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