Jump to content

Talk:James Flynn (academic)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Flynn on G

Interesting:

"In fact, g has some application even across species. Human children can be given certain of the performance tests designed for animals, and this reveals that g-loaded tasks put apes ahead of monkeys, monkeys ahead of dogs, and dogs ahead of chickens. Gould (1981, The Mismeasure of Man) expresses horror: speaking as a paleontologist, he accuses Jensen of ranking all animal species, each of which possesses its own solution to its own environmental niche, according to human standards. Surely that is the whole point: human beings rank animals using a distinctively human concept of intelligence, the primitive concept found in everyday life, and these rankings correlate with g." J.R.FLYNN, 1987, 'The ontology of intelligence'.

--Nectar T 03:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Worst sort

This blog ascribes the "social engineering of the worst sort" comment to Ian Pool, professor of demography at Wakato. This may well be the Star-Times' letter column, but that is no longer available on line for July 2007. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This article deserves a lot of expansion. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Flynn is an enormously important reseacher, so let's discuss sources for improving this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
For starters, wasn't he actually born/raised in the USA? This article doesn't mention that. Muzilon (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

merge Race, IQ and Jensen here

The book doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria. In the references section I don't see any critical analysis of the book itself. They appear to be analysis on the field, and this book being one of the sources used. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this is an academic/technical book, isn't this section more relevant? In particular, note that "most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic bailiwick." For me, the key criteria would be how "widely the book is cited by other academic publications." It is widely cited, with scores of citations. Should I add some of these to the article? Yfever (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please. See if you can find any book review. Those usually make statements about how significant the book is. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Will do. I just added Richards, which makes non-trivial use of Flynn, although probably not always in ways that Flynn would approve. I will add some more sources and try to summarize their views of Flynn in the article itself. By the way, what are your thoughts on the separate page devoted to What Is Intelligence?? I think most people would argue that Race, IQ and Jensen has had more of an impact in the field than this book. Yfever (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Enric. From what I can tell, there is no indication that this book is in any way seminal or representative of Flynn's work. None of the rationales at WP:NOTBOOK#Criteria seem to fit here. aprock (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it a requirement of a Wikipedia page that it be "seminal"? Not that I can see. Does a book have to be "representative" to have a page? (I am not even sure how that would work in Flynn's case since his books cover a fairly wide range. For an academic/technical book to be notable, we need to examine "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media." By this criteria, the book is notable. (I certainly agree that the entry should be significantly expanded. Do you think that What Is Intelligence? is a useful model for me to follow?) Yfever (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The relevant policy is found at the wikilink supplied above: WP:NOTBOOK#Criteria. Please review it. Based on the guidelines discussed there, the book does not appear to be notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. aprock (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the relevant policy is: WP:NOTBOOK#Academic_and_technical_books. Given how "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media" --- I am quoting the relevant policy --- it seems notable. Yfever (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This is not a widely cited book. And it is certainly not a very influential book. It's not at all clear to me why you insist on a separate article for the book when it's very natural to cover it in Flynn's article. aprock (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It is a "widely cited book." Compare the number of citations with other academic/technical books written in 1980. (Google Scholar is, obviously, biased toward more recent publication dates.) In the decade of the 1980s, it is certainly one of the most important books written in its area. Or, at least, I can't think of a more widely cited one. Can you? In any event, I will try to add some more material to substantiate my case. Yfever (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete the article about the book. None of the references cited qualify. None of them discuss the book. There are merely a handful of very insignificant citations in each of them save one which fails to mention the book at all. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The merge has been made (by someone else). Am I safe in assuming that any material that was lost in the merge could be added to this article in the appropriate section? Yfever (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In general yes, but in this case it's not clear what you'd want to put here. There was no significant content there which is not here. aprock (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Just the book review references. I have added them in and will them to provide a bit more on the book, when I get the chance. Yfever (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction needed - Flynn did not discover the "Flynn Effect"

With all due respect to whoever wrote: "His discovery was profiled in a 2007 article in The New Yorker magazine.[1]" Flynn did not discover the "Flynn Effect". Flynn has acknowledged this himself. The phenomenon was reported in Nature by Lynn before Flynn came onto the IQ scene and had been noted by at least one other investigator before Lynn. The effect should be named the "Lynn Effect" as suggested by several commentators. Flynn's contribution has been to popularise the concept, write books about it, and point out the implications for sentencing people assessed as having IQs above or below 70 in the USA, all notable achievements without a doubt, but the effect should be not be incorrectly attributed to him. This fact should be added to the beginning of the article. Guevera2013 (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It is easy to source to reliable sources that other authors (Charles Murray immediately comes to mind) give Flynn credit for drawing this phenomenon to the attention of most psychologists. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

James R. Flynn → Jim Flynn (academic) – According to a Google search, Flynn seems to be better known as 'Jim' than 'James', and the use of his middle initial does not appear to be common at all. According to the naming conventions, the page should be moved and a disambiguator added, and I suggest that a neutral 'academic' could be appropriate. Schwede66 21:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree Hugo999 (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC) PS: Is it worth extending the Unsucessful candidates in general elections category (currently just 2011) to 2005 (including him) & 2008.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New discussion of name of article

It should be Jim Flynn (Psychologist) not the current probably.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I see a new (?) editor has missed the wording in the previous section about the name of this article which says, "The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page." So here is the new section. The author James R. Flynn writes most of his books with that name, James R. Flynn, which is also a name used by a songwriter or something like that. By professional training and early experience, he is a sociologist (just like Charles Murray). James R. Flynn has had a number of publications in the most elite journals about psychology, and is recognized as a contributor of the research literature on psychology by having the Flynn effect named after him. (The earlier term for the effect, still used today rarely, is "secular increase in IQ"; the term "Flynn effect" was first popularized in the book The Bell Curve by Murray and his late co-author Richard Herrnsteinn.) The change of the name of this article to "Jim Flynn" from "James R. Flynn" seems to have been prompted by New Zealanders who are more familiar with Flynn's local reputation in New Zealand as a political activist than with his international reputation as a scholar about IQ. I can live with the current name of the article, although I wouldn't have supported this name. In article text, I usually write out Flynn's name as James R. Flynn to make maximally clear who is being mentioned. People who are well read in the research literature on psychology will all know the name "James R. Flynn". Simply put, I can deal with the status quo. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I've simply shifted the heading to fix this. Schwede66 18:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I could support changing it to James Flynn or something in that direction. He dont go by the name Jim Flynn ParanoidLemmings (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

ParanoidLemmings, I have reverted your move. The current title is the result of a formal move request. If you want that changed, you will have to initiate another formal move request. There's nothing wrong with having a discussion beforehand to see whether there is some support for such an initiative, but this cannot replace the formal process. Have a read what is involved in the formal process. Schwede66 03:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ohh well.. The discussion just seem somewhat over...ParanoidLemmings (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What you don't realise, though, is that not too many editors may have this article on their watchlist, and that's why there isn't necessarily much discussion. Once you use a formal move request, this gets automatically put onto other notification channels, and you get a lot broader input. Hence, when something is potentially controversial, it always has to go through the formal process. Schwede66 21:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yet another request for move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 03:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


A Google search for '"James Flynn" IQ' brings up 32000 results, whereas '"Jim Flynn" IQ' only 4000. '"James Flynn" effect' 40000 results, '"Jim Flynn" effect' 20000.

cagliost (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Certainly he is known in academic circles (the circles in which he is best known) as James R. Flynn. Most of his books are published under that name, although a few list his name as Jim Flynn on the title page. Most third-party sources refer to him as James R. Flynn. The way to resolve this would be to put this article through the formal requested move process, which I would support. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 16:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Taken incorrectly to move review, speedy closed, now a requested move
As pointed out to you at move review, you need to start a formal move request. See the item immediately above for more context. Schwede66 19:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Helping out. Made into RM. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose His common name appears to have shifted since this was looked into last time; checking the above, I (mostly) get similar numbers. However, the check was for "James Flynn" vs "Jim Flynn", whereas the proposal is for the inclusion of the middle initial. Google hits are much lower when the middle initial is included. Schwede66 07:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    • To clarify, no one is proposing "Jim R Flynn", that would be the worse than the other options. The options are "James Flynn (academic)", "James R. Flynn (academic)", and "Jim Flynn (academic)". cagliost (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I respectfully suggest that we can refer to much better sources than a simple Google search to better resolve this issue. Bibliographic sources would go a long way to guiding us in the right direction. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 14:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support
I don't think it's useful to search Google just for "jim flynn", because this brings up lots of results about other Jim Flynns.
I get the following Google results:
'"james flynn" iq' 32200
'"james r flynn" iq' 13700
'"jim flynn" iq' 4270 results, many of which actually read James Flynn
'"james flynn" effect' 41100
'"james r flynn" effect' 14400
'"jim flynn" effect' 20300 results, many of which actually read James Flynn
If we go by bibliographic sources as WeijiBaikeBianji suggests, they are pretty much all James R Flynn. I don't spot any of his publications in the name Jim Flynn. cagliost (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to James Flynn (academic). The evidence above seems to suggest the form without the middle initial is more common, and also is better per WP:CONCISE. There is almost a case for a primary topic here - this one dwarfs most of the other James Flynns by pageviews. The one exception is Jimmy Flynn which has almost the same number of pageviews. He is technically a James Flynn too, so not sure if WP:SMALLDETAILS applies there. It could. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

James R. Flynn

I could have watched this page before I tried to re-name the page, but I cannot understand why this page is named under his nickname "Jim", when his surname is "James Robert" (for instance Congress Library [1]. All the other Wikipedian Pages have chosen "James R. Flynn" [cf Wikidata [2], his books are published under his surname & name "James R. Flynn" [3]. Could one imagine Freud's page being named "Sigi Freud"? Best regards,--Pierrette13 (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don't understand some of the discussions above, and their outcomes, where Google search hits seem to have become a reference. Is this what happened ? The question is not about James/Jim Flynn but broader. What are/is the criteria for selecting the name on Wiki English (also not an English native) ? This is quite important because in non-English pages, we sometimes struggle with handdling the differences between the printed name and the 'oral tradition' name (???). It's a cultural difference and makes the interwiki and wiki data a bit more difficult to handle. It would be good to have one rule and not to rely on Google hits which vary depending on trends and seasons. Besides the wikidata page in French mentionned Flynn as a political fellow, but he is welkown internationally as an academic ; his political position is regional (I mean, not international) and threfore less relevant to wikipedia. Cordially, Cathrotterdam (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Cathrotterdam:, for the criteria used on selecting a name see WP:CRITERIA. In short the article needs to be Recognisable, Natural, Precise, Concise and Consistent - but it is always a balancing act to achieve all 5. For more guidance in relation to people see WP:NCP. In regard to middle initials it says "Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources: if that is with a middle name or initials, make the Wikipedia article title conform to that format." I hope this helps Mattlore (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
What Mattlore says is 100% correct. Often, bios have the wrong name because whoever created it didn't know their way around the naming conventions, and it's simple enough to move the article to fix this. Sometimes, there isn't a straightforward answer what the best article name is, and that's the case here. The only way to resolve this is via discussion, usually followed by a formal move request if there isn't consensus. Or one can go straight to the formal move request and have the discussion as part of that process. Pierrette13, what is always inappropriate is to simply move an article where there have been previous move discussions held. Schwede66 23:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear Schwede66, thank you for your answer. I should have (watched the former discussion) but I did not (oops). But now, is it possible to walk forward without looking backwards ? Best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Schwede66 and Mattlore: Thanks a lot for sharing these links and explanations. I will need to read them carefully and I'll definitely keep these links preciously for further references. The initial in the middle of the name is definitely not a common practice in France (and some other countries I guess), but also the use of a diminutive versus a birth first name. Therefore on wiki date it looks as if there was a mistake somewhere. But since there has been already difficult discussions onthis, I don't want to reopen a debate. Thanks a lot for your help ! Cathrotterdam (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal February 2017: Rename Jim Flynn (academic) into James R. Flynn (2)

Hello, I propose to rename this page and to name it James R. Flynn (academic) i.e. to suppress the redirection from James R. Flynn (academic) to the current page Jim Flynn.

  • James R. Flynn is his real name and he's known as JRF (for instance Congress Library [4]
  • His books are published under his full name [5]
  • Wikidata links to other pages (French, German... and many others cf. [6]
  • WP:CRITERIA should help to take a decision.

Best regards, --Pierrette13 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Pierrette13 What you want to use is Template:Requested move for your proposal, so that people interested in article naming get notified. Schwede66 17:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to James Flynn (academic). There is a rough consensus here that he is more commonly referred to as "James" in reliable sources. There was no consensus on whether or not to include the middle initial and even those who supported it were content with "James Flynn". Jenks24 (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


Jim Flynn (academic) → James R. Flynn – It's his his real name. His books are published under this name. Wikidata link is under this name. All WP articles are named "James Flynn", so we should revert to that ! Pierrette13 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. There have two previous move requests, above, regarding this matter and the results continue to be inconsistent. The pen name on scholarly articles is "James R. Flynn" but, contrary to the statement made in this nomination, the books appended as references within the article ([7] and [8]), depict the author's name on the cover as "Jim Flynn". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, its true, but these books published by one editor are less formal. If you have a look there [9], he's named both James R. and Jim. When he writes formal books, he signs "James", and he has a page in WP because of his scientific books or "Flynn Effect", not because of his novels or essays, so "Jim Flynn" could redirect to "James Flynn" or "James Flynn (academic)" (it seems the "James R. Flynn" is not an option and I'm ready to change to "James Flynn" if it helps... --Pierrette13 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to James Flynn (academic), per my arguments above, and the ghits evidence presented in that discussion. He is more often known as James, and more often known without the middle initial.[10][11]  — Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As discussed above and shown by GHits, I cannot support the use of a middle initial. Schwede66 22:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Flynn_(academic)/Archive_1&oldid=1045339055"