertz1888 246:Tok Pisin 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 2480:unsigned 2467:-start- 2225:WP:UNDUE 2170:contribs 2158:unsigned 2017:section. 1967:WP:UNDUE 1963:Science' 1881:reporter 1697:WP:UNDUE 1660:removing 1608:WP:UNDUE 1478:unsigned 1452:Dhawk790 1441:Join WER 1404:Dhawk790 1387:Join WER 1233:Also in 968:unsigned 950:Joey Roe 866:Joey Roe 579:unsigned 535:Joey Roe 506:Joey Roe 490:Ruziklan 465:unsigned 433:contribs 421:unsigned 399:contribs 387:unsigned 370:Plumbago 326:unsigned 300:unsigned 252:unsigned 223:unsigned 178:contribs 2676:joe•roe 2532:joe•roe 2514:joe•roe 2508:section 2347:day.” 2199:joe•roe 2145:joe•roe 2053:Science 2023:joe•roe 1958:Science 1941:value." 1912:Science 1908:Science 1904:Science 1885:Science 1820:Science 1764:joe•roe 1684:joe•roe 1632:summary 1582:joe•roe 1540:joe•roe 1330:joe•roe 1084:Science 86:article 39:archive 2637:should 2229:WP:BLP 1873:WP:BLP 1755:WP:BLP 1712:WP:BLP 1614:issues 1612:WP:BLP 1576:Nature 1340:WP:TEA 1301:(talk) 1269:WP:BLP 1170:(with 921:KappaD 903:WP:BLP 881:KappaD 842:KappaD 279:Vloxul 182:e-mail 1239:and 1166:2011 1133:Elvey 1102:Elvey 1054:Elvey 999:Elvey 995:WP:RS 165:Twas 16:< 2759:talk 2741:talk 2711:talk 2646:talk 2610:talk 2488:talk 2424:talk 2407:talk 2356:talk 2282:talk 2257:talk 2227:and 2214:talk 2166:talk 2083:talk 1988:talk 1952:and 1863:and 1745:talk 1639:diff 1610:and 1597:talk 1506:talk 1486:talk 1456:talk 1408:talk 1348:talk 1314:WP:V 1248:talk 1208:and 1176:ISBN 1137:talk 1106:talk 1082:The 1058:talk 1021:have 1003:talk 976:talk 925:talk 911:talk 885:talk 846:talk 806:talk 767:talk 753:talk 717:talk 703:talk 677:talk 587:talk 554:talk 539:talk 524:talk 510:talk 494:talk 473:talk 452:talk 429:talk 395:talk 374:talk 355:talk 349:guy. 334:talk 308:talk 283:talk 260:talk 231:talk 202:talk 174:talk 105:Talk 2314:. 1558:by 1342:. 1262:two 651:Lfh 364:Hi 215:in 167:Now 2761:) 2743:) 2713:) 2648:) 2612:) 2490:) 2426:) 2409:) 2358:) 2284:) 2259:) 2216:) 2168:• 2085:) 1990:) 1747:) 1710:" 1653:}} 1647:{{ 1599:) 1570:. 1508:) 1488:) 1458:) 1430:2¢ 1427:- 1410:) 1376:2¢ 1373:- 1350:) 1325:}} 1319:{{ 1290:}} 1284:{{ 1250:) 1174:) 1139:) 1125:, 1108:) 1093:, 1060:) 1030:, 1005:) 978:) 927:) 913:) 887:) 848:) 824:, 808:) 792:, 769:) 755:) 737:, 719:) 705:) 679:) 589:) 556:) 541:) 526:) 512:) 496:) 475:) 450:• 431:• 401:) 397:• 376:) 357:) 336:) 310:) 285:) 262:) 233:) 204:) 180:• 176:• 172:( 103:| 99:-- 2757:( 2739:( 2709:( 2644:( 2608:( 2503:. 2486:( 2422:( 2405:( 2354:( 2308:, 2280:( 2255:( 2212:( 2164:( 2124:, 2081:( 2062:, 1986:( 1743:( 1595:( 1504:( 1484:( 1454:( 1435:© 1406:( 1381:© 1346:( 1246:( 1135:( 1104:( 1056:( 1001:( 974:( 923:( 909:( 883:( 844:( 804:( 765:( 751:( 715:( 701:( 675:( 593:. 585:( 552:( 537:( 522:( 508:( 492:( 471:( 427:( 393:( 372:( 353:( 332:( 306:( 281:( 258:( 229:( 200:( 184:) 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index