[Doc]: Inappropriate example in gallery

[jsdodge]

Documentation Link

https://matplotlib.org/stable/gallery/statistics/histogram_features.html

Problem

• Given the sordid historical misuse of IQ, this gallery example unnecessarily reinforces a crude association between IQ and "smarts" that distracts from the main point, which is to show how to make a histogram.
• Any attempt to contextualize the meaning of IQ would further distract from this point, so it would be better to just change the axis labels to avoid the negative association.

Suggested improvement

• Remove the axis labels altogether, as was done here, or change the simulation example to something more neutral, such as the masses of apples from a hypothetical farm.

[jklymak]

I agree that examples should avoid issues to do with humans that could be misconstrued, no matter how well meaning. This is a pretty easy fix if anyone wants to come up with a better example.

[github-actions]

Good first issue - notes for new contributors

This issue is suited to new contributors because it does not require understanding of the Matplotlib internals. To get started, please see our contributing guide.

We do not assign issues. Check the Development section in the sidebar for linked pull requests (PRs). If there are none, feel free to start working on it. If there is an open PR, please collaborate on the work by reviewing it rather than duplicating it in a competing PR.

If something is unclear, please reach out on any of our communication channels.

[gautamsagar99]

Hello,

I'm new to open source contribution, I want to solve this good first issue. I hope no one had created a PR for this issue can I start working on it?

Thanks

[RohanG610]

Is this issue still open?

[svgnix]

If the issue is still open, can you please assign me? Would love to work on it.

[rcomer]

@sagniksantra we do not assign issues. Please see our contributors’ guide:
https://matplotlib.org/devdocs/devel/contributing.html

[story645]

I agree that examples should avoid issues to do with humans that could be misconstrued, no matter how well meaning.

I think in situations like this where the concerns are about whether an example is a good fit for the community, rather than its technical suitability, then the guiding principle on whether an example should be removed should be on its alignment with our mission statement and core values.

I agree that IQ should be removed-not because it's about humans but because highlighting bad science rooted in eugenics goes against our values of facilitating good science and aiming for inclusivity. There are situations where removing an example could work against our values, and harm community engagement, in that it could signify, probably unintentionally, that we consider data about that demographic, and implicitly that demographic, inherently controversial. There are also plenty of non-human datasets that we would also reject on the basis of it being bad science or otherwise in conflict with our values.

Conversely there are situations where including human data is completely in alignment with our mission and values. In those situations it could even promote inclusion and community engagement as it's a low effort way to signify that we as a project believe in our values enough to put them on display in our gallery. Which bolsters the credibility of the mission statement and code of conduct. Which is why our criteria for evaluating examples where the issue is community, not technical, should be whether it promotes our values.

Maybe we can discuss this more in a meeting?