![]() | Race and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Additional archives
|
---|
Archive index (last updated June 2006) |
Race and intelligence references |
Please: place new messages at bottom of page.
What We All Know
Want to know the central source for conflict on this article? This opinion from Slrubenstein: "We all know that the claim that average differences in IQ are genetic in origin is fringe science. . . . I have merely pointed out that to claim that people of a certain race are on average innately less intelligent (meaning, g, general inelligence) is to make a racist claim. This to me is obvious on its face and needs no further evidence or justification." I would be curious know which other editors agree with Slrubenstein. I disagree. David.Kane (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO the article would be best served written from the perspective of we don't know what we don't know. Stating we know something (and those who disagree are racists) really does nothing to advance the topic. As I've already mentioned, the presentation of the subject matter is decidedly polarized. For example, Goddard (in History of...) is not mentioned as having recanted all his initial conclusions. Nor does the article here record that the much-pilloried Jensen has himself written: "Data that would permit firm conclusions about the genetic basis of differences among ethnic groups in measured intelligence do not exist," and, "the cause of the observed differences in IQ and scholastic performance among different racial groups is still an open question." Clearly, Jensen asserts a hypothesis, not a conclusion, regarding race and intelligence. That distinction appears lost on those who wish to credit him with a revival of eugenics, among many other sins.
- At least the alleged purveyors of moral turpitude at this article do not appear as certain of the innate unassailable correctness (and morality) of their position as those who denounce them. History has taught us that a priori moral certainty of one's position eliminates any possibility of negotiation or reconciliation, regardless of the venue. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Short answer, even if I agreed completely with Slrubenstein (i.e., genetics has nothing to do with it, 100% environmentalist), I would not stoop to claiming the moral high ground to advance my editorial position. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. I must add it somewhat pains me to make this observation as I've rather liked Slrubenstein's work at Judaism where our interests have crossed prior. PЄTЄRSJVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Allow me to point out that there is a vast difference between the language games being played here. The assertion that there are real differences between the intelligence of different racial groups is only racist when it is made in the absence of evidence (or in the face of evidence to the contrary). A scientist asserting he has evidence to that effect is not inherently racist - he may be right or wrong, but he's not making claims in the moral universe, only in the physical one. prejudice is a moral claim that (a) these differences exist, and (b) the extant differences call for differential standards of treatment and behavior, and in most cases prejudiced people will shout out about B without every giving A an evidentiary thought. Not everything science does is pleasant - note that if everyone had rejected bread mold as harmful and disgusting, we'd never have discovered penicillin. Both the moral and scientific sides of this issue require attention, obviously, but everyone needs to make a better effort at keeping the two realms distinct. --Ludwigs2 17:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Given the uncertainties regarding the precise definitions of both intelligence and race, anyone wanting to prove a connection between them must already have what I would see as a racist view of the matter. To argue such a position, one must make assumptions about both matters, assumptions which, the article already states, are not fully supported by the science. HiLo48 (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- You appear to presume that people go in search of proof of superiority or inferiority. While this was certainly the case to begin with in U.S. testing, I do not think it is fair to tar anyone postulating a genetic link as being, by definition, a "racist." Racism requires prejudice. For example, consider that East Asians test, as a group, higher than mine. Whether it's environmental, genetic, or a combination, it doesn't change the score nor does the score say anything about superiority or inferiority. To take a scoring difference—regardless of its source—and to state it does say something about superiority or inferiority, that is what is "racist." PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- You appear to presume that people go in search of proof of superiority or inferiority. While this was certainly the case to begin with in U.S. testing, I do not think it is fair to tar anyone postulating a genetic link as being, by definition, a "racist." Racism requires prejudice. For example, consider that East Asians test, as a group, higher than mine. Whether it's environmental, genetic, or a combination, it doesn't change the score nor does the score say anything about superiority or inferiority. To take a scoring difference—regardless of its source—and to state it does say something about superiority or inferiority, that is what is "racist." PЄTЄRS
- Of course, someone can simply counter that the most insidious racist is the racist who doesn't know they are a racist. I would suggest we not take the conversation there. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, someone can simply counter that the most insidious racist is the racist who doesn't know they are a racist. I would suggest we not take the conversation there. PЄTЄRS
- Which east Asians? Do we have clear definition? HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Per Flynn and Vanhanen's data, graph; which group specifically is scoring how in comparison to which other one is immaterial with regard to my example. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Per Flynn and Vanhanen's data, graph; which group specifically is scoring how in comparison to which other one is immaterial with regard to my example. PЄTЄRS
- Which east Asians? Do we have clear definition? HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- @ HiLO48: actually, in my experience a lot of questions like this get raised because there is a popular prejudice that scientists are trying to verify or dispute empirically. For instance, a lot of the R&I research in the US focuses on racial ideas that go back to the days of slavery (one of the primary presumptions of the salve trade was that aboriginal peoples were 'primitives' who lacked the mental acuity to coexist properly in 'civilized' society). It's a bit more complex, of course, since I think Jensen et al were actually responding to liberal ideologies about equality which tended to paint racial inequities exclusively in terms of sociological factors (though these, in turn, were responses to the older idea that racial differences were innate). scientists don't live outside of the real world, and are just as influenced by the misconceptions of society as the rest of us are; but that is precisely why science puts so much emphasis on gathering empirical evidence to support claims.
- in other words, if no one ever raised the question as an empirical, scientific question, then prejudice would be the status quo in many parts of the US and the world. Would you rather have a world where the uncomfortable questions never get raised and prejudice rules implicitly, or a world where they uncomfortable questions do get raised, and prejudice has to prove itself right or disappear? --Ludwigs2 22:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Labeling a hypothesis as "a racist claim" would seem to be a way to dismiss it, unexamined. Perhaps the topic of race and intelligence should be listed in our Politicized science article.
The claim that women (a) simply choose to stay out of the top academic levels in mathematics, as opposed to the claim that (b) women are discriminated against at the top academic levels, is likewise dismissed, unexamined, as "a sexist claim".
One would hope that Wikipedia contributors could rise above all this and simply present the arguments and evidence for and against each viewpoint. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think this is really a helpful discussion - how many times has the question been asked, and to what purpose? On the relevance to the article, if someone makes the argument that it is fringe, that argument and debate should be included, but it should be not characterized as such without attribution. My personal view: I don't think the research topic is fringe per se, although I do think the hereditarian perspective attracts racists who happen to have PhDs. I think a very strong argument could be made that Rushton & Jensen are indeed racists. I think they view their position not as a hypothesis but rather as a conclusion, and they have apparently done so long before the research has even progressed to its current (in my opinion meager) state of knowledge. People who think there are no PhD racists are fooling themselves. But this is beside the point, so let's get back to working on the article and deal with this issue when/if someone presents the sources on the fringeness. II | (t - c) 05:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Slrubenstein's claim that the hereditarian perspective is "fringe science" is unsupported. In reality, the hereditarian view is regularly discussed in scholarly publications, and there is evidence suggesting that hereditarianism is a vastly more common view among intelligence researchers than the extreme (100 %) environmental hypothesis. You could claim that it is "environmentalism" that is fringe science, but I wouldn't say that, either. As to the claim that Jensen and Rushton are racists who reached their conclusions without evidence, a similar claim could be made of their opponents, such as Richard Nisbett, who preposterously claims that he actually has evidence that conclusively proves that race differences have no genetic component. Some of the more honest people in the environmentalist camp at least admit that there is little evidence to support their position. In one interview, James Flynn said that he hopes that the differences are not genetic to any extent. He certainly would not claim that he can prove it.
- However, this speculation about motives and prejudices is useless. The article should simply discuss the arguments and evidence put forth by the reseachers. This approach of course favors the hereditarian view, because it is a scientific theory with lots of evidence and predictive power, whereas the environmentalist position is more of a collection of criticisms of hereditarianism than a coherent theory. This can also be seen in the fact that hereditarianism is falsifiable, whereas I don't think any feasible experiment or observation could disprove environmentalism in the minds of its hardcore supporters.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
"This can also be seen in the fact that hereditarianism is falsifiable ..." Well, I guess it has been, since no one has been able to demonstrate a genetic cause for racial differences in IQ. "...whereas I don't think any feasible experiment or observation could disprove environmentalism in the minds of its hardcore supporters." This is an absurd position, since the term "environmentalism" is a sloppy term promoted by the so-called hereditarians to refer to anyone who disagrees with them. Heredity has one cause: a gene or combination of genes. What does "environmentalistm" even mean? According to our own article it means at least a dozen different things. Why lump them all together? That is not a scientific, not an objective, way of going about things. It is a highly biased approach that makes sense only to a "hereditarian." Now, researchers who say there is an "environmental" cause are usually actually saying there is some kind of social cause. And the social sciences do not operate in the same way that some other sciences operate (note: not all life and physical sciences require hypotheses that are falsifiable; Durac, who some would say was the greatest scientist of the tqwentieth century and if not the greatest, number two or three, didn't feel that it applies to particla physics; Quine questions whether it really applies to any of the sciences); a great deal of sociological research is not experimental. Be that as it may, Moore's study provides compelling evidence that the difference is "environmental."
How nice to see my position misrepresented. The view that average differences in IQ between races are innate is fringe science not "because" they are racist, they are fringe science because they are rejected by most scientists. Victor Chmara claims I am wrong, but then slips in an important qualifier: "among intelligence researchers." This is a small segment of the scientific comunity and not the only - I repeat because others from David Kane to Victor Chmara always overlook this in arguing against me - not the only scientists whose research bears on the question. Who are the other scientists? Well, biologists and physical anthropologists who by the way are experts on genetics. None of the intelligence researchers I know of - certainly neither Jensen, Lynn nor Rushton - have any expertise whatsover in genetics. Biologists and physical anthropologists who are experts on genetics reject these claism, and researchers who are not experts on genetics make these claims. That is, experts do not make the claims, non-experts do - this is one reason we know it is fringe science. Sociologists and cultural anthropologists are experts on race. Intelligence researchers are not. Sociologists an cultural anthropologists reject these claims. Intelligence researchers, who do not have the required expertise, make these claims. That is more evidence that it is fringe science. If intelligence researchers made claims about biochemistry or particle physics, and those claims were rejected by partical physicists and biochemists, we would consider those claims to be fringe science too. Now, as for the claims being racist, this is a separate claim and the reason we must include it is not because I think racism is bad. We include it because significant views in reliable sources make these claims about Jensen, Rushton and Lynn. Racism is a social problem found in some societies, not all. Sociologists, social historians, and other scholars have researched the history of race and racism. One of the things they have discovered is that racist societies often rely on the language of biology, expounded by "scientists," to legitimize the status quo. This is not my idea. This is not my opinion. I am telling you about a certain body of scholarly research. And I do not care what your opinion is of this body of research. It is directly relevant to this article, and therefore should be represented in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want to belabor this much more than I already have, regarding: "We include it because significant views in reliable sources make these [racist] claims about Jensen, Rushton and Lynn." As I've stated, these claims (as does the current article) completely ignore Jensen's own comments regarding his own conclusions. (I've mentioned the same problem regarding Goddard at "History of r&i controversy.") So, there does appear to have been, empirically speaking, a content choice by some editors to pigeon-hole various parties by evil vs. enlightened. Using the excuse that (reputable source) "X" calls "Y" a racist so therefore I am objective ("not my opinion") in calling "Y" a racist as part of my personal editorial perspective is no less morally offensive than calling someone a racist purely based on my own personal opinion. I don't see that editors discussing their personal perspectives of racist or not, no need to justify charges of racism or not, is helping anything here. I suggest that we focus on a less polarized presentation of the subject and issues (that some have been polarizing does not mean the article is doomed to be similarly polarized). PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
First, can you point out any instance in which I have deleted or opposed the inclusion of a quote from Jensen in which he denies being a racist? Not to "belabor" the point, Ijust want to know what on earth you are talking abou. Second, our NOR policy states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though 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 original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." If you have a problem with it, you should take it up there, not here. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, what possible justification can there be for using what you consider "morally repulsive" as a criteria for content inclusion/exclusion in a Wikipedia article? Do you have no comprehension of all about what NPOV means? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) You are so completely missing the point. I haven't accused you of actively censoring anything. What I have said is that the a priori presumption of "racist by definition" polarizes the discussion and the article. My example of such polarization includes the controversy around Jensen: perhaps you or other editors had put in exculpatory, if you will, quotes from Jensen in the past (as presented in discussions of the subject in secondary/tertiary sources) and they were lost along the way; the point is that those quotes are not there currently. Your implication that you support including same is certainly a positive which I don't want to lose here.
- Sturm und drang over morality, including the article becoming some sort of morality play, does nothing to improve the article.
- Lastly, as I've stated elsewhere, let's please stop lecturing each other by invoking WP:ACRONYMS and extensive quotations of WP policy. That communicates nothing other than name-calling other editors as ignorant. We're not children. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- On the other, I'm stating that framing the conversation around content based on Jensen or others being explicitly or implicitly or by a priori definition "racists" is what I find morally repulsive. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hopefully we can put this discussion to rest. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not see where I have made any a priori claims. I am sorry that you reduced my quoting policy to my throwing around acronyms. I was making a substantive point about encyclopedic standards. There is a body of research on racist science. It complies with our policies. However "morally repulsive" it is to you, it will therefore go into our articles. Learn to love with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I object to David Kane's suggesting that my view is the "central source for conflict" at this article. I did not air this view during the mediation, and I do not think anything I ever wrote amounted to some back-dore sneaking this view in, during the mediation. At that time I was trying to work in good faith towards a resolution of conflict. It would be more correct that it is certain racist statements by Jensen, Rushton, and Lynn that are the source of conflict at this article. That, I would agree, is true. That they (or at least, Jensen) deniy being a racist is what makes it a conflict, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) If I've misunderstood your statement that the contention there is any genetic basis for IQ differences is, by definition (a prior) racist, because it contends that there is something which can be described as biologically based superiority/inferiority, then please correct me. That is the focus of my comments, not what constitutes the basis for writing encyclopedia articles, I know how to do that, please spare the lectures and implications that I'm trying to somehow break the rules. It's not your business as an editor to label what is by definition racist and therefore, also by definition, what individuals based on any of their hypotheses or conclusions are therefore racists. We can certainly report that "X" called "Y" racist, but it is not our role as editors to bring that, our personal determination if it is that, to editing the article. I trust this is clear enough. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- And on "It would be more correct that it is certain [by definition] racist statements by Jensen, Rushton, and Lynn that are the source of conflict at this article." that would be "It would be more correct that it is certain statements by Jensen, Rushton, and Lynn which academia, other intelligence researchers, and the press have labeled "racist" which are the source of conflict at this article."
- Thank you for demonstrating the crux of the issue: you, as an editor, don't get to call anything racist, even if every editor (not just you) thinks it's racist. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, no one is stopping you from adding to the article arguments from biologists, anthropologists, sociologists or whoever. The problem is that they are usually ignorant of psychometric research, and, lacking an operationalization of intelligence, have little to contribute to the topic. However, I have noticed that whenever they take the trouble of familiarizing themselves with IQ research, they will usually realize it's one of the most robust and useful bodies of theory and evidence in all of social science, and become much less likely to dismiss hereditarian arguments out of hand.
Social scientists are usually also completely ignorant of population genetics (aside from being able to parrot Lewontin's Fallacy), and their ideas about race and intelligence are accordingly misguided. As Jensen and others have pointed out, racial differences in IQ are compatible with our knowledge of genetics for two simple reasons:
- 1. Everybody except the lunatic fringe agrees that (a large number of) genes influence variation in IQ.
- 2. Different races, however defined, differ from each other in the distributions of numerous alleles.
When I mentioned the falsifiability of the hereditarian view of race and IQ, I was referring to a study design proposed by several scientists: African-Americans are a mixed-race population with various degrees of West African and European (and to a smaller extent, Native American) ancestry. Since there now exists technology to make excellent estimates of different ancestry components in an individual's DNA, and since the hereditarian view suggests that the amount of white ancestry be correlated with IQ in African Americans, the theory could be tested. As Charles Murray has said, the "results would be close to dispositive". A lack of such a correlation would mean that the hereditarian view is false.
Unfortunately, if the results of such a study supported the hereditarian view, I don't think the "environmentalist" camp would budge in their convictions -- they would instead come up with new hypotheses in support of their position, just like they did after SES differences, test bias, and other proposed "X factors" behind the black-white gap became untenable. Slrubenstein is of course correct in that "environmentalism" is a grab bag of very different, often mutually contradictory arguments. That is what I argued in my earlier comment.--Victor Chmara (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- To mikemev, who reverted my collapsing of the above thread: how is this random bickering not treating the talk page like a forum? It might be on the same topic as the article, but it's not focused on anything and nobody in this thread has proposed a change to the article. This needs to stop because it is an enormous waste of time for the people who are working on this article to have to monitor these distractions. The group of editors here (both the hereditarian and anti-hereditarian side) has forced other people to read their random, ad-nauseam bickering for far too long, and I hope someone will revert mikemev. II | (t - c) 06:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Victor Chmara, where do you get your claims from? "Since there now exists technology to make excellent estimates of different ancestry components in an individual's DNA" - this is quite wrong, the estimates are not even close to "excellent." Saying that racial diferences in IQ are "compatable" with our knowledge of genetics is meaningless. "Compatability" is not a scientifically meaningful term. The exact same thing can be said about sociological factors, because a variety of social factors are distributed within races. So what you wrote is meaningless. In any event, why are you trying to argue? Arguments of Wikipedian editors, no matter how strong or as in your case weak, are just not relevant. As I said, experts in genetics discount the "hereditarian hypothesis" and experts in race discount it too. It is fringe science. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- The compatibility issue is important because it means that certain arguments used to dismiss hereditarisnism are invalidated. The common claim that social race distinctions in e.g. America do not correspond to systematic genetic differences is simply BS, so it cannot be used to disprove the arguments of Jensen and others. Ancestry estimates are regularly used by population geneticists, and they certainly regard them as valid. As you say, the arguments of Wikipedia editors are not relevant, so please stop repeating the claim that "experts" regard hereditarianism as "fringe science", and come up with sources to back it up.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Slrubenstein, the hereditarian hypothesis, as far as I know, is compatible with what we know about genetics. "Compatible" is a word which can be used in a scientific argument as far as I know. I may be wrong, so please reference the experts who discount the hereditarian hypothesis. mikemikev (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so all you can do is repeat your claims without adding any information that supports them. "Compatible" means nothing since the data is equally compatibvle with claims involving the enviroment, and it is not a criteria genetic scientists themselves use for infering conclusions - please do not use your hocus-pocus as a substitute for actual science. Victor Chmara, where do you get your claims from? "Since there now exists technology to make excellent estimates of different ancestry components in an individual's DNA" - this is quite wrong, the estimates are not even close to "excellent." I am just repeating my question, because Victor ha ssimply repeated his assertion. I have fair knowledge of population genetics and have no idea what Victor is talking about. This does not make him a liar, I admit I may not know what he is atlking about. So it is fair to him that I ask him what he is talking about and I await an actual response. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Slrubenstein, here's a recent study on the ancestry of African Americans [11]. They found that "The amount of European ancestry [in African Americans] shows considerable variation, with an average (± SD) of 21.9% ± 12.2%, and a range of 0 to 72%". This is in line with previous research, but what was new in this study was that they also studied the structure of African ancestry in African Americans: "The largest African ancestral contribution comes from the Yoruba, with an average of 47.1% ± 8.7% (range, 18% to 64%), followed by the Bantu at 14.8% ± 5.0% (range, 3% to 28%) and Mandenka at 13.8% ± 4.5% (range, 3% to 29%). The contributions from the other three African groups were quite modest, with an average of 1.7% from the Biaka, 0.5% from the Mbuti, and 0.3% from the San." So, contrary to your protestations, the methods of population genetics are capable of "fine characterization of genetic ancestry", as they put it in the abstract.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- The fallacy here is that the genetic evidence about human ancestral lineages is generally considered equivalent to evidence of the existence of human "races" as a biological concept. Most do not, they consider homo sapiens a monotypic species. But not all. And frequently, those who do think the concept of "biological races" can be applied cite Cavalli-Sforza's pioneering work, whereas the "other side", which includes Cavalli-Sforza himself, concluded the opposite. Cherry picking primary sources won't settle this. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is no fallacy. Dimension reduction analysis of genetic markers shows that people with similar geographic ancestry bunch together. Thus, for example, people of European ancestry can be separated from those of West African descent. Here's an example: [12]. For the purposes of the study design I have described, it does not matter whether or not this genetic diversity of our species can be divided into races. Charles Murray put it this way: "To the extent that genes play a role, IQ will vary by racial admixture. In the past, studies that have attempted to test this hypothesis have had no accurate way to measure the degree of admixture, and the results have been accordingly muddy. The recent advances in using genetic markers solves that problem. Take a large sample of racially diverse people, give them a good IQ test, and then use genetic markers to create a variable that no longer classifies people as “white” or “black,” but along a continuum. Analyze the variation in IQ scores according to that continuum. The results would be close to dispositive."--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- When Murray writes "would be close to dispositive" in the subjunctive mood there, he shows that he is pointing to a hypothesis, not to data. There may or may not be data that show what he, the nongeneticist, believes likely. (When Herrnstein and Murray's book The Bell Curve was published in 1994, I was already active in online discussion of all the issues brought up in the book on Usenet. The geneticists there were amazed at how little Murray knew about genetics in those days, although it may be that he has learned a lot in the last sixteen years.) Now if someone has actual data on this issue, those would be of interest for updating the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) I'm talking about the fallacy here -- in the arguments here. I don't make judgments about the "fallacies" of the researchers themselves because it's irrelevant. The "fallacy" here is that data from any study like this can show us what the consensus of opinion is for genetic evidence of biological race. Those primary sources are outside the scope here because editors don't interpret scientific data. The argument is sidetracked into "how to interpret the data" and the focus should be "what is the consensus among scientists who have studied the issue." Editors who want to describe their own analysis and logic about Jensen, environmentalism, and the genetic data should start a blog. Editors content decisions here are based only on how secondary sources describe the most notable views and conclusions of experts working in these fields. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Victor Chmarra, please stop misrepresenting genetic research. You wrote "Since there now exists technology to make excellent estimates of different ancestry components in an individual's DNA" and I correctly pointed out that recent technology does not allow us to make "excellent" estimates. You then provide a link to an article from Genome Biology that you claim supports your view. Why not tell the truth, that the authors conclude that "These results ... cast doubt on the general utility of mtDNA or Y-chromosome markers alone to delineate the full African ancestry of African Americans." I have never cast doubt on the value of population genetics, which is well established. But when you used the word "there now exists" I assumed you were referring to recent developments in genetic research. Maybe you need to be more specific about what you mean by "now exists." The fact remains that while population genetics allows us to map variations in gene frequency, it does not yield precise or even "excellent" data on an individual's ancestry. The authors of the article from Genome Biology conclude that, why not pay attention to them? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Here is more from Genome Biology, cautioning against some lay conclusions about genetics research. [1]
- ^ Lee, Sandra S. J.; Mountain, Joanna; Koenig, Barbara; Altman, Russ; Brown, Melissa; Camarillo, Albert; Cavalli-Sforza, Luca; Cho, Mildred; Eberhardt, Jennifer (2008). "The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics". Genome Biology. 9 (7): 404. doi:10.1186/gb-2008-9-7-404. Retrieved 2 July 2010.
We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
- Slrubenstein, your problem is that you do not understand even the basics of population genetics. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with topics such as mtDNA, Y-DNA and autosomal DNA. When the researchers say that their results "cast doubt on the general utility of mtDNA or Y-chromosome markers alone to delineate the full African ancestry of African Americans", they simply mean that uniparental haplogroups are not reliable as indicators of ancestry. For this reason they studied the different ancestry components of African Americans using autosomal DNA, namely 450,000 SNPs, getting the exact results I reported above.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. If two populations differ in the frequency distributions of alleles, it is possible and meaningful to study if differences in substantially heritable traits like IQ between the populations are due to genes. Racial categories based on self-identification, at least those used in the US (from where we have the best data on race and IQ), correspond to different genetic clusters[13] (i.e., the frequency distributions of alleles differ between races), so it's clear that from the point of view of population genetics the hereditarian theory of race and IQ is unproblematic. Whether or not racial categorization is a good way of characterizing the genetic diversity of the human species in general is immaterial in this respect.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. First, Victor, you continue to talk about populations, not race. Second, heritability studis are done using twins and we already have a pretty good understanding about the heritaility of intelligence, which, surprise surprise, is covered in an article just on that topic. As you say, race on IQ tests is self-identified and not the same thing as a population. But it doesn't matte, researchers are already certain that a significant amount of intelligence is heritabile. A good wikipedia article would present what kinds of issues genetisists are mostly concerned ith, but non-scientists keep hijacking these articles to deal with their own racist agenda, rather than tryint to present genetics research in a neutral way.
- Virtually all scientific research on the genetic determinants of variation in IQ scores is based on twin studies and above (perhaps now in archived talk) I provided a bibliography of major (i.e. from major peer-reviewed journal journals, and which are frequently cited) articles. These studies indicate an ongoing debate between scientists who measure the heritability of intelligence at .40, and others who measure it at between .60 and .70. In addition to these contrasting calculations, there is a debate over the effects of of the shared prenatal environment - some argue that identical blood supply should lead to greater similarities between monochoriatic twins than dichorionic twins; others argue that competition for blood supply should lead to greater differences between monochorionic twins than dichorionic twins. I think we need to have a good article that provides a clear account of this research and these controversies. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the United States, for example, whites and blacks form populations that are genetically distinguishable from each other, although a small minority of blacks are more similar to whites than to the average black due to greater admixture[14]. Socially, these two populations are known as races. Whether one calls them races or populations is pure semantics--it does not affect the underlying reality of different distributions of allele frequencies. For the purposes of studying race-specific genetic contributions to IQ differences, the white admixture in blacks is useful, and, as I have demonstrated, it can now be accurately measured.
- The (broad sense) heritability of IQ within a population is a different question from the heritability of IQ differences between populations. The first question should not be discussed at length in this article, as there's a separate article on that. However, contrary to what you claim, there is no academic debate where some say that the heritability of IQ (within a population) is 40%, while others claim it's higher. The heritability of IQ rises linearly with age. There's a recent paper[15] by Plomin et al. that proves this beyond any doubt:
- "The heritability of general cognitive ability increases significantly and linearly from 41% in childhood (9 years) to 55% in adolescence (12 years) and to 66% in young adulthood (17 years) in a sample of 11 000 pairs of twins from four countries, a larger sample than all previous studies combined."
- Thus 40% is the heritability of IQ in children, whereas it's much higher in adults (it continues to grow even after age 17).
- By the way, your constant accusations that "racists" are hijacking articles and filling them with ideas not supported by geneticists are pretty funny considering that you don't know jack shit about population genetics, as you amply demonstrated above.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you are still confusing race with population genetics. Genetically distinguishable means nothing with respect to race. I am genetically distinguishable from you, regardless of our race. That's not to say that population genetics isn't interesting. It's just not race. This is especially important in the context of this article because there are virtually no primary sources, let alone secondary sources, which discuss racial population genetics and intelligence. This whole discussion smacks of WP:FORUM, either suggest some reliable secondary sources from which content can be based, or let it alone. aprock (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- If we belong to the same race (as defined in e.g. the US), our genomes are, with high probability, more similar to each other than if we belong to different races. The article currently discusses the type of admixture study I have suggested by referring to Rowe & Rodgers 2005[16]: "Rowe & Rodgers (2005) and others have suggested using DNA-based methods to reproduce these studies with reliable estimates of ancestry. Such experiments have never been published, although the requirements for such a study have been discussed in the academic literature." Hunt & Carlson[17], Murray[18], and James J. Lee (Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 247–255) are among those who have argued that such a study is feasible (although Hunt & Carlson advise against conducting such research).--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:49 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you're still doing a very good job of confusing population genetics and race. Regardless of feasibility of doing any sort of population genetic/IQ study, no such studies have been done yet. If a study were published tomorrow, it would probably take many months (or years) before it could be properly synthesized by reliable sources. Are we through here? aprock (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
As long as people who do not understand the difference between population genetics and race (yet who atack those who do as people ignorant of population genetics, how ironic), we will be in trouble, because these ediors will continue to put their own original research in (synthesizing statements from population genetics with bliefs about race) or by privileging fringe research (e.g. psychologists' claims about race, which have nothing to do with population genetics). Slrubenstein | Talk 22:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Slrubenstein - you are shifting the burden of proof. If psychologists, or landscapers, can make studies showing that controlling for environment races differ on IQ tests then they have proven that IQ differs by race due to nature. If it's published in a peer reviewed journal it's verifiable. It doesn't matter if geneticists have located the genes responsible or not. How did Mendel demonstrate heritability without identifying the individual genes responsible with the aid of geneticists? It's silly, heritability can exist without Geneticists identifying genes. The races, as defined by a dictionary or common definition, have been shown to have different intelligence scores on average. Some research suggests these differences are due to hereditary. End of story. Geneticists have little baring, given they cannot falsify the proposition of this research by showing that there are no genes responsible for intelligence that vary in frequency between the races(by their common definition) . That's the burden of proof geneticists rightly have if they are to be included in the argument at all.
- "Environment" is not one variable. In fact, it is virtually impossible to control for the environment as a variable - this is one thing that makes natural selection such a powerful force in modern evolutionary theory. Yes, it is true that traits were inherited through genes long efore we knoew what genes were or had the technology to identify them. But even now that we know what genes are and how to identify them, evolutionary scientists still believe that evolution is driven primarily by natural selection and in unpredictable ways, which is indeed why new species evolve all the time. And you think one can control for "environment?" You can control for income of parents, or education - something concrete and specific. But "environment?" And you think a geneticist has to prove that "no genes" are responsible for average differfences in intelligence among races? Wow, some scientist you are! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- True environment isn't one variable, but researchers attempt to control for it and the results are usually that races still differ markedly in intelligence scores. It can also be shown that iq scores are heritable. If you want to argue that genetics are not responsible for these differences then you would have to map the genetics of intelligence and show they do not vary for races (as defined by the common definitions used in the research, not as defined by geneticists).
- Obviously that's difficult (and most likely impossible because races do seem to differ in inate abilities). But saying geneticists can't or wont define the races as they are commonly defined, and haven't found the specific genes and demonstrated racial differences therefore the research is wrong is bogus. It's saying that psychology is a subsidiary science to genetics, and you can't make any statements about psychology until the genetics are understood. Mendel shouldn't have dared do any research without identifying the individual genes he was studying!
- It all boils down to this, race has a common definition that's well known, and verifiable studies show that races consistently average different scores after controlling for the major variables of environment. Other studies can question them, but a science that would usually humbly acknowledges it's immaturity cannot supplant it simply because they haven't mapped all the genes being observed. It's a ridiculous argument that nobody could honestly believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.29.226 (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, 220.233.29.226, you wrote, "race has a common definition that's well known," so I'm wondering if you could provide a citation to that definition from a reliable source to back up that statement in the article. You also write, "It can also be shown that iq scores are heritable," but that suggests that you have not learned the difference between heritability and malleability (also called controllability). I see the article still includes the sourced statement, "even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability," sourced to a recent publication by Thomas Bouchard and his colleagues, who are some of the leading researchers on human behavioral genetics. What human behavioral genetics sources do you have at hand? I will be adding some more human behavioral genetics sources to the Intelligence Citations Bibliography posted for all Wikipedians to use while editing articles. I invite you and everyone else here to look up reliable sources from that bibliography and to learn more about the subject matter of the article as we continue cooperatively to assume one another's good faith as we edit the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- WeijiBaikeBianji with your first question is dishonest. Try a dictionary ..... "negro", "caucasian", "Black African", "african american". This page is an embarrassing pissing contest. Discussions about the difference between malleability versus heritability warrant a line or two. I'm not interested in trying to sound smart talking about what I know, or you don't know. The statement is absolutely obvious (take height for instance). Even so other research (such as adoption studies) would provide stronger evidence against it in this context of course, and the burden of proof would be on "human behavioral genetics". Since they haven't discovered many genes linked to intelligence (not to mention inutero conditions) they have very little of worth to add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.29.226 (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, 220.233.29.226, you wrote, "race has a common definition that's well known," so I'm wondering if you could provide a citation to that definition from a reliable source to back up that statement in the article. You also write, "It can also be shown that iq scores are heritable," but that suggests that you have not learned the difference between heritability and malleability (also called controllability). I see the article still includes the sourced statement, "even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability," sourced to a recent publication by Thomas Bouchard and his colleagues, who are some of the leading researchers on human behavioral genetics. What human behavioral genetics sources do you have at hand? I will be adding some more human behavioral genetics sources to the Intelligence Citations Bibliography posted for all Wikipedians to use while editing articles. I invite you and everyone else here to look up reliable sources from that bibliography and to learn more about the subject matter of the article as we continue cooperatively to assume one another's good faith as we edit the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Use of {{who}}
I've removed the {{who}} tags regarding the four contemporary positions. We don't tag quotes from reputable sources as containing weasel words. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed the tags, again, which Mathsci restored without discussion here and with an edit summary ("restoring tags - these make no sense at all in the WP article and should be directly linked - please do so") which I can only describe as impenetrable. If this is a veiled reference to the current article content being so polarized that the four positions described are not represented as such in the article and therefore make no sense with regard to the article, well, then I'd say it's the article which rather needs some work. I posit it's rather overdue that we eradicate the reductio ad hereditarians environmentalistsque. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)- Obviously these references make no sense to the reader, who might not be able to access the article of Hunt and Carlson. I have added a Reference section, long missing, plus harvtxt links to the references. One of the references, Cooper 2005, was not in the original paper. Vecrumba broke 1rr and has been reported at WP:AN3. Mathsci (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you do not put {{who}} weasel-word tags in the middle of a contiguously quoted reputable source, and certainly not to merely request Wikifying citations in a quoted source. You can always add notes, but your edit disrupts the quote to where it is not clear where the citations come from, whether a WP editor or the original source. Furthermore, I had not checked the citations, this might have been an earlier version of the paper or an error in the original insertion, as "Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, 2005" is missing from the third position. Your repeated tagging with weasel-word tags in the middle of a soured quote, and with a frankly incomprehensible edit summary, as opposed to discussing here after I initially removed your tags and stated why, speaks more of your attitude toward this article than mine. I've defended my revert as undoing your vandalism repeatedly adding weasel-word tags in the middle of a contiguously quoted section from a reputable source. You chose how you wished to handle this by ignoring my initial talk page entry above and choosing to simply re-install your tags. I challenge any editor to read your associated edit summary, quoted above, and come away with "please Wikify the citation in the quoted original." And if it were that, why wouldn't you have just done that instead of repeatedly heaping on grossly inappropriate weasel-word tags in quadruplicate? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is why I've (as a response to an alternate proposal) suggested at arbitration that for 6 months all discussion of all article content be in plain, comprehensible English with no Wiki-terminology. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lastly, Mathsci, I was not the one edit-warring. By reinserting your tags without responding to the dialog here in any manner, that would be you. Transference of your inappropriate editorial behavior on to others may work with others, but I will call you on it every time if that's how you prefer to work things here in lieu of a more collegial atmosphere. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- @Mathsci, you might consider that I'm not clueless and that in the future you should use appropriate tags and meaningful edit summaries which pea-brained editors such as myself can comprehend if your preference is to edit-war instead of responding on the talk page when editors discuss their actions at the article—which response would have immediately cleared up any misunderstanding. That is what talk pages are for, that is, dialog, not lecturing, preaching, or admonishing. Your expression of disparaging self-blamelessness (that would be your personal attack describing me as "clueless" and "disruptive") is disappointing. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- @Mathsci, you might consider that I'm not clueless and that in the future you should use appropriate tags and meaningful edit summaries which pea-brained editors such as myself can comprehend if your preference is to edit-war instead of responding on the talk page when editors discuss their actions at the article—which response would have immediately cleared up any misunderstanding. That is what talk pages are for, that is, dialog, not lecturing, preaching, or admonishing. Your expression of disparaging self-blamelessness (that would be your personal attack describing me as "clueless" and "disruptive") is disappointing. PЄTЄRS
"Harvard" Style in References
To answer a question David raised in an edit summary, I'd be happy to see more use of the "Harvard" style of citation (so that article text includes references like "(Flynn 1987)" visible to the reader) as we go along. That is the expected form of an inline reference in the discipline of psychology, and so I would expect this article and all articles on related topics eventually to adopt that style. I'll read the Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia:Parenthetical_referencing some more (I've read most of them once already) and get into practice doing this. Meanwhile, I'll keep expanding the citations list and ensuring that is in detailed citation template format for all of you to use. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I may be using the wrong terminology. I mean references like the style that MathSci uses for [History of the race and intelligence controversy]. Basically, there is a single reference section and then footnotes refer to that reference section. This makes it simpler to give multiple references to the same article and to use different page numbers to each. This is orthogonal to the issue of using thing like (Flynn 1987) in the article text. David.Kane (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the follow-up. Yes, being able to refer to specific page numbers in varying ways across an article to a single source is also a convenience. I will look some more at the example you have kindly mentioned. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks to Mathsci for providing the example on the daughter article and to David for drawing that to our attention. I've looked at the example on the History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy article and agree that that form of citation and markup is both reader-friendly and editor-friendly for making a well sourced article with high verifiability. As I look at the documentation on how to present citations and details about footnotes and the citation templates, especially the Harvard citation examples, I'm gradually wrapping my head around what to do to bring this article's references into that format. Fellow Wikipedian RexxS has a great tutorial on citing multiple pages from one source in different references for the same article, and that is very clear and helpful. I'm glad this was brought up here so that this article can improve in clarity of citation as it improves in content. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Temporary 1RR on this article
Per this statement, a temporary WP:1RR restriction has been imposed on this article by User:Georgewilliamherbert for the duration of the current Arbcom case. I have modified the timestamp of this notice to try to prevent bot archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Due to the current uncertainties, I'm striking my notice of a 1RR restriction. See the discussion below. Any admin who is confident about the 1RR situation is welcome to place a new notice on their own. EdJohnston (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I.P. editor 82.101.205.224 seems to be disregarding the 1RR restriction at present--I hope an administrator takes note of this. For what it's worth, the "fact" he tries to insert in the lead is disputed in the sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- We are still getting the same 1RR-disregarding (now, 3RR-disregarding) unsourced edit from the same I.P. Could an administrator please do something about this edit warring? I have already found a better source (and a link to another Wikipedia article) to greatly improve the paragraph, but I don't want to run afoul of any temporary rules here by fixing it myself until I'm sure how the administrators are going to enforce--or not enforce--the temporary 1RR restriction. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I counted out the hours, and then fixed the unsourced statement with a paragraph I stored off-wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding us about this. I think my reply here may also slow archiving of your helpful notice. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- As a follow-up on this, please see this thread on the arbcom case. Rlevse says that his understanding is that this is a motion that has yet to be approved. He is supporting it and pinging the other arbs on it, so presumably it will be passed at some point very soon. --B (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying that reporting a user here to the notice board was based on a misunderstanding, since no 1RR restriction has officially taken effect here yet. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong. It had been in effect for some time (although not as an ArbCom ruling), but the anouncment was auto-archived. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- See Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 82#Article temporarily full-protected and 1RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- The point here is that apart from an arbcom ruling, an admin does not have the authority to unilaterally impose this sanction. Arbcom is taking it up as a motion and will approve or reject it. (Presumably it will be approved.) --B (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Arthur, thanks for the further follow-up. Isn't it odd that a notice of a reversion restriction gets plucked out of sight by the archiving bot, while the top of this user talk page is full of templates full of obsolete or obsolescent information? Why couldn't a reversion restriction show up on top and archiving-proof on both the article page and on the main article talk page? (P.S. I'm still almost in zero-editing mode here, trying to observe the lay of the land while the ArbCom case is still pending. I'll appreciate any comments you have on the Intelligence Citations list meanwhile.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, a community consensus could also impose 1RR on articles. But I can't say I see that here, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying that reporting a user here to the notice board was based on a misunderstanding, since no 1RR restriction has officially taken effect here yet. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- B, thank you for the explanation of how the archiving bot works. It occurs to me that when this article comes out from under the ArbCom case, one to-do will be cleaning up all the templates at the top of this talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Question: Who has the following sources at hand?
Soon it will be time to begin editing the article in earnest, once the ArbCom case is decided. Who has each of the following sources, all of which I have within reach of my computer as I edit Wikipedia?
- Flynn (2007 or 2009) What Is Intelligence?
- Mackintosh (1998) IQ and Human Intelligence
- Murray and Herrnstein (1994) The Bell Curve
- Kaufman (2009) IQ Testing 101
- the full text of Jensen (1969) How Much Can We Boost . . .
I'm just curious what sources I can refer to that I can be confident other editors will be able to check immediately. Feel free to mention other good sources in replies to this, if you like. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have got all but Kaufman. I haven't much time to devote to another Race and Intelligence related article but I can cite check if necessary. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- The only one that is at my local university library is Flynn's What Is Intelligence; all others I have no access to whatsoever aside from an ILL. Please look around (e.g., Google Scholar search for author:[author name]) to make sure that these sources are really necessary and the authors' haven't developed the arguments in a freely-accessible place. It can also be helpful to check the WorldCat results; for example, WorldCat shows that only 167 libraries carry IQ Testing 101. Another benefit of papers is that they are concise and include the most important information while books can be repetitive and wandering. While I'm sure Flynn has some good things which could be included in this article in his book, for example, but we also have a 2006 paper in Psychological Science from him whose preprint is available, among other freely-accessible articles showing up in Google Scholar. I'm skeptical about citing Jensen's 1969 article for anything outside of historical reasons. Jensen wrote a long 2005 paper updating his arguments, it's freely-accessible, and if any of the information in his 1969 article stood up to the test of time, he will most likely have summarized it there. I mean, we can discuss using it, but keep that 2005 paper in mind when you do. The Bell Curve should be mentioned, but it's got too much associated baggage, plus it wasn't subject to peer review. The IQ Testing 101 article could be good if makes the complex topic of IQ testing simple and understandable, but there's only so much detail on IQ testing that we can include here, and it would be best if we had free primer/introductory articles so we could easily adopt a summary style in the articles and give readers the benefit of a quick source of information. II | (t - c) 07:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good online sources One source I just discovered today is the full text of The Nature of Intelligence, a great book on the subject that not enough academic libraries have, a source that meets reliable source for medical information standards on most issues it treats. I'm checking on getting through the paywall on most of the chapters after downloading the book's index for free. Read and enjoy. The book includes transcripts of seminar discussions among the different chapter authors, which are especially interesting. Another source that is entirely free and a very interesting read is Beyond the Flynn Effect from the Psychometrics Centre at Cambridge University. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- II, my concern is more along the lines of preventing misciting sources that don't actually support assertions in the article. On my part, I assume that everyone is looking over my shoulder at my sources as I edit. But I found a ref in the article yesterday that did not support the factual assertion in the article, and that was worrisome, because the ref was to a recent, reliable source, the kind of source that ought to be cited more in the article. So now I am alerted that some editors (perhaps not now active on the article) weren't even doing the work of quote-mining: they were just forgetting their sources (charitable interpretation) or making stuff up (what we all have to guard against under the verifiability policy of Wikipedia). So what I'm really asking here is, "What sources can any of us verify if some random I.P. editor inserts a new source into the article?" I'll try to make the sources I prefer inserting the article be those that are most reliable and current and most accessible (in that order of priority), and it occurs to me that further responses in this section of the article talk help me know which sources are most accessible, but the main thing is that on an article this contentious, we are going to have to be especially wary of sources being misrepresented. I think there are other bad examples of misciting in the article currently, but I have to check to be sure. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the Black White IQ gap approximately 1 standard deviation?
If not what is it? mikemikev (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) The APA report seems to agree. mikemikev (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Some researchers dispute the actual size of the difference, and note that the size of the difference does seem to depend on the test.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- The article improves best when we all take the responsibility to read reliable sources. First of all, the difference depends on the brand of IQ test, with some recently normed, theory-based tests showing much smaller differences among socially defined groups. Second, most tests show a trend line toward a smaller difference. Third, the difference is not an interval measurement anyway when expressed as standard IQ scores, and thus one really needs to look at comparable raw scores on identical item content to compare population groups. Referring to more sources with more detail helps the article improve. I already have a fix in place for the article, stored on my computer for when it's been twenty-four hours since I last edited. Another editor could fix it sooner. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Second, most tests show a trend line toward a smaller difference." Really? I can't think of a single test that shows a trend to a smaller difference over the last 25 years. Can you provide a citation? There is some evidence of a decrease in the difference in the fifty years before 1980 (although Ruston/Jensen dispute that), but I can't think of a single reference that claims improvement over the last 25 years. David.Kane (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- David, what sources have you been reading? I can cite chapter and verse in a while, and have weeks ago revealed a list of sources that back up the statement "most tests show a trend line toward a smaller difference," but meanwhile where are you getting any different impression? P.S. The point that IQ scores are not interval scores, but only ordinal scores, is extremely important to proper writing of the article and too little discussed in much of the literature. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I look forward to reading your citations. Jensen and Rushton (2005) make this claim. By the way, the article should reprent topics in proportion to their discussion in the literature. If Topic X is "too little discussed" (in your view), then it will also play a small/negligible role in the article. See WP:DUE for discussion. David.Kane (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Err, the current version, citation 6, has a quote from Flynn:
Some data shows that blacks have made no IQ gains on whites, despite relative environmental gains, and that this adds credibility to the case that the black/white IQ gap has genetic origins. Until recently, there have been inadequate data to measure black IQ trends. We analyze data from nine standardization samples for four major tests of cognitive ability. These suggest that blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ points on non-Hispanic whites between 1972 and 2002. Gains have been fairly uniform across the entire range of black cognitive ability.
II | (t - c) 18:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- My mistake! Thanks for pointing that out! I seem to recall that Charles Murray has a comment on that paper that argues that most of the gain occurred between 1972 and 1980, but Flynn and Dickey are (obviously) excellent scholars and their views certainly belong in the article. David.Kane (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- In addition, there are multiple secondary sources that point out that the Kaufman series of IQ tests, recently normed and more theory-based than most other brands of IQ tests, have always had a smaller gap between white and black test-takers than, say, the Stanford-Binet series of tests. One also can point to multiple secondary sources that show that the Stanford-Binet tests until the Fourth Revision and the Raven tests have never had properly representative norming samples for the United States national population. The size of the "gap" depends on which test one is referring to. (Flynn takes special care to compare raw score data whenever possible, which helps a lot.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is a case of using primary sources in a questionable manner. I would be much more comfortable if there was more sources for this information. aprock (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the first paragraph of the article to say "somewhat lower" rather than "a standard deviation lower". This isn't because I'm expressing any opinion on the size of the gap; it's just because Mainstream Science on Intelligence seems like the best source to use for this part of the lead, and this statement doesn't actually say that the gap is one standard deviation. It says that the average IQ of African-Americans is 85, and that for whites it's 100, but it seems like it might be synth for us to combine this with other sources saying that the standard deviation for IQ is 15 points.
The APA statement does say that the black-white IQ gap is around 1 standard deviation, so if other people would rather use that as a source for the first part of the lead, we can include what it says about the size of the gap. The reason I went with the "Mainstream Science" statement instead is because it more closely supports what this part of the article is saying about the average IQ of Asians. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- …And I see that Mathsci has reverted me already, with the edit summary “Mainstream Science on Research (whatever that is) not a suitable citation for the lede”. The article has used this paper as a source many times before, since it’s a secondary source which provides an overview of this topic, and which has passed peer review for the journal Intelligence. If Mathsci thinks there’s something wrong with using this as a source, he’ll need to explain what it is.
- Mathsci need not explain anything, unless he so chooses, because I am happy to indicate reasons that the edit is correct. Mainstream Science on Intelligence is neither recent enough nor reliable enough to be a source for that point. The date of the source is a problem because there have been changes in the underlying fact over time, and reliability is a problem because what Linda Gottfredson says about the composition of "Mainstream Science" editorial demonstrates that it doesn't fully meet the reliability guidelines for sources with medical implications on Wikipedia. For the point indicated, it didn't really follow the procedures expected of a review article on that point. P.S. Isn't the usual practice to edit the article body text so that it has reliable sources, and then to build a lede section that doesn't include footnotes but does accurately reflect the article content? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Per the discussion here, it seems that this article will not actually be under 1RR until the arbitrators approve this restriction, which they haven’t yet. So if Mathsci is unwilling or unable to explain what’s wrong with using this source, I intend to reinstate my change the lead, unless someone else does so first. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to rewrite the lead section to make sure it stays closely factually lined up with the best sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Brain size
I put in the approximate magnitude of the difference. But forgot to log in! mikemikev (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- That needs to be based on much more recent, reliable sources. There is considerable dispute in the professional literature both about the underlying facts (which brains are larger) and the significance (how much brain size has to do with IQ). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware that there is considerable dispute about how much brain size has to do with IQ. This is irrelevant to the brain size data though. I've also heard that there is considerable dispute about the brain size data itself. Perhaps you can produce a reliable source to that effect to get us started. mikemikev (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Mikemikev, you wrote, "I'm aware that there is considerable dispute about how much brain size has to do with IQ." Okay, I will take that as an acknowledgment that discussion of brain size may not belong in this article at all, unless a reliable source shows that it is plainly relevant. (I note for the record that Ramdrake has already provided a source that shows the brain size speculation probably doesn't belong in the article.) The article is already well beyond the usual length for a Wikipedia article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are unaware of a reliable source which discusses brain size in relation to the race IQ gap? Try the APA report. mikemikev (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Incidentally, since scientific consensus is that we don't know what's causing the Race IQ gap, all potential factors are speculative. There's a much more powerful argument against stereotype threat, and by your logic it shouldn't be in the article, just because I can find someone who questions it. mikemikev (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are unaware of a reliable source which discusses brain size in relation to the race IQ gap? Try the APA report. mikemikev (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- This? "Lynn (1990) points out that large nutritionally-based increases in height have occurred during the same period as the IQ gains: perhaps there have been increases in brain size as well." Is that it? Or are you referring to another APA report? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is better. The section Say clearly what your results mean and do not mean is a nice guideline for this section. mikemikev (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I should hope your second one is better. What does it say? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- 1. Say Clearly What Your Results Mean and What They Do Not Mean. The first part of this principle seems natural to scientific writers. The second part does not. Let us suppose, for example, that you are interested in the relationship of race, head size, and intelligence. Let us further suppose that you find that head size has a correlation of about .20 with intelligence, and that head sizes of blacks are on the average around 6% smaller than those of whites. Finally, let us suppose that these results are based on large, random samples of both races (you see by this that my example is a fictitious one, although the numbers are taken, roughly, from Rushton, 1990). This obtained result means, as you surely would not fail to point out in your article, that there are some systematic—possibly causal--relationships here that may be of scientific interest. It does not mean that you should hire your next faculty colleague by measuring his (or her) head size. It surely does not mean that you should hire your next faculty colleague by looking at the color of his (or her) skin. With race a weak predictor of head size and head size a weak predictor of intelligence, this behavior would be ludicrous in the extreme, if what you want to select for is intelligence. Yet this conclusion- that race will predict intelligence with reasonable effectiveness based on its association with head size--is exactly the sort of conclusion that unsophisticated people will draw from this result if you do not explicitly tell them not to. Psychologists who are used to working on typical topics that psychologists work on aren't particularly attuned to this point, because few but their fellow specialists much care what their results do mean, and such experts are well aware of the limitations in the conclusions that can properly be drawn from them. With race differences, it's different. Lots of people care passionately, and most of them are not experts in interpreting research, even though many may, in a general sense, pride themselves on being informed and literate. mikemikev (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- So in challenging Ramdrake's cite that supposed correlations with brain size aren't significant enough to be included here, you're sharing a cited argument drawing on a fictional example "roughly" resembling Rushton? One which half-heartedly concedes such an exercise hypothetically "may be of scientific interest"? Professor marginalia (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I think you're misrepresenting the quote rather negatively. It's clear from all of the cites that this is a significant issue. mikemikev (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- From Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples around 3000 years B.C, Wicherts (2009): "Rushton (this issue) claims that global differences in IQ and development can be explained in terms of (race) differences in brain size. Rushton (2000) has gone to great lengths to show that race groups differ on average in terms of brain size, with Whites averaging 1347 cm3 and Blacks averaging 1267 cm3. The mean difference may appear impressive, but it is virtually meaningless without knowledge of the typical spread of brain size within populations, which is around SD = 130 cm3." mikemikev (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- If anything, I minimized the negatives from the quote. The positive? Alluding to his fictional study, used for the purposes of argument only, "This obtained result means, as you surely would not fail to point out in your article, that there are some systematic—possibly causal--relationships here that may be of scientific interest." End of positive. The negative? Again alluding to the fictional study, "With race a weak predictor or head size, and head size a weak predictor of intelligence [any predictions of intelligence based on race] would be ludicrous in the extreme. Yet this conclusion ... is exactly the sort of conclusion unsophisticated people will draw from this result if you do not tell them explicitly not to." And he emphasizes how likely it would be such research would draw people who "care passionately" about race and intelligence and think they're "informed and literate" but lack the necessary expertise will jump to false conclusions from the research which should be left to experts. This does not make any claim that brain size is a "significant issue". It argues that it's an issue with high potential for misuse and misinterpretation. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since the disagreement is about whether or not this work should be included here I think it would be more helpful to find sources that show Rushton's work is "significant" to the race and intelligence topic, and not sources who dismiss it as meaningless and prone to misuse by people "caring passionately" about race differences. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes "This obtained result means, as you surely would not fail to point out in your article, that there are some systematic—possibly causal--relationships here that may be of scientific interest." That's more positive than I hear about stereotype threat. Remember that this is a speculative line of evidence, currently being investigated, not something that has ever been discredited. The numbers from the "fictional" study have now risen to a correlation of 0.4 between brain size and intelligence, and the 6% size difference has been repeated many times. Every scholar in the field discusses the issue. It's significant, no question.
- Wicherts does not dismiss the finding as "meaningless". He reasonably states that the brain size difference is meaningless without knowing the standard deviation. It then becomes meaningful. You wrote: [A]nd not sources who dismiss it as meaningless and prone to misuse by people "caring passionately" about race differences. This sentence is a complete misrepresentation of the quotes provided, taking the worst possible and false interpretation from each of them and putting them side by side as if they were expressed together. Wicherts reasons that the data is meaningful. Loehlin warns to caution not to generalize too much from the data, as we should, while at the same time stating that the issue requires further investigation. mikemikev (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- You must not realize that among the three sources you've offered here, not one of them is supporting your assertion that this is a significant issue, that its findings are significant, or that every scholar in the field discusses it. You keep saying it, but your sources haven't. None of them have discussed the substance of the work, and two of them outlined how the work shouldn't be used. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I thought it was up to us to decide how significant something is. As a demonstration of your principle, can you produce a source showing that stereotype threat is a significant issue. Incidentally, we both know brain size is a very, very, significant issue. mikemikev (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, we both don't know this. For as much significance as you're imparting to it here you should be able to source it better. And I haven't looked at the stereotype threat issue. Any challenged claim must be supported by sources--there is no presumption that either/both/or neither is significant without them. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well there were several articles about the subject in Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010), where the numbers were not contested. The brain size data seems to have been accepted by mainstream psychology. The fact that you can't find a source contesting the numbers means that we only have your word that they are contested, which isn't worth anything. And as for finding a source saying that brain size is a significant issue, I think your making an unreasonable request. That's for us to decide. We're not going to find a meta-source about a speculative line of evidence saying "the brain size issue is x% significant to the race IQ gap". The fact that this issue is discussed by every psychologist in the modern literature demonstrates without question that it is a significant issue. mikemikev (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, we both don't know this. For as much significance as you're imparting to it here you should be able to source it better. And I haven't looked at the stereotype threat issue. Any challenged claim must be supported by sources--there is no presumption that either/both/or neither is significant without them. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I thought it was up to us to decide how significant something is. As a demonstration of your principle, can you produce a source showing that stereotype threat is a significant issue. Incidentally, we both know brain size is a very, very, significant issue. mikemikev (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- You must not realize that among the three sources you've offered here, not one of them is supporting your assertion that this is a significant issue, that its findings are significant, or that every scholar in the field discusses it. You keep saying it, but your sources haven't. None of them have discussed the substance of the work, and two of them outlined how the work shouldn't be used. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- So in challenging Ramdrake's cite that supposed correlations with brain size aren't significant enough to be included here, you're sharing a cited argument drawing on a fictional example "roughly" resembling Rushton? One which half-heartedly concedes such an exercise hypothetically "may be of scientific interest"? Professor marginalia (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- 1. Say Clearly What Your Results Mean and What They Do Not Mean. The first part of this principle seems natural to scientific writers. The second part does not. Let us suppose, for example, that you are interested in the relationship of race, head size, and intelligence. Let us further suppose that you find that head size has a correlation of about .20 with intelligence, and that head sizes of blacks are on the average around 6% smaller than those of whites. Finally, let us suppose that these results are based on large, random samples of both races (you see by this that my example is a fictitious one, although the numbers are taken, roughly, from Rushton, 1990). This obtained result means, as you surely would not fail to point out in your article, that there are some systematic—possibly causal--relationships here that may be of scientific interest. It does not mean that you should hire your next faculty colleague by measuring his (or her) head size. It surely does not mean that you should hire your next faculty colleague by looking at the color of his (or her) skin. With race a weak predictor of head size and head size a weak predictor of intelligence, this behavior would be ludicrous in the extreme, if what you want to select for is intelligence. Yet this conclusion- that race will predict intelligence with reasonable effectiveness based on its association with head size--is exactly the sort of conclusion that unsophisticated people will draw from this result if you do not explicitly tell them not to. Psychologists who are used to working on typical topics that psychologists work on aren't particularly attuned to this point, because few but their fellow specialists much care what their results do mean, and such experts are well aware of the limitations in the conclusions that can properly be drawn from them. With race differences, it's different. Lots of people care passionately, and most of them are not experts in interpreting research, even though many may, in a general sense, pride themselves on being informed and literate. mikemikev (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I should hope your second one is better. What does it say? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is better. The section Say clearly what your results mean and do not mean is a nice guideline for this section. mikemikev (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
You could start here. BTW, this ref has now been provided to you three or four times. However, you seem to deny that it says in plain English that there is considerable dispute about brain size differences. --Ramdrake (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- That paper is about the history of racial intelligence hierarchies. I can see no counter-factual brain size data. mikemikev (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, you cannot exclude studies based on their age, unless you can come up with a secondary source which confirms that they are obsolete in some way. Second, several researchers (table on p.70 of the article) find different "racial hierarchies" in brain size; some actually don't even find differences at all. This proves that there is no consensus that "brains of African-Americans are 6% smaller than brains of White people". This is at best Rusthon's claim, and there is no scientific consensus behind this value.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- You appear to be applying a rhetorical strategy involving me finding a 'secondary source' confirming the self evident. No, I don't have a secondary source stating that MRI data is better than filling skulls with lead shot. Why? Because it's freaking obvious! And still, you fail, knowingly or otherwise, to acknowledge that the table clearly represents intelligence hierarchies, often from the 1800's. It is irrelevant! The fact that you need to constantly churn up this rubbish shows clearly how weak your position is. You have one paper, clearly from an egalitarian apologist, clearly attempting to obfuscate the issue. No reliable counter data has been presented. mikemikev (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- And here's Rushton's response and corrections based on Cain and Vaderwolf's feedback, re your first diff, which is also only to the abstract and not the whole paper; when conversations on sources are based on abstracts, they always lose the essential nuances. The point is that unless the R&I topic is represented as the long, twisting, back-and-forth conversation is it with the article ending at the current situation based on the latest research, the article is doomed. It's somewhat depressing reading through the constant tossing back and forth of sources as if the article content has been distilled down to a game of trumps. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- And here's Rushton's response and corrections based on Cain and Vaderwolf's feedback, re your first diff, which is also only to the abstract and not the whole paper; when conversations on sources are based on abstracts, they always lose the essential nuances. The point is that unless the R&I topic is represented as the long, twisting, back-and-forth conversation is it with the article ending at the current situation based on the latest research, the article is doomed. It's somewhat depressing reading through the constant tossing back and forth of sources as if the article content has been distilled down to a game of trumps. PЄTЄRS
(outdent) Peters, replying to your suggested goal immediately above that "the R&I topic [be] represented as the long, twisting, back-and-forth conversation" does not seem to me to be the path to a reader-friendly, encyclopedic article. And, indeed, there are reliable secondary sources already in print that cover this issue quite thoroughly and accurately in a much straighforward narrative style. There are multiple whole books on this subject, but to get the Wikipedia article down to the desired length of a Wikipedia article means that our pleasant, thoughtful conversation here on the article talk page shouldn't be reproduced on the article page proper, nor should the article proper rehash every twist and turn of scholarly discussion on the topic. Brevity will be the soul of wit here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- One word to describe this, trolling. According to [19]
- The archetypal example of trolling is the deliberately inflammatory edit or post — saying something controversial specifically to cause a flame war. Inflammatory edits usually come from users who have a minority or controversial opinion and who sincerely believe that this view is inadequately represented by Wikipedia, and therefore will seek reasonable ways to properly represent their views; trolls, however, will generally not seek consensus but will instead insist on a position without any regard for compromise.
- Wapondaponda (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Muntuwandi, please leave it out. I am not trolling, just trying to get WP uncensored. You are, however, an afro-centric POV pusher. mikemikev (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The lede
I don't think the lede is at all accurate at the moment. It should summarise the article: it does not do so at present. It reads like some sort of essay. There should be no need for citations in the lede; certainly not from articles like Mainstream Science on Intelligence, which fails WP:RS. The lede continues to talk about "research in Race and intelligence". In a WP:RS, Thompson and Gray say there is very little of it: the lede implies otherwise. This should be fixed. Mathsci (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- WeijiBaikeBianji removed the statement about which groups tend to score lower or higher, which has been supported by consensus every time we’ve discussed it in the past. The reason he gave in his edit summary for removing it is because it wasn’t sourced, so I added it back with Mainstream Science on Intelligence as a source. I could come up with any number of other sources for this, but that seemed like the best one to me.
- "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" is neither a reliable nor a current source for such a statement. (It IS a reliable source to show that the signers had that opinion as of that year. When it was republished in Intelligence, that was as an editorial, not as a review article.) Mathsci is correct that Wikipedia guidelines on article style ordinarily expect lead sections to be simply summaries of the body of the article, with no citations in the lede. (Although I would like someone please to remind me where to find chapter and verse to show that that is a Wikipedia editing guideline.) It would be very good to have a lede with a high level of generality and overview of what the article is about (something I attempted to provide in my edit of the first two paragraphs last evening) and meanwhile to work methodically at sourcing each and every statement in the article, taking care to 1) use only the most reliable sources, 2) prefer current sources to old sources, 3) prefer mainstream sources to minority sources without giving undue weight to minority sources that must be mentioned because of their importance in the literature, and 4) maintain a multidisciplinary perspective on the topic, with better representation of data from outside the United States and much better sourcing to behavioral genetics sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you think this paper is not a reliable source, you need to explain why not. The version of it that I’m using has passed peer review for the journal Intelligence. WP:RS states, “Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.” Since the source I was using fits this description, I have no idea why you were claiming it isn’t reliable.
- WeijiBaikeBianji has removed this information because it was unsourced, and now you’re removing it with the explanation that the lead shouldn’t need sources. Which is it? Either the lead shouldn’t need sources, in which case the lack of a source isn’t a reason to remove anything from it, or else it does need them, in which case your own reason for removing this isn’t valid. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Anything in the lead should either be sourced to RS in the lead (not preferable) or sourced to RS in the body (preference). There should be no need for references in the lead. The statement I have just removed, following MathSci, was removed by me as it is not supported by WP:RS. Verbal chat 12:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I agree that sources do not belong in the lede and that the lead should summarize the article. So, I would edit the corresponding part of the article that deals with test scores and make sure that it is clear and well-sourced. Then, with that fixed, the lead could be changed. David.Kane (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- MathSci: I agree that the lede is not as good as it should be. Why not try the same procedure for fixing the lede that worked so well when you fixed the history section? Rewrite the lead here, in Talk, and invite comments on your draft. Incorporate (useful) comments in a second version. Seek consensus. When consensus is achieved (and I believe it could be, as it was with history --- leaving aside our disputes over various sentences that), insert it in the article. David.Kane (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- All right, I guess we don’t have to use Mainstream Science on Intelligence as a source for this. But nobody has explained why it’s inappropriate for the lead section to state which groups score higher on average than others. This is pointed out in the body of the article here, and attributed to reliable sources there. I still don’t understand why WeijiBaikeBianji thought removing it from the lead was necessary.
- As pointed out here, the lead section ought to provide a concise summary of what will be covered by the rest of the article. The existence and nature of the racial IQ gap is an important part of what the article will be covering, so mentioning it there is consistent with that policy. (And this is why it was mentioned there until it was removed two days ago.) The existence of the gap is not especially controversial—the controversy is over what’s causing the gap as well as whether it’s shrunk over time, so for the lead section to point out that the gap exists is not providing undue weight to one hypothesis over another.
- Can anyone provide a specific justification for why the lead section can’t mention this? If not, I intend to put it back. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are referring to a paid advertisement in the Wall Street Journal. You have to be kidding. I think it is reasonable to use official statements by the AAA and APA and, if they ave one ASA in the lead, and then lean towards reliable secondary sources as mathSci has suggested - countless times - in the body for the details. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- The description "paid advertisment" is not correct. However, the description "solicited editorial" would be correct, and is verifiable in the sources cited in the Wikipedia article Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence. (The story is actually quite interesting.) The historical description of that editorial's composition by its own author, Linda Gottfredson, makes clear enough that the editorial is not a reliable source for the assertions at issue in this section of the article talk page, all the more so because it is an old source (out of date) besides not being a peer-reviewed review article. P.S. As a follow-up to Captain Occam, what's really necessary for the lede right now is that it be as general and uncontroversial as possible while we first of all figure out how to better source the article proper, which the lede is meant to summarize, and especially how to trim the bloated length of the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- “As a follow-up to Captain Occam, what's really necessary for the lede right now is that it be as general and uncontroversial as possible while we first of all figure out how to better source the article proper, which the lede is meant to summarize, and especially how to trim the bloated length of the article.”
- I don’t object to this in principle, but I don’t see how removing information about which groups score above or below others is a valid application of it. However we end up improving the body of the article, I think it’s safe to assume that the article is going to describe what the test score difference is. If it doesn’t, that would be a rather severe oversight—how can the article explain the debate over what’s causing the test score difference, or over whether it’s shrunk, if we don’t explain what’s being debated about? And if we can be sure that this information is going to be included in the article, wanting to keep the lead uncontroversial is not a reason to remove it.
- If the assumption here is that the information about the test score difference is going to be removed from the article, then apart from objecting to this because I think that information is necessary, I also think it’s a bad idea to be modifying the lead based on the assumption that the article will be changed in a way that hasn’t even been proposed yet. Once a change to the article has been proposed and has consensus, then the lead can be updated in accordance with it, but removing information from the lead based on a change to the article which hasn’t been proposed yet is putting the cart before the horse. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Slrubenstein: Just to clarify, you have no problem with mentioning the difference in IQ test performance either in the article or in the lede. Correct? Mackintosh, Flynn and many other secondary sources refer to the racial difference in IQ scores. (I need to check whether they specify one standard deviation or not.) David.Kane (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I’m referring to an editorial that was published in Volume 24, #1 of the peer-reviewed journal Intelligence. That’s the version of Mainstream Science on Intelligence which I was citing, not the WSJ version. The fact that it had previously existed as a newspaper article isn’t relevant here, since this journal’s standards for the statement passing peer review were exactly the same regardless of whether it had previously existed as a newspaper article or not.
- However, this doesn’t really matter. The opinion here seems to be that something which is reliably sourced in the body of the article doesn’t need a source in the lead, so using Mainstream Science on Intelligence as a source here isn’t necessary. Do you have any argument against the lead section describing which groups score higher on average than others, without citing anything for this in the lead itself, since this is reliably sourced in the body of the article? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- The lede statement as it now stands (a block of text that came from my keyboard) acknowledges that there are score differences found among groups and points to the scholarly controversy about significance of those differences that makes up the bulk of the article. Once the article is edited some more, there may be warrant to edit the lede, but no one has shown that there is anything against Wikipedia guidelines or contrary to reliable sources with the lede in the condition it now is in. I might also add, as an American who has lived abroad for six years of my life, that English-language Wikipedia is generally supposed to report world-wide facts, and too much focus solely on the United States in the lede or anywhere else in the article would not be appropriate. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- “I might also add, as an American who has lived abroad for six years of my life, that English-language Wikipedia is generally supposed to report world-wide facts, and too much focus solely on the United States in the lede or anywhere else in the article would not be appropriate.”
- The lead section used to mention wordwide scores also, along with the caveat that those are considered less reliable, but someone (not me) removed it. If that’s your only serious objection to the version of the lead from before two days ago, it shouldn’t be hard to fix.
- I wouldn’t go so far as to say that your version of the lead violates the policy about this, but it can be improved a lot in order to follow this policy more closely. The policy page states, “The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.” Surely you wouldn’t argue with the fact that which groups score above or below others is one of the article’s most important points—since the debate over this topic is over what factors could depress the average IQ of blacks and raise that of Asians, knowing which groups tend to score above or below others is a necessary prerequisite to understanding the debate over this topic at all. If summarizing this makes the lead more informative, is slightly more consistent with the lead guidelines, and does not violate NPOV or any other policy, what reason is there to leave it out? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since there don’t appear to be any counter-arguments to what I’m suggesting, I’ve added back the information about which groups tend to score lower or higher. Per WeijiBaikeBianji’s comments, I’ve also tried to make the lead section focus less heavily on the United States, by adding back the sentence about worldwide scores. (I actually don’t think there was ever a consensus for removing this sentence, so it probably should have been added back before now.)
- Before making this change, I waited around 24 hours to make sure nobody would raise any further objections to it, so if anybody has any objections to it at this point I hope they’ll make a similar effort at discussion before reverting it. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the underlying issue revolves around trying to lead the reader on by selectively presenting data so they can draw their own conclusion. If secondary sources indicate that the meaning behind the measurements are unclear, providing context free measurements (quantitative or qualitative) in the lede is inappropriate. That's not to say the measurements shouldn't be discussed in the body of the article, they just don't well summarize the article. This relates to the fact that the topic of the article which is intelligence, not IQ. aprock (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) "I think the underlying issue revolves around trying to lead the reader on by selectively presenting data so they can draw their own conclusion." Yes, this is also my concern about the lede as it is now written. It is not a summary of what a well sourced article would look like but more like a set of talking points for a blog post. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Aprock, you’ve already agreed that the article should take the same general perspective that the APA report does. The APA report states that IQ scores are a valid measure of mental ability, and summarizes the debate on this topic as being over what’s causing the difference in average scores between races. So does nearly every other secondary source that discusses race and intelligence, so I’m really not getting what the problem is here.
- Can you be more specific about what conclusion you think it’s “leading the reader” to? The only conclusions I see it implying are that the IQ difference exists and that it’s more than just a measurement artifact, both of which are reliably sourced in the rest of the article also. Stating that you think it’s “selectively presenting data” isn’t helpful if you don’t mention what you think is being left out. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The content which you removed doesn’t state, or imply, that the difference is “due to race”. The only thing it states is that, whatever the cause of the IQ difference, its effects cause races to differ in average IQ. I think the lead also made it clear that there is no agreement among experts about whether the cause of the difference is due to genetic traits that vary between races, environmental influences that vary between races, or anything else. But if you think that ought to be made clearer, can you please be specific about what should be changed in order to accomplish this? --Captain Occam (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- You haven’t explained this at all. You said in your previous comment that the past version of the lead was “selectively presenting data” in order to lead readers to a conclusion, I asked you how you thought it was selectively presenting data and what conclusion it was leading readers to, and your response was that it was leaving out the fact that there’s no agreement among secondary sources that the difference was due to race. Since your original point was that what you think the selective presentation of data was leading readers to a certain conclusion, it followed that you thought the wording was implying the IQ gap was caused by inherent racial differences. If that isn’t what you meant, you still haven’t answered my question about what conclusion you think this wording was leading readers to.
- I hope this is wrong, but you’re giving me the distinct impression that you’re being deliberately vague about your problems with this section, because you don’t want me to be able to come up with a wording for it that satisfies your concerns about it. If that’s the case, you need to be aware that this completely goes against the spirit of collaborative editing and seeking compromise, and is basically just a backhanded version of Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it. If this vagueness isn’t intentional, you still need to realize that you’re being really unhelpful with working towards a compromise with you about this.
- I want to come up with a wording for this section that’s satisfactory to you, but I also want to come up with a wording that’s consistent with the lead section policy, which the current wording isn’t. Let me ask you again: if your problem with the content you removed is that it left out the fact that sources don’t agree that the IQ gap is due to inherent racial differences, will it be satisfactory to you if I make the lead clearer about the fact that the cause of the IQ gap has not been identified? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Hi, Captain Occam, just to be clear what kind of summary statement you would like in the lede, would you be agreeable to posting this the following? "33 percent of blacks are brighter than 50 percent of whites" I have a source for this that is unimpeachably a reliable secondary source. Could we have this statement in the lede as the summary of group differences data? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Summarizing the group difference data in that manner would be an awfully convoluted way of describing it, and the term “brighter” also is neither precise nor scientific. I can’t tell whether your question is serious or not (I suspect that it isn’t), but the answer is that I would not approve of the group IQ data being described this way, because it’s unnecessarily convoluted and uses unscientific terms, and therefore doesn’t accurately summarize the rest of the article even if it’s reliably sourced.
- I’ve explained my problem with your version of the lead. The policy for lead sections states that “The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article”, and your version of the lead does not do this. As I stated before, the article is about the racial IQ gap, and the various theories that have been proposed about what could lower the average IQ of Blacks and raise that of Asians. Therefore, anything intended to be “a concise version of the article” will need to include an explanation of what the IQ distribution is.
- If you have a problem with the way I changed the lead to summarize this (which is the way it was summarized for several months before your changes), can you suggest another way to summarize it that would be satisfactory to you? Since neither you nor Aprock has been specific about what conclusions you think this was leading readers to, or how it was doing so, I’m not able to determine how to address the problems you think it had while still following the guidelines for lead sections. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
1RR violations
Do we report these to the editwarring board as normal, or to a particular place or group of admins? Verbal chat 13:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is no 1RR restriction on this article. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Workshop#Temporary_1RR_on_Race_and_intelligence. The remedy is currently being voted upon by arbiters and currently has 4 !votes. Once it has six, it will pass and be enforced. Once the remedy passes, I would suggest WP:AN3, though if it's a complex case, you may wish to go to WP:AE instead. --B (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting, it had been presented to me as a fact. Apologies. Verbal chat 17:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- In fairness, the statement above does state it as fact, but a single admin does not have the authority to unilaterally declare an editing restriction. George overstepped his bounds. This isn't to say that it's a bad restriction — it's a good one and arbcom will most likely pass it — but allowing a single admin to declare an editing restriction on any article they please is a very dangerous precedent. --B (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wikilawyering on procedural issues regarding the 1RR? The article was placed on a 1RR by GWH, a move supported by Jimbo Wales. The details can be found in the ANI archive here. If Arbcom chooses, the 1RR can be overruled, but at present it is in effect per the ANI thread, not as a specific Arbcom proposal. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is the first time I have seen Jimbo's statement linked to. Jimbo has the authority to place the article on 1RR. GWH does not. It is not "wikilawyering" to say that a single admin does not have the authority to place an article on 1RR any more than it is "wikilawyering" to say that there are any other limitations to administrative authority or use of the admin tools. If nobody here has any objections, based on Jimbo's statement this can be considered an active restriction and we can add appropriate notice at the top of this page, to the page notice of the article, and at Wikipedia:General sanctions. --B (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wikilawyering on procedural issues regarding the 1RR? The article was placed on a 1RR by GWH, a move supported by Jimbo Wales. The details can be found in the ANI archive here. If Arbcom chooses, the 1RR can be overruled, but at present it is in effect per the ANI thread, not as a specific Arbcom proposal. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- In fairness, the statement above does state it as fact, but a single admin does not have the authority to unilaterally declare an editing restriction. George overstepped his bounds. This isn't to say that it's a bad restriction — it's a good one and arbcom will most likely pass it — but allowing a single admin to declare an editing restriction on any article they please is a very dangerous precedent. --B (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting, it had been presented to me as a fact. Apologies. Verbal chat 17:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate the efforts of administrators here to clarify whether the 1RR restriction was even effective or not, and whether or not there was notice of the restriction visible to editors here. Given that the highly visible general position of Jimbo Wales is that " You can edit this page right now," it's important to get a reality check whenever anyone proposes a restriction on immediate editing. Peters was the first to ask that all editors have notice of any restrictions, right at the beginning of restrictions being imposed, but that discussion on this talk page rolled off into the archives, and the talk page templates and the article itself were not marked in any way that would remind users that the restriction was imposed or when the restriction would expire. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting project:
This online project has already tested more than 1 million people. Women consistently score higher than men. It seems that all these tests have more to do with being goog book smart students than anything else. Women are now more applied in school. Or are now women quite more intelligent than men genetically speaking?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.41.147 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is no validation of that testing program. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, keep an eye on it. More than 1000000 peoples tested and counting (for some reason women always doing better). Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.41.147 (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Statistics teachers take care to point out that a large sample can still be junk data if the sample is biased. Rather than count how many people have self-selected to be tested by an unvalidated test, I would prefer to read the professional literature on carefully gathered samples used to norm recently developed IQ tests for professional psychologists to use. Thanks for bringing up that example of mass media comment on IQ testing, which I'm sure must influence the opinions of some readers of Wikipedia articles. -- 14:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The article is now under protection.
This shouldn't have much to do with registered editors, but I see that the article has just been put under protection, the kind called semi-protection, for an indefinite period. Let's all take special care to do high-quality editing work, after thoughtful discussion, during this restriction. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just in case you didn't know, semi-protection means registered editors can still edit, while unregistered ones (anonymous IPs) can't. Apologies if I'm telling you something you already knew.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's definitely appreciated to emphasize basic information like that for newbies like me and for any onlookers who surf by. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I am about to follow David's kind suggestion.
David kindly pointed out that the "Harvard" style of tagging for specific page references to sources has been helpful in other articles, for example the History of the race and intelligence controversy article largely edited by Mathsci. So I will take the first step on this article--adding a section heading--to get ready to start upgrading this article with the same citation tags. The edit may look disruptive, but it isn't meant to be. All I am about to do is add a new section to the article for future use by notes, and otherwise to leave all content entirely unchanged. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not a huge fan of this citation style but I suppose it could be well-suited to this page. This is not really "Harvard referencing", though, which is parenthetical - this is Chicago style. II | (t - c) 18:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom Proposed Decision Now Posted (was Consensus versus Sources as a Basis for Editing)
(After edit, time stamp updated below:) The ArbCom proposed decision on the current case related to this article has been posted, and as arbitrators vote on findings and remedies we will have guidance about how this article should be edited as we move forward. The proposed decision largely reemphasizes Wikipedia core policies that remind us how all articles should be edited. My comment is that the verifiability policy demands that edits be based on reliable sources, so all of us are encouraged to look for and to identify and to read and to use such sources. By contrast, seeking consensus as an aspect of Wikipedia etiquette is a behavioral guideline, and an important guideline, but not a bar to being bold in editing articles on the basis of reliable sources, because "You can edit this page right now" is still a "core guiding check" to ensure that edits are based on sources and not on commonly shared (possibly mistaken) opinion. One good idea I learned from the ArbCom case files was using the stringent reliable source standards for medicine-related articles to edit articles on human intelligence (which relates to some medical diagnostic categories and also to some categories in the criminal justice system of various countries). It appears that many of us here are happy to seek consensus, which can make working on this article a mutual learning experience. Consensus is especially valuable if it forms around grappling with and understanding the best sources on the subject. It will always be appropriate to challenge a current consensus if the sources so demand. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good Link about How to Evaluate Sources The director of research at Google, Peter Norvig, has an excellent online article on "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation" that is very helpful for sizing up sources that are proposed as bases for editing Wikipedia articles. One common problem for articles on many topics on Wikipedia are small-sample-size case studies with no control group being proposed as bases for general conclusions about some matter of fact. Many such case studies are never replicated, and causation cannot validly be inferred from such a study design. Norvig's article links to quite a few other interesting articles about errors in conducting research or interpreting research that will be valuable to all of us as we edit articles all over Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry to disappoint you, but the approach by Coren will hardly work. One can have something signed by 52 scientists and marked "Mainstream Science" right in the title, but still have the entire thing removed and replaced by another reliable source that tells something different: [20]. There is no shortage of books in this area. Now, just a comment on this specific diff. The original text tells something about normal distributions being shifted. This is language I can understand. The revised text tells about "researchers disagreeing". That means nothing. They always disagree. The sourced info removed. POV-pushing, classic. Biophys (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- * Biophys, by the nature of its composition and publication, the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" editorial is not a reliable source for the factual assertions it contains, although it is a reliable source for the opinion of the signers in the year it was signed. Some of the underlying facts have changed in the past decade and a half, and I get the impression from reading current literature on the topic that not all of the still living signers would still sign that statement today in the form that was published in 1994. It is known from the sources cited in the Wikipedia article on that document that not all psychologists who were contacted to sign the document agreed with it--quite a few refused to sign, or had reservations toward one part or another of the document. On my part, I will do my best to ensure that all remedies adopted by ArbCom vote (the voting is not yet finished) are followed by me and work as a framework for collaborating with other editors to improve Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are you telling that the curves were not shifted? Let's not discuss specific sources. My point is different: the problem is never the sources, but the people. There is an obvious POV-pushing here, and POV-pushers are usually the ones who remove specific sourced information from the articles. Here is just another similar example by someone else (the removal of exact percentage) [21]. Also note how someone else quotes the same Flynn (first diff), but interprets him differently [22]. Visiting the WP:RS will not resolve anything.Biophys (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am willing to assume good faith and figure that any editor here who evaluates sources for quality and for centrality in the literature on the topic is not pushing a point of view but simply reminding fellow editors about Wikipedia policies. I'll post a quick-draw link to a quotation from a book that I requested from a local library last night.Gander quoting Pinker There are a lot of popular misconceptions about IQ, which are adequately refuted in the best professional sources, but they influence what Wikipedians think is plausible and which assertions need strong sources rather than weak sources. We will all do one another a favor by digging deeply into the sources and confronting our presuppositions as we read and discuss the sources here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- He's making no determination about the facts in the editorial. He's merely pointed out that the source is not a reliable source. If the facts in the editorial can be sourced by reliable secondary sources, then including them with the proper sourcing is the thing to do. Using bad sources for good facts is never the correct approach. You seem to be on a quest for WP:TRUTH, which is something which wikipedia does not do very well, mostly because it's policies are not designed for that purpose. aprock (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Correct. As long as reliable sources can be found to assert certain facts, and as long as those facts fit the topic of this article, in they go, with citation of the sources. We have been cautioned by the draft ArbCom decision (which I think will be final on this point soon enough, as it is fully in accord with existing Wikipedia policy) to take special care to find reliable secondary sources for this article, especially those independent of scholar-advocates related to clashing positions on this issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
We need to start checking article text for sole primary sources for assertions.
It looks like ArbCom will have no problem reaching agreement that this article should be sourced to reliable secondary sources, not to primary sources, and so now we should be looking for authors like Harpending (a smart guy, but not a long-term researcher on this issue) and Rushton (a person of a decidedly minority opinion on this issue) as sources in the article, to see if the factual assertions cited to those sources are also to be found in reliable secondary sources. The article is plenty long already, and reads more like a sourcebook than like an encyclopedia article. There should be plenty of scope for trimming the article text to make sure it matches how the mainstream secondary sources write about this same issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- At the moment, there’s one vote in favor of this proposal and one vote against, so I think it’s a little early to be saying that ArbCom will have no trouble reaching an agreement about this.
- If they do reach an agreement about it, I agree that we’ll need to replace the primary sources with secondary sources where that’s possible, and remove statements from the article where it isn’t. However, I think it’s important to make sure we’re on the same page about what is and isn’t a primary source. The Cochran and Harpending paper currently cited by the article is a primary source, but Cochran and Harpending’s book The 10,000 Year Explosion (which does not present any new data, but summarizes data from existing studies) would probably be considered a secondary source. Likewise, Jensen and Rushton’s Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability is a review paper, so it would be considered a secondary source also. The way determine whether a source is primary or secondary should not be based only on who the author is, since most researchers who have published in this area have written both primary and secondary material. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring
Despite Arbcom proceedings, edit warring seems ongoing. Even posting of the current proposal seems to have had no effect. I have filed one report here. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Protected
As you can see from the article, I have protected the article for an intentionally very long time, until September 1, 2010. Essentially, the point of the protection is for it to be in place until either (a) all issues are resolved or, more likely, (b) the 1RR or other preventative measure is instituted. -- tariqabjotu 13:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the meantime, I hope you and other admins will be available to post any content changes if editors do arrive at points of consensus at article talk. Thanks. PЄTЄRS
JVЄСRUМВА ►TALK 13:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)