Talk:IQ and Global Inequality/Archive 1

qhc variable correlation matrix
Looking at the IQ-distribution world map, doesn't it seem that there is a climatic correlation with IQ? There is an almost exclusively blue (various hues) band right across the northern temperate zones (Eurasia and N.America) and another presence of blue at the extremes of the southern hemisphere (Argentina, Australia, NZ). The tropical and equatorial regions, on the other hand, seem more severely deprived in terms of the human intelligence of their inhabitants.

Or is it perhaps that geo-climatic features affect other issues (such as wealth and economic development, nutrition, education, intellectually challenging opportunities, etc.), which in turn have a bearing on IQ?

Or is it a racial question (races of people do tend to be clustered in different locations of the planet, in spite of the phenomenom of immigration).

Or, indeed, are the standard measuring instruments of IQ levels based on Western ideas of what costitutes intelligence, thus not applying fully to certain other "intel-cultural" scenarios? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.20.214 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The IQ of people from different races does not change by many points when they move from primitive to civlilized, educated and comfortable lives (Wealthy blacks in america for example). This proves that this is a racial question. That it would be bent towards western ideas of intelligence is quite silly to even propose as east asians have among the highest scores (Ashkernazi jews have the highest at about 116). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.182.174 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarify Graph
I don't think there is any rationale way of estimating that a countries entire average population has an IQ of greater then 105? What is the basis for the whole graph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.98.11 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Iqandglobalinequality.jpg
Image:Iqandglobalinequality.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead section
Criticism of the book in the lead section should be something substantial, not the kind of guilt by association nonsense that the Searchlight Magazine quote ("'classic' Aryan and eugenic tracts including a homily to the antisemitic philosopher Count de Gobineau as a pioneer of genetics") represents. Moreover, Gobineau cannot be characterized as an anti-Semite, so the the quote is factually incorrect and should not be included in a Wikipedia article in any case.

If the information about the publisher is so central to understanding the book that it should be mentioned in the lead section, it should be done in a proper and encyclopedic style, not in the frenzied, propagandistic (and factually incorrect) manner that the Searchlight quote represents. The SPLC quote I used is better in this respect.

The fact that academics from several fields have taken interest in Lynn and Vanhanen's theory should also be mentioned; IQ and the Wealth of Nations was published by an academic publisher, and the new book is just an extended version of the same thesis. Otherwise the information about the publisher's history will make it look like the book was some kind of neo-Nazi tract, whereas in reality it is a meticulously researched scientific work by two eminent scholars.

The fact that Lynn has received grants from the Pioneer fund has nothing to do with the book, so I will remove this information from the lead section.

I'll restore my earlier version of the lead section. --Victor Chmara 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It could also be included that the book is inconsistant. Southeast Asia was by far the most underdeveloped part of Asia (another notable example would be Korea) until the 1960s. Iranian Americans and Indian Americans blow White Americans out of the water in standardized testing (SATs, ACTs) as well as per capita income. Iranian Americans have the highest per capita income of any community within the United States of America. The book would also fail to explain why Germanic/Nordic peoples and the Mongols were amongst the least developed people on the Eurasian continent for over 2 millenia. While the Sumerians were writing epics and the Egyptians were building pyramids, the Western/Northern Europeans were living in caves like animals until the 1st century AD (and even then, they still were barely better than hunter-gatherers). The "dumb" Arabs were responsible for civilizing the Spaniards. Other noticable inconsistancies: Why are Turks so much smarter than Central Asian Turks? The Turks did not migrate tens of thousands of years ago; the Turks migrated to West Asia after the rise of Islam! According to the map, Turks living in Azerbaijian are dumber than Turks living in Turkey, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Moreover, Iranians and Afghans (Persians) are dumber than Tajiks in Tajikistan (Persians still). What type of ludicrous inconsistancies are these? Lynn and Vanhanen are not "eminent scholars." They aren't even biologists or geneticists! LOL. Lynn is a psychologist and Vanhenen has a degree in political science. So please don't talk about how these are "eminent scholars." I'm not a specialist and even I can observe the blatant inconsistancies and the blatant cherry-picking of data to validate their (weak) thesis. The only "subhumans" are the two racists that wrote this garbage book and the morons that believe it. At least this is better than their last world map that showed that the European side of Turkey has a higher IQ than the Asian side (LOL). I believe geneticists for the most part remain consistant that the humans have far more similarities with one another than differences, and the likelihood that "global equality" could be a result of European genes is utter nonsense. Perhaps Psuedoscientists/Psychologists might be interested with this garbage. Then again, 20 years ago the Psychologists were still saying homosexuality is a mental disorder. Psychology has always been useless. The authors attempt to use evolutionary necessity to justify their thesis, but they fail to acknowledge even the basic principles of evolution. Evolution does not usually occur in large organismal samples; the genetic pool would dilute almost all mutations in such situations (hence why a noticeable change in intelligence between Turks from Turkey and Turks from Azerbaijain and Turks from Central Asia would be dubious). Usually the population must be approaching close to extinction for an organism to experience evolution (and in most cases, the organism does go extinct). How could literally millions of Turks experience some sort of radical evolutionary development in their intelligence simultaneously? Moreover, if such a thesis were true, it would not explain why Americans have high IQs, because they endured rather harsh conditions upon immigrating here and were primarily servants; aristocrats did not immigrate to early America. If there were a genetic link to intelligence that is overwhelmingly noticeable, then why is Australia so developed? The Australians are descended from criminals! This book is based on cherry-picking and racemongering, not the facts. The authors should have their own intelligence inspected. -68.43.58.42 (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
Quote from Southern Poverty Law Center is POV pushing. --Jagz (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NPOV: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultramarine (talk • contribs) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A controversial subject does not make an article non-neutral. I see almost nothing in the article that could be construed as violating NPOV. Every single sentence in the lead and summary sections are facts. The rest of the article consists of numbers directly from the book; or sentences that are clearly just reporting what the book says, which is entirely different than arguing that those sentences are true. The article clearly states that the book is controversial so the reader is already informed that some disagree with its conclusions. I support removal of the neutrality warning. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research or unverified claims tag
I didn't put the original research/unverified claims tag on the page but since the discussion doesn't seem to have started yet, I will chime in first. We can eliminate the "original research" aspect of the discussion as this is about a book which has been published; therefore, it is not original research in the Wikipedia policy sense. The unverified claims aspect is more difficult. First because the wording of the policy itself mixes verifiability of facts against sources and the reliability of the sources sources themselves. I want to quote this sentence from the WP:VER policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." All the sentences and numbers in this article presumably could be checked against the book itself; so in that sense it does not violate verifiability. It is that sense which I think the policy is mostly intended. The only thing left is to question the publisher. Since, according to the article, Washington Summit Publishers is criticized by some anti-racist groups, I'm sure those groups would claim Washington Summit is a unreliable, questionable source. So the question is if Washington Summit is a reliable source. If you read the reliable source subsection of the policy you'll note that the source is not "most reliable" as it is not peer-reviewed but it is a continuation of peer-reviewed research. At the same time "the appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." I have noticed that any book that claims a correlation between race and IQ draws controversy regardless of the quality of the research so I am not surprised that some group somewhere discounts the book's conclusions. Because the numbers and sentences can be verified against the book itself and because the source's reputation is not called strongly enough into question, I weakly support removal of the 'original research or unverified claims' tag. (NOTE: I had trouble for some reason with the "+" link working with this talk page.) Jason Quinn (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The OR tag was originally put on because the article called the book controversial and did not provide a citation to support that claim. Also, I would imagine that a book of this type would have some difficulties finding an academic publisher. --Jagz (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lynn previous book on the same subject found a publisher. Other explanations for not getting an academic publisher include poor research and wanting to get a bigger money share.Ultramarine (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright vio?
If the table in this section IQ and Global Inequality is pulled from the book, I think that it would be considered beyond the "limited amount for commentary" (or whatever the wording is) that is allowed under fairuse of copyright material. (and if all that is different is adding pictures of flags, that is not significant analysis of the data). Does anyone have a deeper insight into this potential issue? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tables of data are not copyrightable (at least in the US). For example, the phones listings in a phone book cannot be copyrighted, and thus there are multiple competitors. Likewise, there are many similar lists of data in wikipedia. --Legalleft (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis tag
There is no evidence that the publisher was criticized because of this book as the article implies. --Jagz (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In scientific literature all potential forms of bias should be listed. Having a publisher accused of racism certainly counts as a possible bias.Ultramarine (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Try listing it in a way that does not imply that the criticism was because of this book. --Jagz (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not implying that the publisher is criticized due to the book. We list one potential bias for the book.Ultramarine (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be interpreted that way though the way it is written. --Jagz (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Put the sentence you broke back together and that possible ambiguity vanishes.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now it sounds like the criticism is because the book was not published by an academic publisher. --Jagz (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't get that at all. Which part of the sentence structure makes you imply this causation?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think people are going to interpret the sentence as meaning that the criticism being directed towards this: "the book was not published by an academic publisher but by Washington Summit Publishers". Most people are not going to interpret the sentence as meaning that the publisher is being criticized, just the fact that it was not published by an academic publisher. --Jagz (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I re-read the sentence once more, and it's obvious to me that it says that the book's publisher had been criticized. We could always have an RfC on this particular phrasing, see who else might misintepret it, if anyone does.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistake on the page
In 2002 Spains reported IQ in the book 'IQ and the Wealth of Nations' is 97 not 99.I would change it but I forgot how.I also lost my Wikipedia password and to lazy to make a new one.

I'm not sure whether this is a mistake within the book or on Wikipedia but irelands PPP-GNI per capita is listed at 8,500. Considering it is currently estimated at 43,600, I find it hard to imagine it was this low in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.206.1.20 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tables
The many tables in the page have neither good headers neither legends, making it very difficult to interpret what their numbers mean. It would be useful to introduce the tables with some explaining statement, like, "the table below (above) shows this or that". Someone who actually read the book could, please, rectify this? 201.80.151.191 (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Could we get an admin to look at the regular vandalism of this page (often by IPs) and look at the feasibility of semi-protection? This is similar to the case on IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Nirvana888 (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of chart of numbers for all nations
In addition to be a target for vandals and nearly impossible to verify correct content, the complete chart of scores assigned to nations by the authors is completely unnecessary and gives to a non-careful reader of the chart the impression that the numbers are more than a poorly gathered, frequently estimated comparison of data in ways that real scholars laugh at.

A text discussion of specific data points that have been covered by third party sources could be appropriate, but the complete chart is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article about the book. -- The Red Pen of Doom  04:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop deleting the data. You can't decide all by yourself that most of the article must go. If you worry that some people might misinterpret the chart, you can write a section before it where the way the data were gathered and estimated is discussed. The numbers are the crux of L&V's argument, and a very useful reference, so I think they should stay. They are what interests most people about the book. If the "real scholars &#8482; " are critical of the data, you can add their views to the article.


 * I've been watching this article for a long time, and the problem with vandals is minor. In any case, the correct approach to vandalism is not to delete the content in question. Otherwise lots of controversial stuff would have to be excised from Wikipedia.


 * --Victor Chmara (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "the numbers are the crux of L&V's argument," no - the numbers are presumably what L&V based their argument on (although the irratatic sourcing and estimation of the numbers could lead one to believe that the selection of numbers was based to support the arguement) the "crux of their argument" is how they interpret the numbers. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article to provide the database on which an argument is based - it is to reflect a summary of the interpretations and claims that L&V have put forward in their book and the impact and reaction that the book has garnered.
 * The fact that the numbers are vandal targets is not in itself a reason to remove them, but when combined with the fact that the numbers should not be in the article to begin with, AND the fact that with the title of the book and thus our article, a causal reader may be drawn to the chart and make the gravely mistaken assumption that the numbers are something other than the bits of gathered and estimated by L&V for their chart is compelling reason to remove the content from the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom  01:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing in WP:NOT suggests that the chart should not be included in the article. Aside from WP:NOTCENSORED, the only thing there relevant to us here is this bit:




 * So, as long as the numbers are put in proper context, their presence does not in any way violate Wikipedia guidelines. I added some explanatory notes before the chart.


 * --Victor Chmara (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Even given that what you are quoting has any relevance to the arguement at hand about the actual encyclopedic basis for including this list of stats, Where is any "explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader."? All we have is an expansive listing of stats in a "neat" chart form. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Low Level Countries
If this were accurate than it appears that the average IQ of many African countries falls well within the range of retardation. That just doesn't seem believable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenW (talk • contribs) 12:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been wondering the same thing myself. Score of 70 and below are classified as mentally retarded. Is this really possible or is there an explanation lacking> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.36.92 (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Jason Malloy explains it in this way:


 * IQs below 70 do not by themselves signify mental retardation, as it is commonly understood as a pathological state.


 * There are two types of retardation: familial and organic. The former is caused by normal population variation in intelligence while the latter is caused by diverse individual problems such as genetic defects or head injuries. Related to this, the IQ scores of people with familial retardation correlate normally with their parent and sibling's IQ scores (.50), while the IQ scores of people with organic retardation are not much associated with the IQs in their family.


 * Retardation is measured by a combination of IQ and adaptive scales. Sometimes an IQ of 70 is used as the threshold of retardation. People with familial retardation and organic retardation of matched IQ perform the same in academic and training contexts, but organically retarded individuals do worse on the adaptive scales which measure things such as self-care, motor skills, and social functioning, signifying a broader range of mental dysfunction and some sort of developmental damage.


 * In the US, consistent with the normal bell curve, there are proportionately about five times as many blacks (16%) with an IQ of 70 or below than there are whites (3%). But basically the same proportional number of whites and blacks are organically retarded (whites 1.5%, blacks 2.0%). (The g Factor, p 369)


 * The African scores indicate that there are proportionately about seventeen times as many sub-Saharan Africans with IQs below 70 (50%) than American whites (3%), and possibly even more. While organic retardation is probably somewhat higher among Africans, due to overall more challenging health conditions, this should in no way be regarded as characteristic of their normal intelligence variation.


 * Moreover, Lynn has estimated that the black African IQ average would be 80 or so if there was less malnutrition and disease in Africa.


 * --Victor Chmara (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Moreover, Lynn has estimated that the black African IQ average would be 80 or so if there was less malnutrition and disease in Africa."
 * I find that claim hard to believe. Then what would be the IQ of North Korea if there was less malnutrition? North Korea already has the world's 3rd highest IQ with 106. Impoversished countries like North Korea, Mongolia, and Afghanistan (which is even more impoverished than Africa and also war torned) all have high IQs. Also consider that South Africa is a very well developed country yet only has an average population IQ of 72. These cases suggest that the claim the poverty causes low IQ scoring is false. NationalGeographicFan2009 (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about what appears in the book and what reliable sources say about the book. Whether or not we believe that Lynn pulled the numbers out of his ass is irrel. -- The Red Pen of Doom  05:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that IQ results for North Korea would inevitably be provided by the North Korean government, and thus are of dubious validity. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, according to the table the numbers for North Korea have been "estimated". Actually, it looks like they didn't bother estimating anything and just copied and pasted the numbers for South Korea. Laurent (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
I have posted a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Update needed
New IQ values for 41 countries are available: http://www.mankindquarterly.org/summer2010_lynn.html | Giornorosso (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant information in the lead
This edit added information about one of the authors that isn't relevant to this book. You might as well mention the fact that he ALSO sits on the board for the journals Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences. Choosing to mention the Pioneer Fund but nothing else creates an NPOV issue for the article. The other author of the book is introduced only by where and what he teaches, so Lynn should be treated the same. The introduction was more concise and more neutral before this edit, so I think it should be reverted. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe his board position is his only active professional affiliation. I'm not sure how mentioning his affiliation is NPOV.  Given that the Pioneer Fund's mission is "to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences", it seems his board membership is relevant as he is fulfilling that mission by publishing a book about such scientific study. aprock (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're incorrect about the PF being his only active affiliation.  Lynn is listed as being on the board for Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences.


 * I think you're well aware how people react to the Pioneer Fund and how it affects the portrayal of Lynn for this to be one of the first things mentioned about him. Anyway, even if you do think that the book is an example of the Pioneer Fund's goals, it's synth to draw this conclusion yourself. If there are sources (such as book reviews) that specifically talk about his position on the Pioneer Fund board in reference to this book, then perhaps we could create a "reception" section that discusses that. But mentioning it in the intro without citing anything doesn't strike me as relevant enough to include, when we don’t mention any of Lynn’s other affiliations and don’t mention any of this about the book’s other author. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is hypocrisy - if being a grantee of the fund is nothing to be ashamed of then why shouldn't it be mentioned? Anyway it is true and verifiable "how it affects how people see Lynn" doesn't matter. He chose to be on that board and is unlikely to have a problem with people knowing that - he doesn't need you to protect his reputation by removing the information that you think may cause people to think bad ly about him. ·Maunus· ƛ · 11:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be mentioned because it's synth, because it's not any more relevant than his other board memberships, and because it isn't necessary in the introduction. By mentioning this I'm trying to follow the precedent set on these articles. I thought you basically agreed that introducing researchers based on their connection to the PF is a bad idea based on your comment here.


 * I agree with your below comment also, to include more criticism of Lynn's book. If we have a section devoted to "reception" of his book, which I suggested earlier, we could include a sampling of his many negative reviews. This could include any that mention his affiliation with the PF, as long as it's adequately cited. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I was reacting more to your arguments (which was that since it made him look bad it shouldn't be there) than to the issue. I do agree with my earlier comment that it doesn't do well as an introduction and that we should only mention it if we have a source criticizing the book mentioning it. I have added a reception section to the article feel free to expand it.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not synthesis in violation of Wikipedia policy to mention the affiliations of an author in an article about a book, if those affiliations are readily verifiable through reliable secondary sources (as this affiliation surely is). That's just good sourcing and establishing accurate context for the article. I do agree with the general proposition (applicable to dozens of articles in the scope of the recently decided ArbCom case) of keeping the more contentious statements, pro or con, out of the lede of articles, regardless of what each editor's POV might be about some of those articles, but within the article body text, sourced content should be strongly favored. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The "non-peer reviewed" journal Personality and Individual differences?
That is incorrect. See: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/603/authorinstructions Miradre (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a source for that in Knudtson's mirror of nature, but I gues they could have changed their practices since then.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"the Pioneer fund that has partly funded the study"
Source please. Miradre (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Source given but it does not state that the Pioneer fund funded the study. http://www.pioneerfund.org/Grantees.html Miradre (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It does, but Luynn also says it himself in the acknowledgements of IQ and the wealth of nations.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No. "IQ and Global Inequality" is not even mentioned in your link. Note that this article is about another book than "IQ and the wealth of nations".Miradre (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Both books build on the same research.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The later book uses four times as much data and many studies that were not used in the first. So they are not the same. Your link does not mention funding the first book either.Miradre (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to mention the book - Lynn was funded in the period it was researched.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not given a source for this and even if true does not mean the book was funded.Miradre (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe its also relevant to mention that Lynn is on the board of the Pioneer fund himself and that Hans Eysenck another Pioneer grantee and Rushtons mentor founded Personality and Individual Differences.All very much verifiable. ·Maunus· ƛ · 18:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of this, even if true, which you have not shown, would mean that book was funded.Miradre (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We can certainly go into much greater detail on this on the basis of reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a source showing that the book was funded by the Pioneer fund, then present it.Miradre (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the criticism
The article is now only purporting Lynn and Vanhanen's conclusions as fact. Where are the many critical reviews? Now the single review is the obvious praise from Lynn's cohort Rushton. Balance? That it received a "mixed reception" is also non-informative for a book so contentious as this one. ·Maunus· ƛ · 13:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking for a while, I wasn't able to find any additional reviews that seemed overly negative or overly positive. Here are two somewhat neutral ones, pointing out both critiques of Lynn's interpretations as well as agreement with certain aspects: and  (I'm not sure if the full text of this one is available online, but if anyone wants it I can send them the pdf). Do either of these look somewhat useful? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviews I found not mentioned in the article: There's also various papers by Wicherts, including "Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence", by Wicherts, Borsboom, and Dolan. aprock (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Politics and the Life Sciences (26 September 2008), by Somit and Peterson.
 * ''Economic Affairs" Volume 27, Issue 3, pp104-105, September 2007, by Christie Davies


 * Has content been removed from this article...? I remember it having more criticism... I'll check the history. futurebird (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My mistake I had it mixed up with IQ and the Wealth of Nations. These articles should be merged. futurebird (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Several editors appear to be agreeable to a merge into a single article pertaining to all of Lynn's books on national IQ comparisons. I'm looking at what the sources say about each book to see what the appropriate post-merger article structure should be. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Scientific books are usually not merged this way in Wikipedia. The books are different in data used, IQ scores found, and conclusions drawn. That later book specifically attempts to answer criticisms against the earlier book so the earlier criticisms does not necessarily apply to this book. Since the IQ scores found are different one cannot easily compare studies using IQ scores from the books either.Miradre (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Miradre, You seem to be introducing quite a bit of synth, or, and unrelated content into the article. I suspect that much of your edits will be revised in the coming days to conform to sourcing standards. aprock (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is synth and what is unrelated? Everything is properly sourced to peer-reviewed articles from science journals.Miradre (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mirarde, I respect your opinion, but I actually have reliable sources that claim on the basis of good evidence that the books are all in one series, based on the same review of the literature, so there is at least a sourced basis for treating all the books in one article on Wikipedia. We can, of course, discuss sources that reach a different conclusion, if any editor here has some of those to cite. As for "Scientific books are usually not merged this way in Wikipedia," there is actually quite a lot of Wikipedia in which books that I would expect to have stand-alone articles are missing, or treated only in summary in biographical articles about the books' authors, and there is some dispute here, again based on reliable sources, about how "scientific" any of the Lynn series books are. Let's discuss calmly what the sources say. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That the books are based on the same literature review is simply factually wrong. If that were the case then the IQ scores would be identical which they are not. For many nations there were no studies in first book while studies were found for these nations in the the later book. The books themselves are the sources for these statements. I repeat that the books are different in data used, IQ scores found, and conclusions drawn. That later book specifically attempts to answer criticisms against the earlier book so the earlier criticisms does not necessarily apply to this book. Since the IQ scores found are different one cannot easily compare studies using IQ scores from the books either. If other Wikipedia articles have problem, then that is reason to fix these, not to make new mistakes.Miradre (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll revisit specifics at a later point in time, but much of the criticism, especially criticism of criticism by third parties, has little to nothing to do with this book. aprock (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that you are thinking about the discussion regarding what causes the national IQ differences. Well, while it is not stated yet in the text, the book argues for a substantial genetic contribution so the arguments regarding the role of genetics versus environment directly relates to book.Miradre (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to third party criticism of second party reviews. That sort of content doesn't relate to the book. aprock (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing such. Lynn is the author of all replies to second party reviews.Miradre (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly referring to the Studies using ... section which appears to contain a lot of synth, he said/she said, and generally non-notable triva. The entire section probably doesn't belong in this article as it does not discuss this book. aprock (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Studies using the IQ scores of the book accept them as valid. Thus they show scientific acceptance of the book which is certainly relevant. Notes again that the book argues for a substantial role of genetic as one important factor explaining these differences. Thus studies arguing for and against this are also relevant for the book.Miradre (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated the article with information on the books view on genetics and race as an important causal factor.Miradre (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your statement here is a perfect example of synth. If you have source which state that, then we should consider including that.  Using this article as a catalog of all studies which refer to it is not appropriate.  There are plenty of other articles where the general discussion of race/intelligence/genetic is appropriate.  This article is about this book. aprock (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no article for differences in national IQ except these two. There is an article about race and IQ but national differences in IQ are not necessarily due to race. But if insisting maybe we could create an article called "Nations and IQ" or something like that?Miradre (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sticking to the article at hand, the content of the article should directly relate to the book. Inclusion of extended discussions of other studies or the general topic is outside the scope of this article. I suspect the concept of National IQ is not notable outside these two books, but if there are reliable secondary sources which support the creation of the article according to WP:N then article creation only makes sense. aprock (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I note again that 1) since the reliability of the book is doubted other studies which accepts and uses the IQ scores are relevant simply as evidence for acceptance within the scientific community 2) more specifically studies discussing the causes of the differences in nationwide IQ are relevant since the book also discusses causes 3) since the book also discusses correlations and associations with national IQ studies which extends this are also relevant.


 * There are 240 articles citing "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" and 87 citing "IQ and Global Inequality" in Google Scholar showing notability. Of course there were also many studies and discussions of differences in national IQ before these books.Miradre (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll note that your points (1), (2), (3) are all or/synth. Again, this is an article about this book.  Content which does not discuss this book is not relevant to this article.  Instead of going around in circles at this point, I'll just leave it at that.  Sometime this week I'll review the article and make the appropriate edits based on proper sourcing. aprock (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (EDICTCONFLICT)Using a list of studies that use the book to show a level of acceptance is clearly in conflict with WP:SYNTH. It is also not really compatible with WP:NPOV since the opposite argument couldn't be argued unless we also have a list of studies that don't use the book. It also basically a bad argument there are any numbers of ways of using and citing abook without endorsing its conclusions, methods or data. Being used in studies could show that its notable, not that its accepted.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they are not synth since they all mention and discuss the book and the IQ scores in it. In order to avoid edit warring I suggest we reach a consensus on the talk page regarding what to do.Miradre (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is a very good idea. It will however require that you start using arguments in stead of contradictions.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What contradictions?Miradre (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I noted that you have blanked the whole section without further discussion. Even the part where Lynn states he has updated the IQ scores for many nations which surely everyone must agree should be in the article. However, I will not revert as long as we have a productive discussion. So please state your reasons especially for deleting the last paragraph.Miradre (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I had but due to several edit conflicts my comment disappeared. Per WP:BRD I have removed the Synth violations untill such a time when consensus might support its inclusion.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * BRD does not support not giving explanations and reasons. What are your reasons especially for removing the last paragraph as per above?Miradre (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been given several reasons by me an Aprock - that you choose to reject them as unfounded is basically not our problem.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My replies have not been answered. No one has given any reason why the last paragraph should be removed where Lynn states that the IQ scores has been updated which surely no one can possibly object to mentioning.Miradre (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, feel free to include that paragraph in another section.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

New article on "National difference in cognitive abilities and achievement"
A number of peer-reviewed scientific articles was deleted a from this article on the ground that they were outside its scope. These articles had found a number of highly important associations between IQ and other variables as well as discussing the cause of the differences in national IQ.

As such I propose a new article called "National difference in cognitive abilities and achievements". This would not be limited to IQ or intelligence but also discuss national differences in such variables such as reading, science, and mathematics. It would also include associations of such measures with one another as well as associations with other factors such as economic development, crime, religiosity, and so on.

Such an article would not have the same scope as the articles discussing race and intelligence. There are many articles on for example differences in student achievement in science and mathematic and economic development that never mentions race or genetics. Thoughts?Miradre (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Be BOLD and crate it.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Double standard
The critics of the book object to mentioning that a number of studies have used the IQ scors of the book which shows scientific acceptance of the book. Or that the research on associations have been extended by other studies. Or that the book's conclusion on causality has been discussed by other studies. Claiming that this may be WP:SYNTH.

But at the same time the article mentions the book's publisher as a critique and the connections of Rushton to the Pioneer Fund. But they have presented no source criticizing the book for this so using the critics own argument this is WP:SYNTH.Miradre (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You included a large chunk of praise by an author that is clearly invested in the book in several ways. We can't let that stand as if it is a neutral critique by a third party. Alternatively we could just mention that Rushton reacted favorably and not spend two paragraphs paraphrasing his idle praise for his good friends book. Every edit you have done has been pushing an agenda (in an article that was already tilted towards that viewpoint) - don't try to make it look as if we're the only problem here. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything I have added is sourced. You are having a double standard if including critique of Rushton and the publisher when this is not sourced as a criticism of the book, while at the same not allowing for example mentioning of the academic support of the book by authors using the IQ scores in their studies.


 * You are describing me edits incorrectly. My added material has included criticism of book's IQ scores for Africa. The section that you completely blanked also contained several studies with criticisms regarding the causality of the differences in national IQ scores claimed by the authors.Miradre (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The current version has removed in the incorrect statement regarding funding the book. But the double standard still applies since the source does not mention the book.Miradre (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Single standard: If we go back to the Wikipedia reliable source guidelines, one problem here is that several of the sources about Lynn's works are not completely independent of Lynn's funding sources and organizational affiliations, and some of the sources come from advocacy organizations. All this needs to be noted in the article for the article to have  neutral point of view, and it's important to remember that "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are having a double standard by including sources not mentioning the book in order to criticize it, while at the same excluding sources that would give it support. Obviously an question about scientific reliability and acceptance of a source is very dependent on how widely a source it used and accepted in the scientific community. By excluding such favorable evidence your are violating a number of policies including NPOV. By the way, peer-reviewed articles are not questionable sources.Miradre (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not using sources that don't mention the book in order to criticize it - that would be SYNTH and inadmissible. We are using sources that mention Rushton, Lynn and the Pioneer fund to put Rushton's statement into its correct context, without which it would be misleading to readers. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is equally misleading to the readers not to mention the many academic studies using the IQ scores which establishes scientific acceptance by these researchers. Similarly it is misleading not to mention the alternative views to those of the book's authors regarding the case of the IQ differences.Miradre (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Mankind Quarterly and notability
The sourcing for this article and the related articles must reach beyond Mankind Quarterly, a source widely decried for its organizational bias and edited by Lynn himself. On the sourcing rule that Lynn is allowed to make statements about how he has revised his own book, I can see a rationale for what is essentially a self-published statement by Lynn (the author of the book) being in the article, but the article must also find sources independent of Lynn to evaluate the book to meet Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. If such sources cannot be found in sufficient number, there shouldn't be an article about the book at all in Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Manking Quarterly is a peer-reviewed journal and as such a reliable source.Miradre (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not quite that simple I'm afraid.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? Regardless, even if Lynn stated this on his blog it would still be highly relevant for this article. To quote from WP:RS "self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."Miradre (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually agree that his statement is relevant and should be included regardless of how it was published. But the question of the reliability of a source hinges on many different things not just whether its peer reviewed. In this case I think the point is moot since we are only using it to report a statement by Lynn himself about his own work.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with WejiBaikeBianji that there is reason for doubt about whether the book is notable enough for having an article, it clearly is.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the book (as part of Lynn's series of books) is notable, if only because Lynn and his fellow travelers are funded for and practiced at stirring up publicity for their shared ideas. But of course what is desirable in a Wikipedia article, by core nonnegotiable policy, is due weight based on reliable sources, and Wikipedia doesn't have articles even about subjects that are plainly notable unless there are independent sources about those subjects. So what I urge all the eager editors here to do is to find plenty of independent sources about the book series Lynn has put together and how those books are evaluated in the broader worlds of book publishing and scholarship on international comparisons. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The book of the current article has gained at least some scientific acceptance due its broad acceptance by numerous scientific studies that have used the IQ scores. Of course, these were deleted from the article for no good reason. Do you want me to add them back? If not, why not?Miradre (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Maunus that this controversial book is notable independently of whatever Mankind Quarterly has or hasn't written about it. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"was not published by an academic publisher"
Not sure how this should be interpreted. Books are usually not scrutinized to the degree seen in peer-reviewed journals (unless they are textbooks for students). They usually too long for this. Looking at for example W. W. Norton & Company, which has published Guns, Germs, and Steel and The Mismeasure of Man, I fail to see any evidence of peer-review, yet Wikipedia does not make any critical statements regarding this in the intros.Miradre (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Therefore, I suggest changing the sentence to "The book was published by the controversial Washington Summit Publishers."Miradre (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Location of the world map image of average national IQ
Clearly the summary should have some mention of the results found regarding average national IQ instead of this being last in the article. I suggest placing the the world map image of average national IQ there as a nice summary. Objections with reasons?Miradre (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The objection is that the world map is poorly sourced. First the strength of the sourcing should be discussed, if the map is to be displayed at all. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The source of image is the book itself.Miradre (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The image is not in the book. I've moved it back to the section which has the data from which it was constructed. aprock (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It it was in the book it would be a copyright violation. It is not constructed from Wikipedia but from the book. Having it in the summary section summaries the IQ scores which is not done currently. So why not have it there?Miradre (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition
Let try to break down the reasons for the deletions of the peer-reviewed material citing the book and using the scores in their own studies. Let us start with this section. It is some of the deleted material with some additions to make the connection to the book clearer. It clearly is relevant to the claim of authors of a substantial genetic component to the differences.


 * "As noted above the authors argues for a substantial role of genetics in explaining the differences. Other studies have expanded on or criticized this. One study thus notes that cold climate and harsh winters as well as the novelty of the environment have been proposed as the main factors behind the evolution of human intelligence. The study, using the IQ scores of the book, found support for both theories. "Annual mean temperature and evolutionary novelty (measured by latitude, longitude, and distance from the ancestral environment) simultaneously have independent effects on average intelligence of populations. Temperature and evolutionary novelty together explain half to two-thirds of variance in national IQ." In contrast, another study criticized this and some other evolutionary studies for problems such as ignoring or assuming that the Flynn effect is equal worldwide and assuming that there have been no migrations and changes in climate over the course of evolution. "In addition, we show that national IQs are strongly confounded with the current developmental status of countries. National IQs correlate with all the variables that have been suggested to have caused the Flynn Effect in the developed world." Low prevalence of parasitic disease correlate with a high national IQ taken from book. The authors argue that "From an energetics standpoint, a developing human will have difficulty building a brain and fighting off infectious diseases at the same time, as both are very metabolically costly tasks" and "Infectious disease remains the most powerful predictor of average national IQ when temperature, distance from Africa, gross domestic product per capita and several measures of education are controlled for. These findings suggest that the Flynn effect may be caused in part by the decrease in the intensity of infectious diseases as nations develop." "

If no good reasons are given I will add it back shortly. Then go on to discuss the remaining material.Miradre (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the sources don't discuss the book, they really don't belong in the article. aprock (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wicherts source does directly adress Lynn & Vanhanens study. The Kanazawa study adresses other related publications by Lynn. I can't access the Eppig/FIncher/thornhill paper at the link given.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the abstract for Eppig, it's clearly a primary source who's main conclusion is not about the book. It may have useful secondary source information about the book, but the topic of the study is not the book. aprock (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It uses the IQ scores of the book and offers an alternative explanation to that of the authors.Miradre (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not clear that just using the data merits the article's inclusion here. aprock (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said it also offers an alternative explanation to that of the book for the differences.Miradre (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I read what you said. If they are not discussing the book, then the content does not belong.  If they are discussing the book, it would help if the attributed text referenced that discussion.  Using data to come up with similar results is not enough reason for inclusion.  Referring above, it seems like you want this article to be about National IQs instead of the book.  If you want to create and edit that article, you are free to do so.  Studies which are not about the book will only be removed in due course.  aprock (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All studies using the IQ scores will most likely, considering the controversy, make some comment on the book and explain why they consider the data reliable enough to use in their own study. At the very least it should be included that a relatively large number of researchers have accepted the scores as at least somewhat reliable and used the scores in their research.Miradre (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you would like to provide sources, and quote passages which support your statement above, inclusion would be fine. Including studies that only reference the data is outside the scope of the article. aprock (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added statement showing that the articles discussed the reliability of the book as a data source. Further discussion continued in the section "Study content which does not discuss the book" below.Miradre (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting feedback for draft for new article "Nations and intelligence"
See User:Miradre/Nations and intelligence. Things to improve before moving to Main namespace? Relationship to this article? Miradre (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Study content which does not discuss the book
Inclusion of extensive discussions of studies who's topic is not this book are not appropriate for this article. To the extent that they discuss the book in a notable manner, inclusion of that discussion is certainly on topic. Inclusion of a summary of every study which cites the book is not encyclopedic. aprock (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You refer to this mass deletion of peer-reviewed studies. The whole topic of Rinderman's study was the book. The other studies discussed if the book was reliable as a data source so they are also relevant. Note that WP:N states: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons."Miradre (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we now have the article Nations and intelligence I have removed results from studies using the IQ data. I have added back some material that commented directly on the book.Miradre (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality?
Why is the article supposed to violate NPOV? I will remove the template unless reasons are given.Miradre (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed intro
Why this change? Or at least, why was the previous statement removed? That a lot of studies, including some of those cited here, have used the books scores is a fact.Miradre (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the notion that use equals acceptance is false and if it were true can only be verified by SYNTH·Maunus· ƛ · 18:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
 * If you use IQ scores in your own research, then unless you willingly do flawed research, you consider the scores valid.Miradre (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Delia Peabody (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user    Will Beback    talk    02:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So I take it that you agree with me?Miradre (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read the sources? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree with that a large number of studies have used the scores in their studies thereby accepting them as valid? If you think that the numbers mentioned currently in the intro are too few I can add more.Miradre (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether that's true or not is independent of whether everyone agrees (or doesn't agree) with the book's conclusions. These are two separate issues, and both need to be mentioned, which is what Maunus' WeijiBaikeBianji's [see below] edit did. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which edit? Do you mean WijiBaikeBianji's edit?·Maunus· ƛ · 16:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the edit linked in the first statement in this section. I didn't pay close attention to who made it, but only to what had changed. Otherwise I stand by my argument. Sorry for any confusion. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

With an article this long, the lead could be more discerning about criticism, data (re)use etc. The 2nd paragraph in the lead, which has a ton of references at the end, probably needs some more finessing/expansion. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article, like most articles in the scope of the [| recent Arb Com case], needs very careful attention to sources and to what they actually say, more use of secondary rather than primary sources, better balance of mainstream versus minority sources, and general tightening of writing and editing to achieve encyclopedic, neutral point of view. The worst thing that could happen to this article is to continue to drop in sources without evaluating the sources for quality and independence, and especially without reading the sources to verify what they say in relation to article text. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The worst thing? Sounds a bit harsh as compared to, fcr example, dropping in unsourced material. Regarding the intro as a whole I note again a double standard since it contains for example a critical statement regarding the publisher but there is no source criticizing the book for its publisher, while for exactly this reason (no source praising the book for this) excluding mentioning the many studies accepting and using the IQ scores which shows some degree of academic acceptance.Miradre (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's much easier to deal with unsourced material than it is to deal with poorly or incorrectly sourced material. aprock (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That there is a lot of peer-reviewed articles that have accepted the scores as valid and used them in their own research is a fact. Now, we do not have a source explicitly praising the book for this. But neither do we have a source criticizing the book for its publisher. The critics of the book cannot have it both ways by including a negative statement while excluding a positive one on the same grounds. So I suggest we add back that the some researchers have accepted scores as valid and used them in their own research.Miradre (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What's in Chapter 6?
The article summarizes the contents of chapters 1 through 12, but the sixth one is missing. Why is that, and what's in there? Also I assume from the text that the 12th is the last one, but I think it should also be mentioned explicitly, if so.Pike84 (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)