Talk:Cambridge University Press

I believe this page was created by a troll to make fun of Rationalwiki's attitude towards hereditarianism. A sort of "reductio ad absurdum". Obviously CUP isn't a "garbage publisher", as the page claims.--Greenrd (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. It seems other false claims were left in article despite the "garbage publisher" edit removed. Ernor (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite this page
I don’t feel like this page is good. It gives of the vibe that Cambridge University press is bad or garbage all because it has publish some stuff about race science. This obviously gives a bad look to the site, making it look like website that is run by those stereo typical far leftists that the right like to talk about. I might rewrite the whole thing to have it show that while Cambridge University press dose normally publish good academia, it has also published pseudoscience. This recognizes the good things that Cambridge has published ( Real academia ) but also recognizes The times it published pseudoscience
 * I can't say that I like it very much either. Defining the whole institution on the basis of a handful of dubious books seems a little extreme.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely cherry-picks the most most out-there things they've ever published. Nutpicking, really. Should we AFD? I don't know why you'd need this page really. Jake Holmes''yell at me 17:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Problems
This inaccurate section seems to have been written by a troll, same as the person who described Cambridge as a "garbage publisher" (this nonsense edit was removed):


 * The "link" between human brain size and IQ is not discredited, its just very weak i.e., as is mentioned on hereditarianism: "There's also some evidence that brain size correlates moderately with intelligence: a 2005 meta-analysis found a correlation of r=0.33, implying that brain size explains about 11% of the variation in intelligence." (the latter is likely an overestimation based on a more recent study.)
 * The "complete with a citation to white nationalist J. Philippe Rushton." is sheer nonsense criticism since many academic critics of Rushton who disagree with his racist and pseudoscience ideas cite his work.
 * Earl Hunt was not advocating race hereditarianism in his book. He said there is no current available evidence and actually criticises various claims by Rushton.

The only racialism and pro-hereditarianism staements about race and IQ I could find was in Rindermann's book. Ernor (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)