Talk:IQ and the Wealth of Nations/Archive 3

Request to add back the list of I.Q scores
Honestly, I don't see the commonsense or logic to add an map showing "I.Q statistics from 2002" which is less informative than the list ( that someone removed) which already showed way better and accurate information that displays the number of I.Q scores in each countries from 2002. And their both basically the same thing, only difference is the list was way more accurate and informative on statistics. How exactly do we know which country has the highest I.Q to lowest I.Q? please stop vandalism and reducing accurate information. (And sorry for my english). WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 6:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The section directly above this is a detailed discussion about whether the table should be included. You can make your opinion made known there and read other editors reasonings 75.73.44.170 (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The map should not be included for the same reason as the table. Two wrongs don't make a right and having two inappropriate images is not "better" than having neither. Volunteer Marek 00:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I would just like to add my vote FOR re-inserting the two lists. The data is very useful and furthermore tends to tally with the research conducted by Rindermann, which is based on international standardized tests that no-one should have an issue with. In my observations, arguments against appear to be politicized - i.e., they show the "wrong" results, hence they should be suppressed. --SublimeWik (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not engage in copyright violation. See Talk:IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations. -- The Red Pen of Doom  07:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

WHY is an open encyclopedia, whose stated goal is to "compile the sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia" attempting to REMOVE VALID content? I stumbled upon this today, and I'm baffled as to why a legit table with useful knowledge would be removed? All the sourcing is correct, there are two easy-to-read columns for 2002 and 2006, and yet it's been removed for what reason? It's much easier to read the information from a table than a cluttered graphic, AND there are competing articles with this wikipedia entry which show the exact same tabled information. I'll be adding this content back, and once someone states an actual reason as to why we shouldn't allow it, then we can discuss it here. --Pedbsktbll (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is discussed, at length, in the sections above and below this one. It has also been discussed on various noticeboards. The (very short) answer is that it is a copyright violation to place the table in the article. Until THAT issue is resolved (by the authors granting copyright), no other discussion as to whether or not the table should be included is relevant. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no mention of copyright violation here or in the history I viewed. If that is the issue, then why was there nothing posted here regarding it? Otherwise, it simply appears to have been removed for no reason at all. However, if it is indeed a copyright issue, then we should look into verifying and the content should be removed in the meantime. --Pedbsktbll (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyright disagreements are one of the must discuss issues. A very experienced editor (User:Moonriddengirl) investigated and ruled that the list is a copyright violation (see the article history and posts on this talk page). If anyone disagrees with removal, reasons why the previous removal was incorrect must be provided before restoring. Repeatedly restoring material believed to be a copyright violation leads to blocks, and removing it is exempt from WP:3RR. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On top of the fact the lists are not "knowledge". They are a cheap trick of deliberate propaganda devoid of scientific value. If you are looking for reliable information you will not find it in Lynn's book. Look elsewhere and stop with the constant edit warring over test scores for tests that most in the third world have never taken. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @User:ArtifexMayhem your opinion about the book is not desired, nor does it help this talk page in any way whatsoever... Let's keep the facts on wikipedia, and our unwarranted opinions to ourselves. — Pedbsktbll (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * it is not ArtifexMayhem's opinion, it is the collective opinion of the scientific community as documented by reliable sources in the article. Lynn's "methodology" and numbers are crap. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

edit request
That the chart of national estimates of IQ be removed.

Per the previous discussions, there has been no consensus to indicate that the inclusion of the numbers: 1) provides additional encyclopedic information about the subject of the article - a book which put forth a widely discredited theory, and in fact due to the length and visual eyemagnet of the huge chart obscures that fact which is the most notable feature of the book 2) does not to a casual reader present the discredited information in a way that appears that Wikipedia is endorsing it 3) does not violate copyright as a very significant portion of creative method of arriving at the numbers. --  The Red Pen of Doom  16:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm new here, but while it's fairly obvious, I suspect it might be desirable to spell out that the table with bold heading "IQ estimates given in the book" (down to heading "Special cases") should be removed because it is reproducing key points from the book (such reproduction does seem at least unethical, although I don't know about the copyright situation). Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, that is the portion that should be removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * re copyright see this and then IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations and then IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations --  The Red Pen of Doom  03:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: The table was flagged as Copyvio here, and the table was removed by clerk and closed at Copyright_problems/2012_April_13 after removal. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright in lists
Lists of uncreative fact are not copyrighted in the U.S. However, one must be clear that a list is "fact" and not speculation. See Copyright in lists. There is ample evidence that this list is not purely formulaic, including that the authors did not use consistent standards even within their own work: "In some cases, the IQ of a country is estimated by averaging the IQs of countries that are not actually neighbors of the country in question. For example, Kyrgyzstan's IQ is estimated by averaging the IQs of Iran and Turkey, neither of which is close to Kyrgyzstan."

The copyright question, of course, can be overcome in the same way that all copyright issues are overcome - by seeking and obtaining permission. Requesting copyright permission gives some recommended text; it's generally a good idea to start with the publishing house, as this is a service they're used to. That would leave the editors of this article needing only to assess other inclusion factors, since the copyright barrier would be removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A redirect for discussion
National IQ and National iq have previously or currently directed to this article. Those redirects have been nominated for discussion at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_10. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of maps
Could we get an explanation for the removals of the maps? Obviously some of the stated reasons for the removal of the list does not apply. A map does not attract vandals and there is no possible copyright issue. The issue of "truth" is not something that Wikipedia aims to judge so an inclusion in Wikipedia is not a endorsement of correctness of the national IQ scores. Rather, the scores has caused widespread debate both inside and outside academia and have been used in many peer-reviewed studies (such as a number of studies finding high correlations with several international student assessment tests and there are many studies examining how other factors are associated with the national IQ scores )so they are notable which is a criteria for inclusion. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is pure censorship, sinister and extremely worrying. Wikipedia should not be governed by the thought police. There is no coherent and logical reason for the removal of this content.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also strongly oppose any kind of censorship. Just because reality is more bleak than what you want it to be is not a reason to hide facts of a scientific nature. Yes, reality can be quite offensive. However, the computer on which you edit Wiki would not exist had a few brave men not gone against politically-correct worldviews (like that of the Inquisition back in the day). If you want to prove Lynn wrong, the proper avenue is to go to Africa and measure the IQs of people there yourself, and present your data to the world - not to hide his findings for fear they might offend others.--Wyqtor (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This article exists because of the controversy surrounding the book and Lynn's use of data, in a highly questionable manner, in order to prove his point. Any "reality" is purely of Lynn's making. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Any evidence for that claim?Rangoon11 (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Try this or the other sources found in the article itself. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a book review, an interesting read but not a piece of evidence, and it is clearly pushing a certain narrow viewpoint. And many of the premises within it are really rather curious. For example, what is the definition of "middle class" - it is a wholly unscientific concept. Are "working class" people in China and Japan and South Korea supposed to have a lower IQ than those in the "middle class"? Or an IQ the same as "working class" people in Africa? Why do different racial groups within countries have markedly different IQ scores, with for example a very large gap between Askenazi Jews and blacks in the US?
 * We are still left with the key point that information which is very key to understanding the topic of this article - the actual IQ results - is being withheld from readers as if they are children who might be given bad dreams. By all means let's have a detailed discussion in the article on the merits of both the actual collection of the IQ data (which I think most would agree was imperfect), and on the analysis given in the book about the relationship between IQ and national wealth. And in that we can also mention alternative theories such as that given in the book review about the size of the middle class.
 * But please let's not practice censorship in WP, and try to shy away from things which we may find uncomfortable.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From WP:CENSOR: Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. None of the rationales given for not including the data have relied on offensiveness.  Your repeated attempts to imply that the data was removed because it was offensive are hollow, pointless, and verging on disruptive. aprock (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not censorship its the removal of non encyclopedic content. visual candy of made up numbers that reflect nothing other than the prejudice of the creators.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The g-Factor of International Cognitive Ability Comparisons: The Homogeneity of Results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-Tests Across Nations
HEINER RINDERMANN* Institute of Psychology, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Germany

Factor analyses were done with MPLUS statistical software using Full-InformationMaximum-Likelihood (FIML; Raykov, 2005). This kind of analysis allows for the use of all data (no listwise deletion of a country and all its information if one observation in one variable is missing). In a factor analysis the first unrotated factor (g-factor) explained 94% (unadjusted) or 95% (adjusted) of the variance of the 20 student assessment scales and the intelligence test collection of Lynn and Vanhanen (see Table 1 and Figure 1 a,b).

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-of-international-cognitive-ability-comparisons-the-homogeneity-of-results-in-PISA-TIMSS-PIRLS-and-IQ-tests-across-nations.pdf

This research actually wallidates the work of Lynn and Vanhanen.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.174.230.34 (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of IQ tests, bias against tropical population
Not only there is problems of data sets of the IQ tests, common IQ tests are criticized. This Criticism should appear in the article too. The tests are designed for European population and their descendents. They are biased against tropical population. Asian performs well partly because they are genetically closely related to Europeans. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migration

IQ test assume that certain mental capacity are important. Evolutionary speaking, those features only serve the needs of animals(humans are animals) within their own environment. Tropical population have lots of distinguish capacities to survive in their very different environment. But those capacities are not measured by the common IQ test. see the link for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views

I am from a region with a high average IQ on the chart. I am not trying to say my population is smart so my opinion is true. In stead, I am trying to say I don't have conflict interests regard my view of tropical population. I think the study is unscientific although it makes my population look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.236.148 (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * IQ tests are not designed to measure fitness in the sense of natural selection, i.e. fitness for an ancestral environment and needs. They are designed to measure intelligence. The claim made by IQ and the Wealth of Nations, and also at least four other scholarly books published since then, is that national average IQ varies by nation and is correlated with economic success. So your criticism seems misplaced, and you would need to find a reliable source that explicitly makes the same criticism of this book, otherwise to insert it into the article would be WP:SYNTHESIS.--greenrd (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)