Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 24

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 03:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey and discussion
Please add * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation and then your signature ("&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;").
 *  immediately below may be relevant.


 * Race and intelligence seems a generic (if controversial) topic, whereas Pioneer Fund research seems quite specific; it isn't possible to write an article about the (history of?) the former without being dominated by the latter...? Regards, David Kernow 02:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose - As problematic as the article is, I don't think this is the right approach. I think it would simply be better to improve the article and expand on how controversial the very field of science is rather than avoid the matter altogether, and I suspect that over time this will happen. Jun-Dai 02:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose attempt by blocked user to prove a point via a sockpuppet --Rikurzhen 03:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * semi-support - The article is filled with a bunch of Pioneer Fund bias, and attempts to make it more NPOV have been particularly difficult. I've been happy to work with Rikurzhen and Nectar, who although they disagree with much of my edits, are polite and helpful (I always AGF :) ).  That being said, in any article, no matter what the name, similar issues will crop up.  It may be helpful to extract some of the more POV areas associated with the Pioneer Fund into a separate article, and keep links to them from here.  Maybe a Pioneer Fund research article to list out the specifics, and have references to that article from here.  Much of the concern I have for this article is the way it provides undue weight and a glossy presentation of certain studies as incontrovertible fact - I'm happy to see sources cited, of course, but to speak in an editorial tone as if the matter is settled is misleading I think.  I look forward to working with everyone on improving the article no matter what the decision is.  --JereKrischel 03:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Zen-master re-blocked. --Nectar 03:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not all of this published material on race and intelligence is funded by Pioneer. For instance, only one-third of the signatories on "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" were Pioneer Fund recipients. Further, not all of this is research. This article also discusses historical context. I feel an article on Pioneer Fund research would be useful, but this should not be renamed or merged as such. Jokestress 18:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as bad faith nom. If the article is biased toward Pioneer Fund, that bias should be handled per WP:NPOV. --Dhartung | Talk 11:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

FAQ: article name change?
See:Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 22 and Archive_13.

Bruce Lahn backs off statements
Hi all. Long time no see. From WSJ (via Wired:


 * Dr. Lahn has drawn sharp fire from other leading genetics researchers. They say the genetic differences he found may not signify any recent evolution -- and even if they do, it is too big a leap to suggest any link to intelligence. "This is not the place you want to report a weak association that might or might not stand up," says Francis Collins, director of the genome program at the National Institutes of Health.


 * Several scientific groups have set out to disprove or challenge Dr. Lahn's discoveries. His own university now says it is abandoning a patent application it filed to cover a DNA-based intelligence test that drew on his work.

Antonio Regalado (June 16, 2006). Scientist's Study Of Brain Genes Sparks a Backlash. Wall Street Journal

Interesting quote from his university's patent office: "We really don't want to end up on the front page...for doing eugenics." Jokestress 04:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this paragraph captures Lahn's view of the situation:
 * The 37-year-old Dr. Lahn says his research papers, published in Science last September, offered no view on race and intelligence. He personally believes it is possible that some populations will have more advantageous intelligence genes than others. And he thinks that "society will have to grapple with some very difficult facts" as scientific data accumulate. Yet Dr. Lahn, who left China after participating in prodemocracy protests, says intellectual "police" in the U.S. make such questions difficult to pursue.

--Rikurzhen 04:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this paragraph captures Lahn's view of the situation:
 * Dr. Lahn says he once tried testing himself for which version of the brain genes he has. The experiment's outcome was blurry "but it wasn't looking good," he says.
 * Jokestress 00:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Or rather, these respective paragraphs sell your own respective POVs... --causa sui talk 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Jokestress titled this section "Bruce Lahn backs off statements", which is false, and so I thought it was important to clear that up. The first text she provided reports criticisms of Lahn and reports his university's decision not to patent his discovery. The text I provided gives Lahn's acutal words, which show something quite different -- according to him he's backed off his research because it is too controverial. But to the issue of whether he's backed off his statements, you'll find a response to criticism defending his papers in the latest issue of Science. To back off his statements, he would have to retract/ammend his papers, which he clearly is not doing. In Joketress' response to my text, she quoted Lahn as saying that he got an indeterminate result from genotyping hiself, not that his overall data or conclusions are unclear. Lahn is Chineese, and so the prior probability that he caries the ASPM D haplotype is low, making the outcome he reported not unexpected. --Rikurzhen 18:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference consistency
Can these references be implemented properly, consistent with the referencing style applied for the rest of the article (AYref)?--Nectar 07:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you explain that? I've never used AYref before...I'd love to learn a new template! --JereKrischel 08:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the system was something Arbor put together (IIRC) to deal with the massive amount of referencing being generated for this article. I think it can be seen how it works (it's pretty simple) by looking at the tag in the article ( {AYref|name|date} ) and looking at the corresponding tag of the reference it links to at the references page.--Nectar 08:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The style guides I've looked at recommend footnotes occur after punctuation, and this is the style suggested at the WP style page, though they say there's no concensus on WP. Does it sound good to standardize this article's footnotes after the punctuation?--Nectar 07:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should. I've been reading through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for things to improve. --Rikurzhen 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural explanations / Culture-only explanations
Culture-only explanations excludes some scientists who emphasize cultural explanations but don't necessarily exclude some genetic influence. Around the time Lulu and others were considering these changes, we added: "Reynolds (2000) suggests up to 20% genetic influence be included in the cultural explanation." The 28% in the Snyderman and Rothman survey who responded "Data are insufficient" (a larger group than the "Entirely environmental" 17%) probably also get represented better when these sections are treated more broadly.--Nectar 05:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

copyright tag on FranzBoas.jpg needs to be updated


copyright tag needs to be updated --Rikurzhen 08:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've notified the uploader, though s/he appears to only be intermittently active.--Nectar 10:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Uploader updated it. Looks in order.--Nectar 23:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

gordon 1997 - moved from text


examined a population-IQ-outcome model to explain the effects of intelligence on difference between populations in the prevalences of certain outcomes. Where the model fits, differences in outcomes are found to be commensurate with differences in IQ. The model was found to fit prevalences of juvenile delinquency, adult crime, single parenthood, HIV infection, poverty, belief in conspiracy rumors, and key opinions from polls about the O.J. Simpson trial and the earlier Tawana Brawley case. Controlling for IQ largely eliminated group differences in these outcomes.

Controlling for IQ chart
The chart depicting outcomes for blacks, whites, and latinos controlled for IQ shows the figures in the third column to be intermediate between figures in the first and second columns. Any reason not to move the third column between the first two?--Nectar 10:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

let's do it. --Rikurzhen 06:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Bell curves
[From archive]
 * "The curves extend across the entire X-axis (from 145) for all groups and do not indicate a maximum or minimum IQ for any group."

These tails clearly taper off, indicating descreasing frequency, rather than indicating a "maximum" or "minimum". Including every pet comment someone has makes the article unreadable. If any other editors disagree, can you weigh in?--Nectar 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The tails aren't very clear - perhaps maybe we could create a new graph that made the asymptotic relationship more obvious, and lose the wording? Is there a source for the data used to create the graph? --JereKrischel 20:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That might be a good idea. Until then, explaining that there are intelligent people from all minorities is not a "pet comment". Obviously this is important to point out.Ultramarine 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are very few people at +/- 3 SD. That's a limiting factor. But no one thought it was a problem for a long time until someone else chimed in with that misunderstanding. --Rikurzhen 20:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The curves in this article's graph visibly extend across the entire X-axis. This is what it looks like when a normal distribution is drawn so that it may be implied otherwise:

When an editor originally added that comment the graph was slightly less clear, so the image was altered. --Nectar 22:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nectar wrote Is "the most recent large-scale collection of data" the best description?

Not quite. There's a new WAIS normalization, but the data doesn't appear to be published. I think the new WISC has been published, but that's children not adults. The 97 AFQT is more recent, but AFAIK Murray (2005) is the only publication of the BW gap from there (and the BW gap is the same, ~1 sd). Murray mentions the WJ data, but it gives a similar picture to the Reynolds data. Whatever the adult BW gap is today, it's going to look almost exactly like our graph. --Rikurzhen 23:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ok. It seems it may be confusing to readers why the lead image is using 1981 data if an explanation isn't given. Also, I think the 'debate' caveat we currently have gives a poor impression of the field.. presenting the expert community as not being able to get past opposite views even on what the gap looks like. It'd be nice to bypass these issues if possible. Is it really not viable to use more recent data, like the 97 AFQT? If not, perhaps the details of the relationship between the Reynolds data and today's data can be explained in footnotes.--Nectar 01:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We can cite the 97 AFQT, just see how Murray cites it. --Rikurzhen 03:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Give me a week and I may have time to put together all the new IQ data I can find. --Rikurzhen 03:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

newest BW IQ data
Looks like Reynolds is the newest, largest data set for which we have actual IQ values for adults. --Rikurzhen 06:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro length
The length of the intro will probably be one of the first things discussed in the article's next peer review. The paragraph covering the controversy seems to presently be the least concise part. The two sentences advancing accusations of political bias seem to be sufficiently covered by the sentences preceding them:
 * Some critics examine the fairness and validity of cognitive testing and racial categorization, as well as the reliability of the studies and the motives of the authors, on both sides. Some critics fear the misuse of the research, question its utility, or feel that comparing the intelligence of racial groups is itself unethical.

Any arguments against removing the political accusations that follow the above sentences?--Nectar 04:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

nope --Rikurzhen 09:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

submit for peer review
submit for peer review? --Rikurzhen 18:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there are a couple of things that may still be able to be improved. I'd like to take a crack at maybe making the Within societies section more clear. I think the caption of the lead graph is somewhat confusing, as it seems those on the cultural side currently generally attribute the adult b-w gap as being one standard deviation (e.g. the recently added Fryer and Levitt study), rather than subscribing to Nisbett's proposal.--Nectar 09:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

too big
We're approaching the recommended size limits for the body text (WP:SIZE). I suggest that Race_and_intelligence can be more concisely summarized to bring it down to the size of the other sections. In particular, there are 3 paragraphs that give lengthy descriptions of less noteworthy topics: (1) "Many anthropologists...", (2) "A recent theory hypothesizes..." and the new paragraph (3) "A recent, newly available...". These should be reduced from paragraphs to single sentences or sentence fragments and described as "other evidence" as is done in the Genetic explanations section. I've already copied the material to the sub-article, so we should be set for the re-write. --Rikurzhen 06:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That would give undue weight to the pro-genetic argments who are unfairly spread all over the article. For example, the article mentions the gene studies and the 1987 survery two times. If the article is too long, then such redundancy should be the first to go.Ultramarine 15:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bigger != better. Bigger ~ P(no one will bother to read it). This is paritcularly problematic for large blocks of text, which the cultural explanations section has become. Making this section more concise will increase the chance that anyone will bother to read it. --Rikurzhen 19:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We can certainly move some parts to the rest of the article. Again, if anything should be deleted it is the duplication of pro-genetic arguments.Ultramarine 19:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Important things should be discussed in any and all sections that are relevant to them. (In your examples, recent evolution is essential to race, and expert/journalist opinion is essential to media portrayal.) Nothing should be deleted if its important. But you can often convey the important information with less text and less complexity, which provides an improvement to readability. (For example, the genetics section coveys a sense of the scope of the arguments without detailing each one by listing them in a single sentence: Other evidence, such as transracial adoption, ..., and evolutionary explanations have also been proposed to indicate a genetic contribution to the IQ gaps and explain how these arose.) Minimizing length and complexity is key for a summary style article like this. Pasted below is the relevant from the article size guide which explains this. (Bolding by me.) --Rikurzhen 21:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

From WP:SIZE:
 * Two common types of exception are articles summarizing certain fields, and lists. These act as summaries and starting points for a field, and in the case of some broad subjects or lists, either do not have a natural division point, or two shorter articles would possibly not be as useful as one complete one.
 * In such cases, the article should none the less be kept short where possible. Major subsections should use summary style where a separate article for a subtopic is reasonable, and the article should be written with greater than usual attention to readability.
 * Readers of such subjects will often expect them to be involved, and will often accept this, provided the article is well written, created with a sensible structure and style, and is an appropriate length for the topic. However, long and very long articles should nonetheless be avoided where possible, and their length or complexity minimized where not. Encouragement of overly long articles is not stylistically desirable as a general rule, and most articles do not require such length. Readability is still the key criterion.
 * This is not an excuse for giving undue weight to one side. The pro-genetic arguments are voiced in many places outside the supposed section and amazingly also duplicated several times. If something should be removed, it should be the undue weight to these arguments. Ultramarine 23:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can find any point duplicated in a section it's not relevant for, please bring it up.--Nectar 23:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ironically, giving a consistent level of detail (i.e. minimal summary style) to opposing views is essential to avoiding giving undue weight to one. You appear to be arguing that the culture section needs to describe individual (new, unique) arguments at length in order to keep size with the genetics section, which describes things in a less detailed way. This in fact gives undue weight to the cultural arguments, which I must add is the minority view. However, I'm not particularly concerned about that consideration, as it is a small matter at the margins. What is of concern is that the article needs to be readable and understandable by someone who wants to get an understanding of the topic without dedicating hours to reading. An article that is too long makes unreasonable demands on the reader, who should be able to get a readable summary from an encyclopedia article with moderate reading time. Meanwhile, the sub-articles allow unlimited space for documenting all of the details that someone looking for detailed research would want. Thus, we should tighten up the text in that section, making the level of detail proportional to the importance of the topic. The Flynn effect needs a detailed description, which the opinions of the ancient Romans doesn't. --Rikurzhen 01:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If anything should be considered new and unique, then look at the duplicated section about brain genes that may or may not have anything to do with IQ. That should be moved to the subarticles. The same regarding what some persons thought 20 years ago about this subject, irrelevant for the current status of the field.Ultramarine 01:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We should also greatly expand the section about the Pioneer fund which has funded all major pro-geneticists and has numerous other fascinating connections. For example, looking at the publisher of Lynn's latest book, who also published one of Kevin MacDonald's books about Jews, shows that controlled by person connected to the fund.Ultramarine 01:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The author of the Washington Post article about Lahn certainly thinks the evolution data is highly relevant to race and intelligence. --Rikurzhen 02:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? Why are you changing the subject and to what? Ultramarine 02:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrote that in the wrong spot --Rikurzhen 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Be careful about violating WP:NOR. --Rikurzhen 02:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The conference threw into stark relief the increasing synergy between British and American racists. Those who had tired of the speeches or merely wished to stretch their legs could peruse the stalls at the back of the hall, many of which were giving away mountains of free literature. One of the first we encountered was the Occidental Quarterly stall run by James Russell, a member of its editorial board. Also on Occidental Quarterly’s board are Derek Turner and the controversial Leeds university don Frank Ellis. Coincidentally the stall next to Russell was that of Washington Summit Publishers (WSP) run by yet another Occidental Quarterly editorial board member, Louis Andrews of Augusta, Georgia. It is Andrews who manages the American distribution of Right Now!. WSP publishes Race Differences in Intelligence by Richard Lynn, emeritus professor at the University of Ulster, who like Taylor is a recipient of Pioneer Fund grants. WSP also reprints “classic” Aryan and eugenic tracts including a homily to the antisemitic philosopher Count de Gobineau as a pioneer of genetics.Ultramarine 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We should incorporate more information regarding the Pioneer fund.Ultramarine 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

referencing
BTW, Ultramarine, can you reference your sources consistent with the referencing style applied for the rest of the article (AYref)?--Nectar 23:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They are cited adequately. You can change it yourself if you want another style.Ultramarine 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It breaks with professional standards to alternate between different referencing styles, and for this reason WP:CITE states: "Do not change from Harvard referencing to footnotes or vice versa without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor." This is the same reason why WP articles choose US or British spelling and stick with it, rather than switching back and forth mid-article.--Nectar 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your reference style is not one of the 3 allowed in Wikipedia. It lists the references on another page, something unique for this article. It has extensive arguments hidden in the footnotes which creates problems since the text also refers to subarticles. Preferably, everything should be converted Harvard and all submaterial moved to the subarticles or placed in the main text. I certainly do not endorse the strange system currently in use.Ultramarine 23:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There are 192 unique AYref tags in the main article. Moving those references to this page would add about 60k to the page size, which would bring this page to a size greater than 160k (that's 5x the 32k warning threshold). The AYref system is a useful solution to this problem, which is actually easier to use than normal Harvard referencing as you can add full references to the reference page at the same time that you write the content. It's especially useful for a summary style page, which this is, as it make referencing standardization much easier across the multiple pages that cover the topic. --Rikurzhen 01:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This just shows that an enormous amount of detail is hidden in the footnotes. Again, this confusing since the main text at the same time refers to the subarticles. The material in the footnoes, including the references, should be moved to the subarticles. There is no need for extensive references in a text that summarize a subarticle.Ultramarine 01:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense. Text "hidden" in footnotes is more accessible and more immediately connected to what it is detailing than text written in the sub-articles. Moreover, between this thread and the one above, you appear to be advocting for less and more details (respectively). --Rikurzhen 01:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It confusing that the text refers to two different other texts. It should be consolidated to one place, the subarticles. Also, there is no need for detailed references in the main article, duplicating the subarticle. If moving the hidden arguments and references in the notes to the subarticles, then there is no need to have a non-Wikpedia reference style.Ultramarine 01:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

referencing and summary style
UL, your actions belie your arguments. If you believed that the article should consist only of unreferenced summaries, you would not have ignored the subarticles for the past months while you added text to the main article. You would not have argued against my call for improving the readability by summarizing unnecessary detail. It seems plain to me and probably to everyone else--including you--that Summary Style + descriptive footnotes + reference footnotes is better than Summary Style alone. Despite your rhetoric about footnotes (i.e. text at the bottom of the page) being "hidden", material written in a footnote is more proximal to the majority of readers than material written in a sub-article alone. Our current system maximizes readability and verifiability. If we can improve the readability further by tightening up the summary style a notch, we will have a model article. --Rikurzhen 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Having a text refering to two different other texts with more detail is confusing. Not following Wikpedia rules for citation is not good either. Both can be avoided by moving the details in the notes and many of the references to the subarticles.Ultramarine 02:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you've thought this thru. The details in the footnotes of any section certainly should also be in the corresponding subarticle, but it doesn't follow that the footnotes should be removed along with the footnoted references. --Rikurzhen 02:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is summary article. No need to have details duplicated in the footnotes and the subarticles.Ultramarine 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course compliance with WP:V is the "need". I don't have a count, but it looks like the modal footnote is just a Author-Date reference. The next most common footnote is a supporting quote, an explanation of the data supporting a summarized claims, or an explanation of how a calculation was performed, and etc. Only a small fraction of footnotes presents an expansion of the main text into the footnotes. These few footnotes are in a optional class, but I don't see what harm they could do. --Rikurzhen 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's useful for readers to be able to get more information about specific statements that they're interested in or skeptical toward, even if they're not interested enough to read all the sub-articles.--Nectar 05:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's important to keep in mind WP articles have no authorial credibility of their own, so statements are only worth the quality of their referencing.--Nectar 05:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Material should not be duplicated. References should follow the style guidelines.Ultramarine 05:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

back to the topic
the cultural explanations section should be tightened up for the sake of readability. --Rikurzhen 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the pro-genetic arguments have much more need for this.Ultramarine 05:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ? The cultural explanations section is much longer and less concise than the genetic explanations sections. If you can find any genetic points that are covered in sections in which they aren't clearly relevant, please bring it up.--Nectar 05:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, the pro-genetic arguments are more or less subly spread all over the article. For example, the 20 years old opinions about the field are duplicated in three places and the dubious brain genes are repeated in two places.Ultramarine 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * aren't clearly relevant? As per above, there will be some overlap between sections. You can't discuss media portrayal w/o contrasting it to expert opinions. You can't discuss race w/o mentioning human evolution. --Rikurzhen 05:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to mention a 20 years old survey 3 tmes. Ultramarine 05:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As we've discussed at length in the past. There are overlapping but distinct references for each instance. For example, S&R 1987 is discussed in expert opinion while S&R 1988 is media portrayal. Also, as we've discussed in the past, there's no evidence that the S&R work is out-dated. To the contrary, there's every indication that R&I is still highly controverisal and misrepresented in the media.
 * This is a distraction from the fact that the cultural section needs work, does it not? --Rikurzhen 05:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "there's every indication that R&I is still highly controverisal and misrepresented in the media." Spare me your original research. This is really an distraction to hide unpleasant arguments against the genetic position.Ultramarine 05:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's neither productive nor polite of you. --Rikurzhen 05:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me express it clearly: I am not interested in your personal opinions and original research.Ultramarine 05:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ? We thus far have two recent sources commenting on media representation of group IQ differences research, Sackett et al. (popular media, scientific journals, and textbooks are media) and Murray 2005. On the other hand, you haven't provided any evidence supporting your original interpretation.--Nectar 05:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the 20 years old survey which may have actually included some IQ researchers, among others. This is repeated 3 times. Why not instead reapeat 3 times that some IQ researchers are comfy with for example the British National Party?Ultramarine 06:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The point about the two recent sources commenting on media representation is that they support the relevance of the 1987 survey of experts in fields related to intelligence research, whereas there is no support for it having diminished relevance. (That was a response to your (withdrawn?) comment "spare me your original research.")

Let's go through this step by step. The 1987 survey is discussed in the appropriate section, and the subsequent 1988 survey - in accordance with its different thesis - is discussed in the different appropriate section. Like many other points, the latter survey is also summarized in the intro. Noting that Rushton gave a speech about his research at an AmRen conference is an accusation of bias. If you can show accusations of bias are relevant in more than just one way (accusations of bias), then they could be relevant to other sections besides their own section and their summary in the intro.--Nectar 06:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sackett only reports that a particular study has been misreported. Murray's article is not in scientifc peer-reviewd journal. Only the 20 years old survey of persons using IQ tests support your position. It is undue weight to report this old study 3 times in the man article. Look how long the sectins on media representation is and how little mention there is about the Pioneer fund.Ultramarine 19:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sackett et al.'s findings regarding broad media treatment of one of the most popular topics within R&I support the findings of the 1988 survey, and they argue it reflects a systemic trend. An article in a non-scientific source is sufficient to report the views of the author. Keep in mind that you've been arguing a study that apparently hasn't even been published (Fryer and Levitt) should get prominent treatment in the article. Your second question doesn't seem to have read my last post.--Nectar 21:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Stereotype threat" is not one of the most popular topics. The 20 years old survey of some persons using IQ tests is irrelevant for what researchers think today. Regarding the Pioneer fund, image that there were lots of research showing the beneficial effects of smoking. The research is sponsored by the tobacco industry. Obviously this should be discussed in length. But the article now violates NPOV by not discussing this, instead, for instance, having an extremely long section about media portrayal with pro-genetic arguments.Ultramarine 21:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the article violates NPOV by ignoring the response: "Twenty-nine mischaracterizations of any research finding are 29 too many. However, using the frequency of these mischaracterizations to signal concern, whille ignoring the large amount of information that would allay that concern, only furthers misunderstanding. Sackett et al. (2004) ignored the large number of discussions in the relevant literatures and media reports that do not overattribute the race gap to stereotype threat—discussions that vastly outnumber 29."Ultramarine 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Re:"Stereotype threat" is not one of the most popular topics.
 * Here's Sackett et al.'s evaluation of its prominance:
 * In recent years, the theory of stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995) has received a great amount of scientific and popular attention as a potential contributor to mean differences in test scores. Although the term was first introduced into the literature only in 1995, stereotype threat is covered in two thirds of a sample of current introductory psychology textbooks that we describe later in this article, indicating extraordinarily rapid incorporation of the concept into the psychological mainstream.
 * 2. Re:The 20 years old survey of some persons using IQ tests is irrelevant for what researchers think today.
 * OK, you don't mean "irrelevant," you mean "of limited relevance." Why don't we take a look at the sources we have? We have two recent sources agreeing with it, two sources in the 90s agreeing with it, and zero arguing against it. Just provide a reference for your argument that can counter-balance these 4 references, and that should do it!
 * 3. Re:But the article now violates NPOV by not discussing this
 * The article discusses this in the accusations of bias section and in the intro.
 * 4. That quote does not appear in the reference you gave.--Nectar 22:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Does not state that it is one of the most popular topics. Especially not in current research.
 * 2. A twenty years old survery is irrelevant in any field. Especially as this was of persons using IQ tests, not only IQ researchers. Again, Murray states his POV in a not scientific journal, thus uninteresting except as the view of one person. Regarding the stereotype study, the opposing comments are unfarily excluded.
 * 3. It does not give due weight to this. Look at the lengths. Regarding the Pioneer fund, image that there were lots of research showing the beneficial effects of smoking. The research is sponsored by the tobacco industry. Obviously this should be discussed in length. But the article now violates NPOV by not discussing this, instead, for instance, having an extremely long section about media portrayal with pro-genetic arguments.
 * 4. Scroll down to comments.Ultramarine 23:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

1. "...has received a great amount of scientific and popular attention" is equivelant to 'a prominent explanation.' (This study can probably be considered current since it was published in 2004.)

2a. 20 year old surveys can be highly relevant when they're the most recent surveys. Measures of expertise accounted for little or no variance in responses, so that doesn't seem like it could be a concern. So far we just have your opinion against 4 references that comment on the issue.

2b. Once you remove the unpublished study you've added to the article and stop citing anti-racist magazines, you can then make arguments that only scientific journals can be considered (though it wouldn't make a difference).

3a. Re:Obviously this should be discussed in length. Any original argument that goes against the sources we have needs to be treated very carefully. The serious arguments that are made against the Pioneer Fund - such as in Tuckers preeminent book on the subject - are that the fund is using science funding to further an inappropriate political agenda. So far that's the only argument we have. (An argument is a conclusion based on premises, not just a description w/o a conclusion.)

3b. That's a stretch to say media portrayal is only relevant to one side of the debate instead of to the topic as a whole, but if it were true, that wouldn't disqualify it as a section.

4. That quote from Steele and Aronson is defending stereotype threat in general, not stereotype threat in the literature that discusses the b-w gap. Sackett et al respond:
 * "Steele and Aronson (2004) assert that because there are now over 100 research studies on stereotype threat, our focus on the first article on the topic results in a serious bias. However, they later acknowledge that their article is one of few stereotype threat studies focusing on African Americans. As the African American–White score gap was the topic of our article, we see our focus on this pivotal and highly cited article as entirely appropriate."

--Nectar 12:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Does is still not as one of the most popular topics. Also, as noted below, the study is misleading.

2. The only indication of what the current researchers think is the 20 years old survey of people using IQ tests, that may have included researchers.

3. Again, imagine that there were lots of research showing the beneficial effects of smoking. The research is sponsored by the tobacco industry. Obviously this should be discussed in length. But the article now violates NPOV by not discussing this, instead, for instance, having an extremely long section about media portrayal with pro-genetic arguments.

4. So there is disagreement. I will add this to the article.Ultramarine 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Your are correct that the statement is not equivalent to one of the "most" popular topics, that's why this article states it's one of the "more" popular topics.
 * 2. That's not a legitimate interpretation, given the clear explanations you've received above. The survey was of scholars in specialities related to IQ. If you have a different source arguing differently, please provide it.
 * 3. That's against Wikipedia policy to implement original arguments that go against all of our available sources (see WP:CITE and WP:V).
 * 4. No. That quote from Steele and Aronson is (correctly) defending stereotype threat in general, not stereotype threat in the literature that discusses the b-w gap. This article's statements only refer to stereotype threat in the context of race and intelligence.--Nectar 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Ok. We should state that this is the view of some researchers, not the result of scholarly study.
 * 2. The survey was person using IQ tests. It was certainly not only a survey only of IQ and race researchers.
 * 3. Again, numerous critics thinks that the research is flawed due to the source of funding.
 * 4. ": "Twenty-nine mischaracterizations of any research finding are 29 too many. However, using the frequency of these mischaracterizations to signal concern, whille ignoring the large amount of information that would allay that concern, only furthers misunderstanding. Sackett et al. (2004) ignored the large number of discussions in the relevant literatures and media reports that do not overattribute the race gap to stereotype threat—discussions that vastly outnumber 29."Ultramarine 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is the study finding extremely small differences in young children deleted from the introduction? Ultramarine 00:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

back to the topic again
the cultural explanations section should be tightened up for the sake of readability. --Rikurzhen 19:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My questions above should be answered.Ultramarine 20:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe your questions, which were on a separate topic (hence, "back to the topic again"), were resolved. For example, mention of age in the lead, which I tend to think was surpfluous, has been cut completely. More to the point, we need to fix the readability problem. --Rikurzhen 20:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * These questions are related. There are are many more problems with the pro-genetec arguments which are also given undue weight.Ultramarine 20:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe we've discussed your claim of undue weight at lenght, but I does nothing to address the readability issue. You can't dismiss what I think is a problem by pointing to something else that you think is a problem. --Rikurzhen 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagee. This is an attempt to give even more undue weight to pro-genetic arguments by reducing the counter-arguments. Thus, related.Ultramarine 21:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If the cultural section were more readable, then the arguments would be stronger -- either by providing the right balance of empahsis or by simply converting (word-for-word) unimportant details into clear summarized argument. Unnecessary detail confuses and overwhelmes the reader, making them give up on reading the article -- hence the use of summary style. --Rikurzhen 21:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, this is an attempt to to give even more undue weight to pro-genetic arguments by reducing the counter-arguments. Why are you refusing to answer the questions above? Ultramarine 21:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nectar has answer you at length. AFAIK, that thread is exhausted.
 * I'm undoing your changes to the media portrayal section. Your edit is highly inappropriate.
 * Readability is an improvement. Your insistence of maintaining a less readable text is contrary to best practices. --22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have recieved no good answer. Again, this is an attempt to give even more undue weight to pro-genetic arguments by reducing the counter-arguments. It is more important to prune the pro-genetic arguments in order to restore NPOV.Ultramarine 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Who's talking about "pruneing". brevity is both the soul of wit and of readability in long WP articles. the section is too wordy, delving into irrevant mineutia, and it needs to be simplified. --Rikurzhen 00:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The pro-genetic arguments are spread all over the article, are duplicated numerous times, and are given undue weight. They should be condensed for NPOV and simplification.Ultramarine 03:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

npov tag
moved from back to the topic again

Rikurzhen, I think some of the points Ultramarine is trying to make revolve around the fact that all researchers on the pro-genetic side get their funding from a single source (which is unusual in the world of science funding), whereas the researchers on the opposite side get their funding from a variety of sources (if you know otherwise, please name one researcher on the pro-genetic side who isn't a Pioneer grantee). Moreover, this one source (the Pioneer Fund) has been associated and at times at least partly constituted of people with overtly racist viewpoints.

Inasmuch as a precedent can be found, it sounds like some of the older research on the effects of tobacco which pointed out the benefits of smoking... while being funded by tobacco companies (to paraphrase an argument Ultramarine already raised). This alone is enough to cast grave doubts about the legitimacy of the results, especially if one takes into accounts all the papers ever written in an attempt to debunk the methodology of the pro-genetic researchers.

That 53% of the respondents in the 1987 survey thought the reason for the BW IQ gap is partly genetic is a far cry from some of the wording in the article, which would leave one to believe that the majority opinion is that the cause is almost if not wholly genetic. First, 53% is closer to a tie than a majority, and second partially-genetic by no means should be construed to signify the researchers thought most of the difference was genetic.

I've been watching this article for sometime now, even though I haven't been participating much, and I find that there is a constant pressure for the POV to creep towards the genetic explanation, if not to fully endorse the racial views of Rushton, Lynn and company. For this, reason, I will be putting back the NPOV template. And please don't revert it by saying it's not been discussed. I think you'll find my reasons explained at reasonable length here. --Ramdrake 01:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "I think some of the points Ultramarine is trying to make revolve around the fact that all researchers on the pro-genetic side get their funding from a single source" -- I believe you must be mistaken. That would certainly be an amazing and noteworthy fact. --Rikurzhen 01:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know the subject better than me. Can you name one pro-genetic researcher who doesn't get at least a part of his funding from the Pioneer Fund? This question has come up at least half a dozen times so far, and nobody has been able to come up with a single name.--Ramdrake 19:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

ramdrake, here is the actual data from teh 1988 book: --Rikurzhen 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

i'll continue to look for actionable items in your comment, but i don't see any. --Rikurzhen 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? That is not a graph of current IQ and race researchers and was not when it was made 20 years ago. Ultramarine 01:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please name a prominent race and IQ researcher supporting the genetic argument who have not been recieved money from the fund.Ultramarine 01:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No one will be able to understand the NPOV tag if you hide the discussion in this thread. Herrnstein and Murray come to mind. As with everything else, it's not safe to build conclusions based on vague ideas. It's better to summarize published opinions, rather than make them up ourselves. --Rikurzhen 01:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of Loehlin, for example, having received Pioneer Funding.--Nectar 01:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Herrnstein and Murray only quoted research funded by the Pioneer Fund in their popular book.Ultramarine 02:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As far I know, also Loehlin also only quoted research funded by the Pioneer Fund. What article are you thinking about?Ultramarine 02:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

1.Ramdrake, your argument appears to be "Pioneer funding biases these results." The references we have, such as Tucker's prominent book on the subject, do not make that argument. Can you provide a quote from a reference that makes that argument?

2a.Re:53% is closer to a tie than a majority. 53% qualifies as a majority (particularly when the 'environmental only' response only had 17%). 2b.Re:partially-genetic by no means should be construed to signify the researchers thought most of the difference was genetic 'Partially genetic' means partially genetic and nothing more. It's significant because the most visible sources on the subject tend to argue partially-genetic has no scientific support. Now, if you did want to try to gauge the average portion of genetic influence supposed by the respondents, the first place to look would probably be comparing their average estimates for the heritability of IQ differences within the white population and within the black population. The average within the black population was only slightly lower than the estimate for within the White population, which suggests they view the supposed heritable contribution to the gap as being significant (unless even economically privilaged people with gifted IQs were subject equally to the environmental effects that putatively lower the scores of other blacks).--Nectar 01:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is well-known that the source can bias the results, as in tobacco research. Respectable journals require disclosure of funding. So should Wikipedia.
 * Again, the 20 years old survey was not of IQ and race researchers but, for example, of persons using IQ tests.Ultramarine 02:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1.If you don't want to comply with WP:NOR, don't advocate these additions for the article.
 * 2.I've created a section to discuss this below.--Nectar 02:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. The very history and advertised goals of the Pioneer Fund is sufficient to give the appearance of a probable bias in the results. If you add the fact of the rather unique way the Fund has to disburse monies to grantees, and that all the major proponents of the partially-genetic explanation have received funds from this organization, it definitely casts a doubt over the results.
 * 2a & b. You seem to be forgetting that 53% of the respondents is still only 45% of the total survey population. However, I concede that I should have said that 53% isn't a decisive majority at all, regardless of the fact that the others singly scored lower. Please note that the entirely genetic position only gathered 1% support. However, reading the article rapidly, you could believe it has very significant support. That is where, in my opinion the bias lay.
 * The fact is, the vast majority of the support for the partially-genetic explanation comes from a rather small group of researchers whose main source of funding is an organization which is to say the least has a vested interest on one side of the debate. This is significant enough to feature prominently in the article.
 * Also, the respondents were asked about intra-group heritability of IQ for Blacks and Whites, separately and respectively. You cannot logically extend this to mean that they support that this is the percentage of the BW IQ gap which they think is of a genetic nature. That is a definite logical fallacy (there are a number of missing steps in between). --Ramdrake 02:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Discussion occurring now at Talk:Race_and_intelligence below.
 * 2a. Re:53% of the respondents is still only 45% of the total survey. As per normal practice, non-respondents count as no data, so 53% means 53% of respondents.
 * 2b. Re:the entirely genetic position only gathered 1% support. The 'entirely genetic' position is not mentioned in this WP article, and for practical purposes gets lumped into 'partially genetic.'
 * 2c. Re:reading the article rapidly, you could believe it has very significant support. That is where, in my opinion the bias lay. Readers would be correct to get the impression that the partially genetic position has "very significant support" (53% is three times 17%).
 * 3. In order for African-Americans to have the same intra-group heritability of IQ differences as whites under the entirely environmental hypothesis, the causes of the gap would need to affect the entire group equally, otherwise the group would exhibit increased variability due to environment (and thus lower heritability). It doesn't seem plausible that African-Americans raised in environments far better than those experienced by most whites could be equally susceptible to African-Americans growing up in strongly disadvantaged environments to any of the proposed environmental explanations of the gap.--Nectar 04:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was wrong, the 53% of respondants corresponds to 351 researchers out of 1,020 polled. 357 researchers of those polled declined to answer (possibly they had no opinion, but that can't be ascertained for sure). That's more than those who said they thought the answer was partly genetic. The problem is, even then the survey gives a majority of people who think the source is partly genetic, whereas this article spends the majority of its points on demonstrating the BW IQ gap is genetic (putting even into evidence an obscure piece of research on the possible genetic source of an alleged behavioral difference between German based on the color of their eyes). The article presents this either-or dichotomy scheme, which is unrepresentative of even the majority opinion of experts. There is little if any about how a partly-genetic and partly-environmental cause might lead to the observed BW IQ gap, only arguments and and subsequent dismissals of various possible sources for the gap.
 * You said: "It doesn't seem plausible that African-Americans raised in environments far better than those experienced by most whites could be equally susceptible to African-Americans growing up in strongly disadvantaged environments to any of the proposed environmental explanations of the gap." I am not aware of any study that specifically compared IQs between the high-achieving White and Balck minorities. There are several studies claiming to have controlled for socio-economic status, and that is good, but nothing comparing specifically the high ends of the Black vs White SES spectrum. And yes, a systematic cultural bias in the test makeup could yield such a result, and the objection has been raised by several researchers (while others have concluded that this bias doesn't exist). That is part of the controversy. --Ramdrake 15:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A twenty years old survey is uninteresting. Imagine if there was a 20 years old survey of meterologists, farmers, climate researchers, and others studying the weather. Is that interesting for if there is a majority support for global warming among climate researchers today? Regardind the cause, see Flynn's explanation of how very small differences can magnified.Ultramarine 04:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nectar's note on #3 appears to be instructive, not a suggestion for editing the article. AFAIK I summarized the chain of literature on Flynn in the cultural explanations section, including this paper. Let's not get distracted.
 * Simply claiming that S&R's work is "uninteresting" is not a basis for writing a WP article. I assume you understand as much as you didn't actually make a suggestion for changes related to your claim. --Rikurzhen 06:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The 20 years old survey is given undue weight, being mentioned three times. We should shorten this to only one.Ultramarine 06:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * is described in the media section and also in the lead. It can be debated whether it's appropriate for the lead--I think it is--but anything in the lead must also be in the article, so doubling of that kind of by design. is mentioned in the expert opinion section. --Rikurzhen 06:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And there is a prominent graph of the 20 years old survey. This is undue weight to a twenty years old survey.Ultramarine 06:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wp:npov deals with minority views. A survey by definition is telling you the majority view. It's exactly the kind of thing that isn't given undue weight by being used whenever appropriate. --Rikurzhen 08:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We do no know the majority view. A twenty years old survey of persons who may have no knowledge of race does not give that information.Ultramarine 08:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

References and links
I think the following two examples from the article incorporate links into references well.


 * *


 * For online references with page numbers:, pp. 332-334
 * , pp. 332-334

Seems to make sources more accessible and 'open source' for interested readers. Any thoughts on adopting these styles?--Nectar 23:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The asterick may be unnecessary? --Rikurzhen 02:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought the asterisk may look more tidy once the normal link numbers go into the double digits, but it could be unnecessary to break with convention:
 * *
 * 
 * --Nectar 04:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rushton and the "white preservationists"
More material should be included on what the pro-genetic researchers really want. See this: Ultramarine 05:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless someone explains why, I will shortly add this material.Ultramarine 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine, please take it easy and let the discussions come to agreements on these things first. These discussions have enough to deal with without being expanded into edit wars. --Nectar 21:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

pioneer fund in lead section
the WP:LEAD now says The largest source of funding for proponents of the partly genetic interpretation, the Pioneer Fund, has been criticized for having a eugenic and racist history and political agenda.

What is the evidentiary basis for (1) this claim and (2) the prominence it is given in the article? Perhaps an accounting of all of the salient data about what has been said on this topic would make it clear. A response from UL that consists of an analogy to tobacco research will not be sufficient to convince me of its importance. --Rikurzhen 19:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the Pioneer fund and the references there.Ultramarine 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see partisan web sites. Where can I read that Pioneer is the "largest" source? I suspect that it is a substantial source, but largest? Source for whom? Where can I read about the importance of Pioneer to R&I research? Every time I look to Tucker (2000) I fail to see support for salience. --Rikurzhen 20:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The source of the criticism is acadmic books and institutions. We can change to "one of the largest". Ultramarine 20:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Tucker 2000? Where in Tucker? What about Neisser 2004? An accounting of the actual evidence here on the talk page, as I requested, would help sort this out. You argue that these statements are supported, but I don't see that when I look. Please show me. --Rikurzhen 20:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly what are you asking for? The racist history of the fund is well documented and that it has given millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars to most of the pro-genetic researchers mentioned in the article, like Rushton, Lynn, and Jensen.Ultramarine 20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Many organizations related to genetics have a history related to eugenics -- for example, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. I want to see the actual reference in the published literature that supports the relevance of these things. In what sense are they relevant? I suspect the answer is "very narrowly". --Rikurzhen 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not many organisations have sponsored Nazists with large sums of money.Ultramarine 20:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

you wrote this phrase a few hours ago. I want to be told on what basis this conclusion is formed in enough detail for me to evaluate its neutrality and factual accuracy. i've told you that my own examination of this, which is probably less thorough than yours, failed to support this addition. please provide me with the citations, quotations, etc. that I need to make the judgement. in essence, argue the case for me in terms of what's published, with logos (relevant) not ethos or pathos (irrelevant). --Rikurzhen 21:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is all there, with references, in the Pioneer fund article.Ultramarine 21:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's all there is, then I have to dispute your edit. The relationship of Pioneer's history to this article, and the fact that it has funded R&I research, does not rise to the level of the lead. The salience is never drawn in the literature, and even the net good/evil of Pioneer is a matter of dispute that splits along non-traditional lines. --Rikurzhen 21:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, the racist and anti-semitic history of the fund is well established and that it has given millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars to most of the pro-genetic researchers mentioned in the article, like Rushton, Lynn, and Jensen. As well as to well-known Neo-Nazists.Ultramarine 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ? Description without a premise or conclusion doesn't constitute an argument.--Nectar 21:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything stated is sourced. See the Pioneer fund article.Ultramarine 21:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If that were true, then you should have no problem presenting the argument here for me to evaluate. An hour has been spent requesting you to outline such an argument. --Rikurzhen 21:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you are asking for? Is this a denial of the racist and anti-semitic history of the fund and its sponsorship of most of the prominent pro-genetic researchers? Ultramarine 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your edit juxtaposes two arguably true facts, implying that they are related to one another (and by putting it in the lead implying this argument is highly relevant to R&I). Who makes the implied argument and who says it is important to R&I. Outline the argument so it can be evaulated for accuracy and neutrality. --Rikurzhen 21:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me try my telepathic ability. You are trying to say that this article should only deal with current status of research. But then sections like history, media portrayal, and implications should be deleted. This is what you are arguing? Ultramarine 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Tucker's thesis largely criticized the fund, but not the researchers or their research. Has anyone advanced a logical argument that the Pioneer Fund issues bear on the research?--Nectar 22:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously the fund is a very important part of the history, for example.Ultramarine 22:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it were history that was important, then why would a claim about research support be juxtaposed with a claim about history? Why would that little bit of history rise to the importance of the lead section? --Rikurzhen 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you deny that this is an important part of the history? Of course, it is an important part of other sections also.Ultramarine 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The topic at hand is the lead. --Rikurzhen 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is an important part of the history and also for example implications, the connections with Neo-Nazis has repeatedly been shown. Thus, it should be mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine 22:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Earlier you wrote The source of the criticism is acadmic books and institutions. If you stand by that, then you should have no problem outlining the facts and arguments here on the talk page, with special emphasis on which authors make exactly which arguments. Juxtaposing facts in a way to make a novel argument would be a violation of WP:NOR. --Rikurzhen 22:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The history of the fund, including the sponsoring Neo-Nazis, can be found here: Pioneer fund. It is also noted that many of the persons connected to the fund has connections with Nazism and that the research is used by Neo-Nazi groups.Ultramarine 22:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Who makes such an argument? On what basis in the published literature can these claims be evaulated for relevance and importance (plus accuracy and neutrality)? I've already said that I don't see such answers in the Pioneer fund article. It should be easy for you to outline them if they are valid. --Rikurzhen 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, see the Pioneer fund. The connections with Nazism is mentioned repeatedly and sourced.Ultramarine 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I have to repeat myself. This was added to the lead:


 * The largest source of funding for proponents of the partly genetic interpretation, the Pioneer Fund, has been criticized for having a eugenic and racist history and political agenda.

I asked:


 * What is the evidentiary basis for (1) this claim and (2) the prominence it is given in the article? Perhaps an accounting of all of the salient data about what has been said on this topic would make it clear.

There are many institutions with disreputable pasts, espeically in the genetics-eugenics context. What author makes the link between the history of Pioneer and the bias of its grantees? A link is implied by the juxtaposition of these claims and by mentioning the history of Pioneer in this article.

It would be inappropriate, for example, to say: Jim Watson, co-discover of the structure of DNA, runs Cold Sping Harbor Labs, an institution that supported eugenics, from which he and other pro-GE scientists have received millions of dollars.

IANAL but I guess that WP could be subject to a libel suit for writing something like that. --Rikurzhen 23:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the racist history of the fund should be mentioned. It is well documented. Since it is a major sponoser of all pro-genetic researchers, who have received millions, this is an important part of the history. Furthermore, the research is used by Neo-Nazi groups. This is important for implications. I have certainly not said the all the grantees are Nazists.Ultramarine 23:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All those things might be important, if an argument for their relevance could be attributed to a published source. --Rikurzhen 23:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, these statements are sourced in Pioneer fund.Ultramarine 23:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All of those individual facts about Jim Watson are also source, but the arrangement of them produces a disalloweable novel argument. The material in the PF article isn't sufficient to support your contentions. --Rikurzhen 00:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, everything there is sourced. Do you deny that it is important for the history? Do you deny the connections with Nazism? Ultramarine 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can neither confirm nor deny any claims without sources that make the same arguments that you're writing. Not sources only about PF, but about the relationship of PF to R&I, especially the claims wrt bias. --Rikurzhen 00:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What claim of bias? You are reading something not stated. Again, the racist Fund is certainly important in the history since it has given millions to individual researchers. This research is used by Neo-Nazis.Ultramarine 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PF is discussed in the section "Accusations of bias". AFAIK, PF is not discussed in "History", and the reponse of fringe groups to R&I research is not discussed at all. Why then did you put the text in the lead that you did? If you no longer think it's appropriate for the lead, just say that so I can stop asking. --Rikurzhen 01:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no statement about bias in the intro. But I agree with Ramdrake. That much of the funding showing particular results comes from a single and biased source creates grave doubts about the reliability of the results. Thus, the Fund is important for at least 3 reasons: history, implications, and bias. It should certainly be prominently mentioned in intro.Ultramarine 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, the references we have, such as Tucker's prominent book on the subject, disagree with your argument. In accordance with WP:NOR, can you an you provide a reference along with a quote that makes that argument?--Nectar 02:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is well-known that the source can bias the results, as in tobacco research. Respectable journals require disclosure of funding. So should Wikipedia. Also not the Fund is important for history and implications, not only possible bias. Thus, it should be in the intro. Is there something dangerous about mentioning this to the readers? Ultramarine 02:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're arguing against the references we have from scientists on your side of the debate and you don't want to comply with WP:NOR, don't advocate these additions for the article.--Nectar 02:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the Pioneer fund is important regarding history, implications and use of research, and possible bias. So it should certainly be mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine 03:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In the sub-section below, I see (a) Rushton is a biased scientist and (b) Pioneer funds Rushton (not to bias him but merely) because he's already a biased scientist. I don't see Pioneer fund causes bias in researchers who receive their funds and on a related note they used to support Nazism. --Rikurzhen 06:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote? Bias is only one reason. Its importance for history and implications are by themselves sufficent for mentioning the fund in the intro. Regarding bias, it is well known that the funding can bias the resulst. That is why respectable journals require disclosre. Why should Wikipedia do less? Ultramarine 06:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, bias (in the PF -> researcher causation) doesn't appear to be a reason at all. Funding disclosure is discussed below. History of PF <> History of R&I -- I'm not aware of any connection there. --Rikurzhen 07:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not aware that the fund has given millions to various researchers? In fact, you have not been able to mention a single prominent pro-genetic researher who have not received money. You are not aware that the Fund's research is used by Neo-Nazis?Ultramarine 07:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course that's not what I said, but it's also off topic. This thread is looping endlessly as you avoid the the fact that there are no references to support your particular views about PF causing bias. I believe I've dedicated more than a sufficient amount of time to discussing that fact with you. --Rikurzhen 07:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not off topic. How can you say that? Are Neo-Nazis unimportant? Has not the Pioneer Fund been a major force in this field? Ultramarine 07:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your line of reasoning is a clear violation of WP:NOR. Repetition will not change this. --Rikurzhen 07:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See the Pioneer fund. It is well source that Neo-Nazis use the research sponsored by the Fund. And that many pro-genetic researchers have recieved very large sums of money. Taht is important for history and implications, regardless of it has biased the research.Ultramarine 08:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pioneer bias references

 * "But to some academics who have attempted to untangle Rushton's work, there's a bigger question than whether or not a scientist received money from an organization like the Pioneer Fund. "Scientists can sometimes be incredibly arrogant," said Dr. Fred Weizmann, "because they think they are exempt from being influenced by those who fund them. "The real question is not did the Pioneer Fund make you alter your scientific findings but why did the Pioneer Fund fund you?" Weizmann is a psychology professor at York University who has analysed the scientific data used by Rushton. He describes Rushton's work as "lousy science." "It's not so much a question of whether or not they influence an individual scientist but rather the scientists they choose to fund in the first place, Weizmann added.""Ultramarine 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "One of his critics states that Rushton has demonstrated a “consistently biased review” of his sources, lacks credible evidence, and “causes major psychological harm to millions of black children and adults (with respect to self-esteem, career expectations, interracial relationships, etc.)” (Cernovsky 1992:64). Given the financial support of the Pioneer Fund (see Lane 1995; Mehler 1999; Rosenthal 1995; Tucker 1994; Cernovsky 1994:332) and the kind of conclusions Rushton reaches, it is instructive to consider his description of the purpose of his research"
 * See also this: Ultramarine 02:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Except for your tobacco OR, you appear to be documenting an argument that accepting Pioneer funds indicates that you are a "lousy" scientist, while denying that it actually biases a scientist. No? --Rikurzhen 02:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No I am documenting that Rushton is doing biased research and that the Pioneer Fund plays a role in that. There is nothing OR is in the tobacco link, only documentation that the source of funding can influence the results.Ultramarine 02:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless someone else has made such an argument, it is OR. In a previous thread you argued with me (and against Arbor and Nectar) that a figure presenting SAT data could not be used to demonstrate a non-controversial point which is otherwise made about "IQ". Your tobacco argument is of an entirely different order of magnitude of "original research" than the substitution than the SAT/IQ subsitution.
 * Also, note that you are documenting claims against JP Rushton. If claims about Pioneer are limited in scope to Rushton, they should not be expanded when described in this article. --Rikurzhen 06:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The tobacco article documents several studies showing that the source of funding influences the results. Rushton is the head of the Fund.Ultramarine 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

'''A recent review of 106 scientific reviews of evidence on passive smoking and health located from the peer-reviewed literature between 1980-1995. Overall, 37% (39/106) of reviews concluded that passive smoking was not harmful to health; 74% (29/39) of these were written by authors with tobacco industry affiliations. In multiple logistic regression analyses controlling for article quality, peer review status, article topic, and year of publication, the only factor associated with concluding that passive smoking was not harmful was whether an author was affiliated with the tobacco industry (odds ratio, 88.4; 95% confidence interval, 16.4-476.5; P<.001). [8]'''Ultramarine 06:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research.

'''Depending on the COI (Conflict of interest) criteria used, 16.6% to 32.6% of manuscripts had 1 or more author with COI. Based on ICMJE criterion, 38.7% of studies investigating drug treatments had authors with COI. We observed a strong association between those studies whose authors had COI and reported positive findings (P < .001).'''
 * Thus, the source of funding is important which is why disclosure is required in all respectable journals.Ultramarine 06:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never read anything of the sort in the sources that cover R&I research, so apparently their editorial review board doesn't think so. --Rikurzhen 07:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you deny that respectable journals require disclousre of funding and possible conflicts of interest? Ultramarine 07:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any journal requiring disclosure of Pioneer funding? --Rikurzhen 07:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, respectable journals would require such disclosure.Ultramarine 07:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For example, you can read the disclosure required for Science here: Ultramarine 07:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * that is a claim of the form: All true x are y -- All respectable journal would require disclosure of Pioneer funding -- (compare to: all true patriots would support the President.) It's not a valid form of reasoning. --Rikurzhen 07:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me this straight. Are you saying that journals such as Science do not require disclosure?Ultramarine 07:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by the term "disclosure". They would not treat Pioneer funds as a COI. They would treat them like NSF or NIH funding, which is differently than they would treat tobacco money. --Rikurzhen 07:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are speculating. Regardless, science require disclosure of all sources of funding and they will be stated in the article.Ultramarine 07:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In the acknowledgements section. Many journals also require reporting of specific author contributions. What's the relevance. Your argument is that Pioneer funding is like tobacco funding, and so by analogy we can say that it is a prima facie source of bias. There is no evidence for this, but my "speculation" has the benefit of being the default Bayesian prior. --Rikurzhen 07:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * An noted, numerous studies in manu fields, not only tobacco, have shown that the source of funding can, and do, bias the results of the research. A Fund sponsoring Racists and Nazists would certainly qualify as possible conflict of interest in research on races and IQ.Ultramarine 07:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your line of reasoning is a clear violation of WP:NOR. Repetition will not change this. --Rikurzhen 07:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you denying that the source of finding have influenced the results in numerous fields? Here is another study, I am finding hundreds: "Industry-funded trials are more likely to be associated with statistically significant pro-industry findings, both in medical trials and surgical interventions."Ultramarine 08:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The unifying theme in these data points is a commerical for-profit funding source, which PF is not. PF is like NSF or NIH, not Merck or GSK. Claiming that PF causes bias is AFAIK a novel conclusion. When asked to provide published support for the view, you do not. Instead, what you have provided below paints an entirely different hypothesis, which is aimed strictly as Rushton. We can only work with what's published. --Rikurzhen 08:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight. You are in good faith stating that a Fund sponsoring Racists and Nazists is as good a funding source as the NIH and NSF when doing research on Races and IQ?Ultramarine 08:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Without references to support a claim, we are policy bound to not include it. That's all that matters here. --Rikurzhen 08:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have provided references that the source of funding can influence research and that major journals require disclosure for this reason. Wikipedia should do no less. Also, that if Pioneer Fund is non-profit is uninteresting. The important thing is that the researchers gain financially from the fund.Ultramarine 08:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When papers disclose this kind of funding the disclosure is in a footnote (see the final footnote here, which mentions Pioneer). Your argument, on the otherhand, is that disclosure should be part of the abstract (the summary at the beginning of the paper). That would be an extraordinary departure from professional practices, and is thus not a choice we can make. (And the point currently being argue is irrelevant; blanket disclosure is already present in the accusations of bias section.)--Nectar 08:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, bias is only one reason the fund should be mentioned in the intro. Other are its importance for the the history and for implications.Ultramarine 18:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so we're agreed that 'funding disclosure' is no longer part of the conversation, and if Pioneer get's added to the intro it will be for other reasons.--Nectar 21:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We certainly do not. In papers it is prominently mentioned. So it should be in Wikpedia.Ultramarine 22:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This can probably best be solved by looking at the literature instead of speculating. I gave an example link above of a study that had Pioneer funding. Disclosure of the study's funding (from many organizations) was present in the final footnote of the article.--Nectar 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The introduction is not an abstract. An abstract is a one paragraph summary of findings, usually with no discussions of what these findings mean. Is that what you want? Regardless, and again, possible bias is only of many causes for stating the Pioneer Fund prominently in the intro.Ultramarine 23:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * [short on time] see WP:LEAD -- we need appropriate content in the body of the article before we can add a corresponding summary to the lead. --Rikurzhen 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone earlier asked for a reference that the Pioneer fund was thought to impart a bias on research. It turns out that one university, the University of Delaware, has put a prohibition on the receipt of funding from the Pioneer Fund, which one faculty member described as "an organization with a long and continuous history of supporting racism, anti-Semitism, and other discriminatory practices. . This comes from the site of the American Association of University Professors, so I would say credibility is high. --Ramdrake 16:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That decision was overturned, which is why you can list Linda Gottfredson as a recipient of Pioneer funds. --Rikurzhen 17:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the university decided to drop the prohibition on its own when faced by a lawsuit by Gottfredson and another researcher. Nevertheless, this proves that research funding by the Pioneer Fund has already been associated with accusations of possibly biasing the research, thus proving that Ultramarine's point is not original research and thus can stand as is. --Ramdrake 17:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That "proves" it huh? Your going to cite the retracted decision of a Univeristy policy board? Can we prove that Israel is evil by citing the debate at some universities to withdrawl their funds from investments associated with Israel? What the Delaware affair proves is that the Delaware affair occured, unless there's a published commentary that says it means something else, at which point we can document the existence of an opinion that it means something. That's the only way I can see to squeeze content out of it. --Rikurzhen 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * here's the description of the affair as I remembered it. Gottfredson had them reversed and received compensation with the help of the AAUP, who characterized the ban as based on politics not science. --Rikurzhen 18:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We should certainly mention this interetsting history in the article.Ultramarine 18:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"But to some academics who have attempted to untangle Rushton's work, there's a bigger question than whether or not a scientist received money from an organization like the Pioneer Fund. "Scientists can sometimes be incredibly arrogant," said Dr. Fred Weizmann, "because they think they are exempt from being influenced by those who fund them. "The real question is not did the Pioneer Fund make you alter your scientific findings but why did the Pioneer Fund fund you?" Weizmann is a psychology professor at York University who has analysed the scientific data used by Rushton. He describes Rushton's work as "lousy science." "It's not so much a question of whether or not they influence an individual scientist but rather the scientists they choose to fund in the first place, Weizmann added." This criticism should be mentioned.Ultramarine 18:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Pioneer Fund and policy implications
Regardless of if the Pioneer Fund has caused biased research, its research is used by numerous Nazist and Racist groups and it has a long racist history. Thus, they should be mentioned in the intro. The head of the fund and IQ researcher Rushton has attended extreme far right meetings.Ultramarine 18:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Pioneer Fund in the history of the field
Regardless of if the Pioneer Fund has caused biased research, it is very important in the history. No one has managed to mention an important pro-genetic researcher who has not recieved money from them. Thus, they should be mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine 18:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Pioneer Fund and Media Portrayal
Regardless of if the Pioneer Fund has caused biased research, its association with racism has caused a negative Media Portrayal. Another reason they should be mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Pioneer Fund and legitimate quotes regarding it
I have to agree with Ultramarine and Ramdrake here - they have provided direct sources which logically connect the Pioneer Fund with potential bias. Regardless if these connections are true in every case, or in any case, it is well cited, and relevant. They are not conducting any OR, they are merely presenting material with citations elsewhere.

You may disagree with the logical attack (which can be seen as ad hominem, no doubt), which taints a researcher's conclusion based upon the source of their funding, and that funding source's history, but it is an attack that has been made, and one that is arguable.

Can we accept that prominent mention of the Pioneer Fund is relevant, but make sure the wording is clear that the implications are just that - not proof, but implications of potential bias? --JereKrischel 19:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I can certainly live with that, because that was all that was raised: the objection of an appearance of bias (or possible conflict of interest). But this objection is exactly why, for instance, in my neck of the woods, if anyone dies during a police operation, jurisdiction over the enquiry is turned over to another police body immediately, even though the original police force would have had jurisdiction. There are several such examples where rules have been put into place to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, because people have come to realize that whether or not the conflict of interest can be proved, just this appearance is enough to make for tainted results in a lot of people's minds. --Ramdrake 19:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good points.Ultramarine 19:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pinker; RDiI

 * However, I do agree that article contains numerous dubious sources. I therefore think that the numerous statements by Pinker should be removed. More importantly, the extremely dubious long section about the book "Race Differences in Intelligence" should immediately be removed. It is certainly not published by any academic publisher but by publisher producing anti-semitic books. I will shortly remove this very dubious book. State objections here and explain why.Ultramarine 23:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How could Pinker be a dubious source? Cognitive ability testing outside of the US and other wealthy countries is pretty important. The status of the RDiI data derives from the author who surveyed it and the reviews the book (e.g. ) and it's predecessor, IQatWoN, received in the journals. If you can name a source that surveys even a tenth of the global cognitive ability data surveyed in that book, that would be a good addition.--Nectar 23:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Blogs and similar sources are not a reliable sources. Nor is a non-acadmic publisher producing anti-semitic works. It not I who should name a reliable source, but you. Ultramarine 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The book has been reviewed in both Intelligence and PAID. --Rikurzhen 00:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, Mein Kampf has also been been reviewed numerous times. Only reliable sources are allowed in Wikipedia. A publisher producing anti-semtic workds is not.Ultramarine 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's good enough for Intelligence and PAID then it's good enough for WP.--Nectar 01:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A review is certainly not an endorsement. Why have Lynn not used a respectable academic publisher for his books about worldwide IQ scores?Ultramarine 01:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Respected academic publishers are generally reluctant to print books that tend to cause protests, "hate speech" criminal investigations in some countries, and death threats. Even Jensen had difficulty finding a publisher for his The g Factor, so these books' treatment in scientific journals may be a better gauge then the degree of influence of the publisher. .. Most recently, explicitly endorsed the surveyed data, and yes, utilizing the IQatWoN data in their own arguments counts as "endorsement."  --Nectar 01:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That has always been the excuse of cranks. Freedom of Speech is well protected in the US, as evidenced by numerous Nazi and Racist webpages. Rushton et all has published in numerous journals, so the argument that they are censored is simply false. No academic paper has used Lynn's latest book.Ultramarine 01:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume you're just being partisan for the sake of partisanship. Researchers have not been investigated under "hate crime" laws in the US, but they have been in other countries, such as Canada. Death threats have certainly occurred regularly in this field in the US. If you have questions about the credibility of RDiI, see  .--Nectar 02:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why must the pro-genetic researchers publish their books in Canada? Do all of them live there? Can they avoid death threats if they do not use an academic publisher?Ultramarine 02:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Controversy strong enough to create the phenomenon listed above tends to be a deterrent to respected publishers that have a lot to lose.--Nectar 02:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, this is simply false. The Pioneer fund grantees have published in numerous journals. They are not censored. Cite a reliable source if you claim so. There is simply no excuse for not using an academic publisher.Ultramarine 02:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't see any grounds for your argument in terms of WP:RS. A published review of a book is by definition peer review -- better open peer review. Thus, RDI is a peer reviewed book. --Rikurzhen 02:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, a review is not an endorsement. Mein Kampf has been reviewed numerous times. Since when did non-academic publsiher of anti-semitic books became a reliable source? Ultramarine 02:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:RS discusses "endorsement". This is an odd sort of criteria. --Rikurzhen 02:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:RS states that a review makes a book reliable? Ultramarine 02:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Reviews "make a book reliable" in the sense that our job is to report views of the scientific community. The "endorsements" that are present in the literature are sufficient to discuss the data and the criticisms that get raised against it.--Nectar 03:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, what part of WP:RS states that a review makes a book reliable? Is Mein Kampf a reliable source on this subject because is is mentioned in academic literature? Ultramarine 03:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine, reviews that regard a source in a positive light increase it's reliability. Mein Kampf is not reviewed in a positive light.--Nectar 03:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So exactly who wrote this review? Another Pioneer fund grantee? The book or review is not mentioned in Google scholar.Ultramarine 03:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The recent review we were waiting for before adding the present version of the World-wide scores section is, which devotes the most significant part of the review (presently quoted in this article) to checking the data. I'm not aware of Loehlin having received Pioneer funding. The review is in press in Intelligence, which means it's already been peer-reviewed, and it is presently accessible via ScienceDirect.--Nectar 04:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, he is a Pioneer fund grantee or director: Ultramarine 04:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Loehlin was one of the leading figures conducting the Texas Adoption Project, which did receive funding. If the Texas Adoption Project isn't good enough for you, you should take up your complaints with the mainstream scientific community at large. The Texas Adoption Project and Minnesota Twin Study were funded by many sources, including The National Science Foundation, The National Institute of Mental Health, and The National Institute on Aging.--Nectar 05:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Lynn gets money from Pioneer Fund. He does not publish in academic press but uses a dubious publisher of anti-semitic books controlled by a person connected to the Pioneer Fund. The book is reviewed by another Pioneer Fund grantee. Do you see the pattern? Ultramarine 05:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put this in bold. Mainstream environmentalist scientists who work in this area like Neisser, Nisbett, Sternberg, Flynn, and even Tucker, would roll there eyes at this kind of amateur McCarthyism. If we stay within Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV and WP:RS, there is only one possible bottom line and it is non-negotiable: Lynn is a prominent researcher in the area who publishes many articles in respected journals, and his books have received sufficient scientific attention to warrant coverage. --Nectar 07:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not be bold. I am not interested in your opinions. He should publish in academic press, not by using a dubious publisher like cranks do.Ultramarine 07:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * UL, you just said: I'm not interested in your opinion about WP policy, but here's my opinion. --Rikurzhen 07:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never stated that. I am not interested in opinions regarding McCarthyism and strange speculations of what other scientists think.Ultramarine 07:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A string of accusations does nothing to demonstrate that a source which is treated as worthy of review by a scholarly journal is unworthy of review in WP. --Rikurzhen 08:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe we should mention it. But we should let the reader see all information and decide for themselvs. Thus, we should iclude that published by non-academic publisher of anti-semitic literature. Considering that it only claim to fame is a book review by Pioneer grantee, it is given undue weight in the article.Ultramarine 08:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Has that claim itself appeared in print? ... A dozen ways to say WP:NOR. --Rikurzhen 08:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been mentioned by critics. See the source in the talk page about article about the book.Ultramarine 08:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

UL wrote: the extremely dubious long section about the book "Race Differences in Intelligence" should immediately be removed. Later he points out that Searchlight Magazine has published some commentary of RDI. If its appropriate, one can include the commentary by Searchlight Magazine, but one cannot immediately remove the description of RDI. --Rikurzhen 18:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A non-academic publisher of anti-semitic books is not a reliable source when claiming academic results. Searchlight magazine is certainly a reliable source for criticism of racism.Ultramarine 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Science books are regularly published by "non-academic publishers," so I don't think that's what we mean: (the Blank Slate (Penguin Putnam), the Mismeasure of Man and Guns Germs and Steele (both published by W. W. Norton & Company), and Lewontin, Rose, and Gould's Not in Our Genes (Pantheon)).
 * 2. The scientific status of the above books, including RDiI, derives from (1) reviews in scientific journals, and (2) the status of the authors.
 * 2a. Reviews: The positive reviews in scientific journals RDiI and it's predecessor IQatWoN have received include: in Intelligence,  in Personality and Individual Differences, and 6 studies using the data from IQatWoN (this does not include the positive reviews of IQatWoN present in the journals) collected at IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations. If it's good enough for the scientific journals it's good enough for Wikipedia.
 * 2b. Lynn's scientific credentials: If you want to see how mainstream scientific reportive publications (as opposed to opinion publications) treat Lynn, look at Discover's retrospective of their coverage of his work.--Nectar 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Many of these books are popular ones, and not academic. If remember correctly do not for example Guns, Germs and Steel list references.
 * 2. No. Using an acadmic publisher shows a certain quality and controll. Cranks cannot publish in academic press. Regarding a book's importance, that is mainly determined by how many other studies use the results. Reviews do not say much. Popular books and literature summaries can recieve many positive reviews without contributing anything new. The IQ scores in IQ and the Wealth of Nations have been used in other studies. That gives that book a certain status. However, you forget to mention the articles which have severely criticzed that book, such as Volker's. Regardless, that books says nothing about other books, such as Race differences in Intelligence.Ultramarine 08:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Any of those well-known books can be cited as science works. (Science is more than just studies conducting novel research).
 * 2. OK, that's going beyond the pale of legitimate conversation to argue Gould, Lewontin, and Pinker are cranks because they didn't publish these books with university presses.
 * 2a. We have to report the opinions of the scientific community that are present in the literature, and this is done through reading the scientific reviews they write of other works (how else would you know what they thought?).
 * 2b. RDiI is an expansion of IQatWoN's data set - expanded by the same researcher using the same methods. If anyone wants to argue studies using IQatWoN's data don't count in discussions of RDiI, a third party editor will probably be able to address that.
 * 3. Right, the critical reviews are used as the sources of criticism included with this article's discussion of the book.--Nectar 09:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See my earlier comments. There is simply no excuse for not using academic press, that makes the value of the book dubious, if it claiming to be an academic work finding novel data and not a popular book. A popular book may be cited for theories, but is dubious as a data source. Regarding IQatWoN, which as noted also has been severaly criticzed, that book says nothing about another book and new data by Lynn. Taht he uses a dubious publisher of anti-semitic books is very strange.Ultramarine 16:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're just making stuff up, though, right? Neither the studies using the data of IQatWoN or the studies that were critical of those studies mentioned IQatWoN wasn't published by an academic press.--Nectar 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was discussing Guns et al. One can cite such popular books for theories, but hardly for data.Ultramarine 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me be more explicit? That's a fascinating assertion you have, but if it were true, why would both the studies that used IQatWoN's data and the articles that criticized those studies not mention the book is published by a non-academic publisher?--Nectar 20:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that book's publisher, Praeger Publishers, seems to be a publisher of academic books. That of course makes it even more strange that Lynn choose a publishe of anti-semtic works for his latest book.Ultramarine 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So your criteria for an academic press is now not a university press, but a press that publishes academic books? Under your new standards, publishing Lynn's book and a book by behavior geneticist Glayde Whitney (Race, Genetics and Society) make Washington Summit Publishers an "academic press." (Please just back up your original research or drop it.)--Nectar 20:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have certainly not limited academic press to university press. There are many other reputable academic publishers. I note that "Race, Genetics and Society" gets exactly 0 hits in Google scholar.Ultramarine 21:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A reptition of original research is not an adequate response to a request to substantiate original research.--Nectar 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? Again, why did Lynn use publisher of anti-semtic works for the book? Especially considering that he has used an academic publisher for his earlier book? Regardless, this casts grave doubts about the reliability.Ultramarine 21:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We have two references - from articles in Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences - that regarded the book well and didn't mention your theory about original data and publishers. Provide a reference for your claim or take it up with the scientific community.--Nectar 21:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Searchlight has mentioned the connection. These reviews, by Rushton and a Pioneer Fund grantee, are the books only claim to fame and are not published at moment. I do think we should mention the book, but shorten the details, at least until the reviews are published, and certainly note that dubious publisher.Ultramarine 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The positive review by a former president of the Behavior Genetics Association and of the Society for Multivariate Experimental Psychology (Loehlin) is indeed significant. The review in PAID by Rushton was published in March, and apparently the journal didn't deem it necessary to publish the review alongside a critical review. The 6 studies using the data from IQatWoN - one of which is currently listed as the most downloaded article in Intelligence at ScienceDirect - are also significant. Perhaps you're arguing we should use the IQatWoN data instead, but it seems counter-productive to use an older data set 1/4 the size. The references in the literature do regard the newer IQ data as an extension of the IQ data in IQatWoN, but the contention that's appeared here that there's no connection between the two seems to be an original argument that goes against these references.
 * Lynn co-authored a new paper on this subject that's now in press in Intelligence, and he and Vanhanen have another book along these lines, IQ and Global Inequality, coming out later this year, so the presence of this series of books in the literature is only going to increase. Rushton has a review in press in PAID of the new book.
 * If the point about Searchlight is that WSP is (1) morally bad and (2) read by far-right groups, rather than about bearing on the data itself, that seems most appropriate with the rest of those accusations, in the accusations of bias section.--Nectar 12:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Snyderman and Rothman
[Copied from Talk:J. Philippe Rushton ]


 * Once more, the 20 years old survey of some persons using IQ tests is not evidence of what researchers think today.Ultramarine 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your claims about the survey being "irrelevant" aren't legitimate. The survey is the most recent gauge of the expert community's actual opinion and is supported by 4 more recent references, whereas you've provided zero references for your many original claims. If you'd like to actually read the survey so that you don't have to make inaccurate claims about it that can be arranged. This is discussed ad infinitum here.--Nectar 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You provided none more relevant source for what the researchers think today. A twenty years old survey is uninteresting. Imagine if there was a 20 years old survey of meterologists, farmers, climate researchers, and others studying the weather. Is that interesting for if there is a majority support for global warming among climate researchers today? Ultramarine 22:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The hypotheses Wikipedia editors tend to regard as being the most persuasive on the environmental side were intact prior to the 1987 survey, and the claims that the partially genetic hypothesis has no support were already being made. Much has occured since then, but I'm not going to list the major events. Partisan WP editors will argue opinion has since skewed to which ever side they're on, but the default position in rhetoric would probably be that each side has an equal claim to opinion skewing to their side.

Recent events like the publication of Pinker's Blank Slate, the discovery of what appears to be behavioral genetic ethnic variation (Harpending and Cochran 2002), and the high profile reception of Cochran et al.'s Ashkenazi intelligence theory would disqualify any simple claims about the large percentage gaps between specialists' responses reversing. The strongest reference we have on this subject is Sternberg's 1995 acknowledgement of the results. --Nectar 08:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Anecdotal evidence is uninteresting. Do you have anything more recent than the 20 years old survery where race and IQ researchers where only a small group? Ultramarine 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're just going to not read the answers to your questions and repeat that you're right no matter what, I'm afraid there's not going to be much progress.--Nectar 05:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are using ancedotal evidence. Do you have anything more recent than the survey as evidence for what researchers think?Ultramarine 05:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nectar wrote Partisan WP editors will argue opinion has since skewed to which ever side they're on, but the default position in rhetoric would probably be that each side has an equal claim to opinion skewing to their side. He then provided an example of such an argument, having explained that it was irrelevant. Just as irrelvant as your claims that things have changed to favor an environment-only explanation. --Rikurzhen
 * His theory about the default position is uninteresting OR.Ultramarine 08:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nectarflowed asked me to opine here at my talk page. I've removed that article from my watchlist for some time, since I just couldn't see it getting productively better. At a quick glance, it certainly looks like a pro-hereditarian slant has increased in the article since my efforts, albeit in fairly subtle ways.

I'm not sure more narrowly what I might opine on. The arguments look exactly the same as they did six months ago. The big chart intended to add false legitimacy to Snydermann and Rothman's rather poor survey design is without question WP:NPOV. On the other hand, Ultramarine's argument that the fact it's twenty years old discredits it is utterly silly. The date is irrelevant since indeed substantially all the same arguments were already available, familiar, and being made in 1988. However, the wording of the survey is very strongly biased to promote an answer of "partly genetic"... in survey design, it verges on being a push poll.

In my opinion, the big bold chart to summarize a brief survey result can serve no purpose other than to try to pump up the weight given to its numbers. It's fine to mention S&R passingly, with proper circumspection around the poor design of the survey; but it's not appropriate to give itthe disproportianate attention it currently gets. Still, I'm out of editing this article. LotLE × talk 16:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Here's the old thread from November on why S&R is junk survey research: Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 18. LotLE × talk 20:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

talk page etiquette
please keep discussion within a thread on topic. if you want to discuss something new, start a new thread. this will be essential for anyone else who wants to examine the talk page. a restructuring of the material from the last day into topics would be useful. my intital attempt at this was reversed. --Rikurzhen 02:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Pioneer Fund section
Explain.Ultramarine 00:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Nectar is getting at but here are my thoughts:

The creation of a tier 1 section on the PF is inappropriate. The the word "pioneer" is not found by a text search in any of the following review articles: I imagine it can be argued to be a part of the controversy section by virtue of the fact that it has been a subject of discussion in more limited contexts. --Rikurzhen 01:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) the 1994 WSJ statement
 * 2) the 1996 APA report
 * 3) any of the 2005 PPPL papers, including the responses
 * This is not an article only about what is stated in peer-revewed articles only about the genetic role of IQ and race. It is about history, media, implications and so on.Ultramarine 01:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The controversy sub-section is about those things. PF can be discussed there in a manner that conforms with WP policy. I have a secondary idea about this which I will raise in a separate thread. --Rikurzhen 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Pioneer fund has importance for so many things that it cannot be placed in a subsection.Ultramarine 01:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it was so important, then it would have appeared in the review papers I listed above. Please don't persue this agenda, you know it's not appropriate. --Rikurzhen 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not an article only about what is stated in peer-revewed articles only about the genetic role of IQ and race. It is about history, media, implications and so on.Ultramarine 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The PF is not a topic of equal importance to the other tier 1 topics. It does not, for example, warrant presentation at the same level as the discussion of intelligence testing data. Your argument sustains the existence of a "controversy" section, which does in fact exist and which used to cover PF until you moved it out and up, but does not address the importance isssue. PF is not that important. Arguging this line is a very bad act. --Rikurzhen 01:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not been able to mention a single important pro-genetic researcher who has not been funded by them. So very important in history. Its research is cited by Nazists and current head attends meetings with them. So important for implications. There is questions of possible bias due to funding. The fund has also influenced the the media and academic portrayal of the field.Ultramarine 01:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The importance of a topic is not demonstrated by an editors' interest in it but by it's appearance in published works which discuss the topic. How many textbooks, manuals, review articles, encyclopedia articles, & etc. on this topic mention PF? The answer appears to be none or very few. This is a plainly obvious and non-negotiable truth. --Rikurzhen 01:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, Google scholar lists 225 scholarly books and articles when searching for "Pioneer Fund" and "race". It is much more frequently mentioned in popular media discussing history, implications, racists connections and so on.Ultramarine 02:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is much more frequently mentioned in popular media discussing history, implications, racists connections and so on. And therefore it should be discussed in the public controversy section. It would not be appropriate, for example, to have a tier 1 section titled "The Mismeasure of Man", even though it is perhaps the #1 source from the public's POV, being cite 993 times in Google Scholar and having 1910 hits for "mismeasure of man". I can't stress enough how inappropriate your treatment of this issue is. --Rikurzhen 02:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Nazi connections, possible bias, and what the reserchers advocate for policy do not fit into public controversy.Ultramarine 02:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Race_and_intelligence. irregardless, PF is not a tier 1 topic. if it cannot be discussed in "controversy", a claim about which I am dubious, then it should be discussed in the sections where it is appropriate. if these topics are truly disparate, then it was never appropriate to have them under the same heading. --Rikurzhen 02:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... --Rikurzhen 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * nazi connection - "racism", but the connection of PF to nazis isn't about R&I
 * possible bias - if this is your OR, then not appropriate, otherwise the "bias" section
 * what researchers advocate about policy - "policy implications"
 * Many critics of the research mentions the connections, thus it should be included. The statement is sourced. Also, I do not understand your complaint, it is stated that there is no evidence. The question of splitting or one section can be discussed.Ultramarine 03:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why it can't be discussed in a policy-abiding fashion in topic-oriented structures (i.e. not tier 1 just for PF). --Rikurzhen 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research
most of the proposals currently under discussion would constitute a (no doubt well intentioned but clear) violation of WP:NOR policy. while I'm sympathetic to the desire to apply personal/professional judgment to article content, it's simply not appropriate as it's being used here. all theories or data or reasoning must have a firm basis in already published materials.
 * 1) this counts for Ultramarine et al's proposals about PF causing bias (but perhaps not the other theories about PF which have some documentation here)
 * 2) it counts for Lulu's possibly accurate but still OR analysis of the quality of the S&R polling data. I'm especially sympathetic to Lulu's comments, as they are of the kind that I would myself like to make about some of the poor study designs described in this article series, but we must refrain.

Please keep this thread focused. --Rikurzhen 01:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I care to disagree, at least for the topic of PF causing a possible bias. I have brought here a legitimate, cited reference that a university went to the extent of prohibiting its researchers from accept PF monies because of the Fund's known affiliations. While the bias was never proven (at least in a court of law), the suspicions are well-documented, and belong in the article.
 * And regarding Lulu's analysis, if you're so close to agreeing with her that this is a poorly-designed study, why do you insist on putting up an very large graph of the results? If you think the study is poorly designed, its results should be played down, not up.--Ramdrake 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The current chart on S&R are a pretty overwhelming violation of WP:NPOV. Not everything that has beeen published automatically deserves a large amount of emphasis, let alone a big chart to create an obvious "spin".  As I wrote 8 months ago in the first discussion, I wouldn't dream of wanting to put my own criticism of S&R's really dreadful poll design in the article, but neither does it mean the article must praise it to the high heavens on the basis of bare publication.  LotLE × talk  03:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Lulu, I see nothing in WP:NPOV to support your claim. The surveys are discussed in many review papers, and have been recognized in print by experts on both sides of the debate without objection to their accuracy. A graph is much easier to understand than text or tables, which is a useful improvement. --Rikurzhen 04:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The S&R simply isn't even in the ballpark of meriting the amount of attention it is given. Even with the chart removed, the survey is a bit belabored.  But a big flashing neon sign advertising one badly designed survey (because it appears to support a hereditarian conclusion if you don't pay too close attention to the actual answers provided) is desperately out of proportion with the vanishing importance of the survey.


 * Please don't play silly games with mis-cited WP guidelines like WP:NOR. You and I both know perfectly well that the chart doesn't belong in a balanced article.  If I were to add some tangentially relevant pro-enviornmental discussin (based on real published material) and spend 1000 words on it; or put in a big picture (worth 1000 words, after all), that would equally violate undue weight.  LotLE × talk  04:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Lulu, you don't have any citations to back your claim that the S&R surveys are anything but the consensus view on what media portrayal is like. On what basis should we regard it as inappropriate for a descriptive figure? The only reason you appear to offer is that the graph happens to present the finding that the plurality of experts believe the gap is caused by "both". This is not a reason to not have a figure to explain the media portrayal disparity. --Rikurzhen 23:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Lulu's point is that it is being given undue weight, and is deceptive both in its presentation, and based on its biased poll design. Even calling it "consensus view" is suspicious -> and demanding that a counter-claim exist (rather than showing proof it is a consensus view) is the logical fallacy of proving a negative. --JereKrischel 01:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)




 * He does claim that it gives undue weight. If it were, it would surely not be giving undue weight to the notion that media portrayal is inaccurate, which is what I was claiming is the uncontested (in WP terms, consensus) view. If it were, it would be about whether the BW gap is caused by genes, environment, both, etc. But that is not the topic of the section where it occurs. The figure is describing media portrayal. Media portrayal is the content of the caption. Media portrayal is the section/context where it was inserted. So arguing that it gives undue weight to the hereditarian view is at least a step removed from a normal debate about "undue weight" (which is about giving undue weight to minority views). What I asked for was some kind of argument grounded in policy (or just good reasoning) that would be compelling to me that this was not merely personal preference that this data not be available to readers in a easy-to-read graph. What is not allowed in such an argument is the claim that the survey design in bad on the basis of only personal opinion -- such a claim would need to be made in a publication for us to act as if it might be bad. In a brief review of the literature, I failed to find any such criticism of the survey data. --Rikurzhen 08:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

expand Public controversy to include political controversy
We can: --Rikurzhen 01:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) expand the scope of the "controvesy" section to include "political" controversy (nearly synonymous with "public" and perhaps closer to the relevant meaning).
 * 2) the policy impilcations section could be moved there.
 * 3) it would also more easily hold the materials that UL et al are trying to document.
 * Not bad. Should be moved to the end of the article and include the implications section.Ultramarine 03:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it helps to maintain a topic-oriented structure (i.e., not having a separate section just for PF stuff), then I think it is a good idea. --Rikurzhen 03:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about "Public debate and policy implications"Ultramarine 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We can work on the title, perhaps by looking at the content after we put it together. For now, just go for it. --Rikurzhen 03:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did it. It can probably use some more attention. --Rikurzhen 04:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

npov tag 2
several days with the tag up appears to have only attracted vandals. what's the current status on this? --Rikurzhen 08:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rikurzhen, on this you're wrong: 498 of the last 500 edits have been by regular editors. I'd say it's attracted nothing but at lot of positive discussion. I vote to keep it up for awhile, at least until all the issues currently under discussion are resolved with consensus agreement. --Ramdrake 11:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was looking at the history of the talk page, instead of the article. Looking rapidly, I saw maybe four instances of vandalism since the tag went up, mostly by the same individual. I see lots worse everyday on the Cat page, which doesn't even have a NPOV tag to start with. --Ramdrake 12:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Most often Wikipedia discussions can be resolved without the help of NPOV tags. I see two specific points under discussion right now: the proposal to add criticism of RDiI's publisher, and the discussion questioning if the Snyderman and Rothman 1988 chart should be included (it's presently not included). This doesn't seem to warrant a tag.--Nectar 12:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe there are several more issues which need to be revisited and which also warrant the tag. Also, it is not unusual to have a NPOV tag up on an article for weeks instead of days (if not longer). Why the rush? --Ramdrake 16:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's also the discussion of whether to include in the intro the accusations of bias from both sides. Is that it, or can you itemize other points that need to be resolved? {POV-section} tags can often be used as a more accurate alternative to a blanket tag. The disadvantage of using unnecessary POV tags is that they interfere with reading the article.--Nectar 19:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Some other problems: 1. We should mention that there is very little difference genetic variation differen races as compared to variation in the same "race". 2. That this variation is greatest in Africa. 3. Remove the duplicate mentioning of genes that may or may not be involved in intelligence form the Race section. That section is about the race concept, not about IQ. In addition, undue weight.Ultramarine 19:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Any other points that can be itemized?--Nectar 10:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Race
1. The significance or non-significance of genetic differences can only be determined by phenotype analysis. (That humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas doesn't mean we're 50% the same as bananas.) 2. What's the direct significance of that point in terms of R&I?--Nectar 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * per Nectar's #1, the more salient point is that there is greater phenotypic variation within races than between -- a point which I believe we cover at length. (#2) greater (neutral) genetic variation in Africa is about human population history (out-of-Afria origin), and tells us nothing about African phenotypes -- for many physical traits Europeans are the most diverse group. --Rikurzhen 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The race section has to talk about the importance of natural selection to human (or any other species) evolution. The genome-wide signatures of selection are essential to that. That there are genes with neuronal function among those with a selection signature just ties in the relevance. --Rikurzhen 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The race section talks about the race concept. These genes are to few to prove anything about race as a concept.Ultramarine 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Each of the two recent genome-wide screens turned up like ~1k genes. I'm talking about Voight et al. (2006) and Wang et al. (2005), not the Lahn papers. The magnitude of the selection and the estimated time frame is the important point: We find widespread signals of selection in all three populations. These selective events are generally very recent, falling mainly within the Holocene era, and substantially postdating the separation of the three populations. -- The three populations are from Europe, E. Asia and Africa. There's a new review paper in science describing many more papers that looked at selection in the human lineage. --Rikurzhen 01:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I take for granted that the importance of selection to our understanding of "race" is obvious. --Rikurzhen 01:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the few brain genes.Ultramarine 18:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Voight et al. (2006) and Wang et al. (2005), not the Lahn papers. --Rikurzhen 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at Voight. Not a single mention of race.Ultramarine 05:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need to talk about "race" when you are talking about evolution in three populations from different continents. These papers are about the same thing that "race" is about. --Rikurzhen 06:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * " For the purpose of our analyses, we grouped the data into three distinct population samples of unrelated individuals, as follows (see Materials and Methods): 89 Japanese and Han Chinese individuals from Tokyo and Beijing, respectively, henceforth denoted as East Asian (ASN), 60 individuals of northern and western European origin (CEU), and 60 Yoruba (YRI) from Ibadan, Nigeria. " There is nothing here about the race concept and the races stated in the article.Ultramarine 01:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the place to discuss if races exist, not to present pro-genetic arguments. These studies are mentioned elsewhere in the article.Ultramarine 01:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Ultramarine, races are genetically non-identical for two reasons: drift and selection. A section on race is not complete without discussing selection. 2. Voight et al. discusses selection between racial groups (East Asians, Europeans, and Africans).--Nectar 01:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Selection in general is mentioned. Undue weight to repeat pro-genetic arguments stated elsewhere.Ultramarine 01:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine, this section on race discusses it in the context of race and intelligence, because this is the race and intelligence article. Accordingly, the section discusses the issue of race in general, but specifically it's concern is race in the context of the brain (because intelligence derives from the brain). For this reason, race in the context of the brain is specifically relevant to the section.--Nectar 01:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This section is not a mini-article on race and IQ within the race and IQ article. It is an section on if races exist. No need to duplicate pro-genetic arguments here stated elsewhere.Ultramarine 02:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a reason why the section is in the article, though, and that's because it's centrally relevant to race and intelligence. For this reason, the race section does not discuss race in terms of height or heart function -- it discusses race in terms of intelligence. If your criteria for removal is that text "benefits" one side more than another, than we would need to move the argument that race does not exist into the cultural explanations section.--Nectar 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, this particular section is about the race concept in general. Arguments about that belongs in the section. It is not the place to repeat the whole article about race and IQ. These studies are not about whether races exist and are mentined elsewhere. One place is enough. Ultramarine 02:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Re:Again, this particular section is about the race concept in general.
 * Are you sure about that? The section is more concerned with race in the context of the brain than in the context of height, right? (The section deals with the question of race in general and the question of race in the brain in specific; this is why some researchers argue differential selection didn't extend to the interal organs.)
 * 2. Re:It is not the place to repeat the whole article about race and IQ.
 * As per standard practice, topics get mentioned in sections that are dependent on them.
 * 3. Re:These studies are not about whether races exist
 * Part of the question of race is whether differential selection was limited to direct climatological differences or extends to the internal organs. That's why it's important to note selection on the brain.--Nectar 03:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, the section is contrasted with the later IQ section and both gives background on IQ and race, separately. The linked main articles are the general articles about IQ and Race. The intersection of IQ and Race are discussed in the rest of the article.
 * 2. See 1.
 * 3. The studies do not mention race. They may assume that races exist, but they do not discuss or give background to this assumption and concept. Theories about race and brains belongs in the rest of the article, see 1. Or are you arguing that this is also the place to discuss Rushton's R/K theory?Ultramarine 03:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The extent of differential selection defines the scope of the debate on race. While the jury is still out on whether or not race can be said to "exist", it does exist in the limited sense of socially defined racial groups exhibiting differential selection in areas related to behavior. As long as the section contains the claim that race doesn't exist, it's worthwhile to define what that means in terms of genetic differences.--Nectar 10:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * the contemporary debates about race are mostly of a "hillist versus mountainist" variety. (is that elevated land a "hill" or a "mountain"? ... is that population a "race" or somthing else?) the population genetics data is of importance regardless of what you decide to call the groups that emerge from the confluence of social labels and biogeography. --Rikurzhen 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the real challenge isn't whether or not a population can be called a "hill" or a "mountain", but whether or not you can take something like the State of California, and simplify its diverse geographic layout into one lowland area, and take mainlaind china, and simplify its diverse geographic layout into one mountainous area. In each area, there are lowlands, mountains, highlands, rivers, etc - overwhelming diversity within the two areas, compared to the difference between the two in aggregate.


 * Ancestry is interesting when it comes to human genetics, but "race" is a social construct, that maps poorly to the genetic data. --JereKrischel 20:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * JereKrischel, you shouldn't interject discussion that isn't based on published opinions. I'm describing the literature, you're desribing your opinions about race. The hill/mountain language comes from the philosophy of biology problem of species demarcation, which is often compared to the race issue (for obvious reasons). Lions and tigers are arguably different species (but they are genetically not so distinct, they interbreed, etc.). Saying so doesn't mean that all tigers are the same and all lions are the same, it doesn't say that lions and tigers have essential traits, etc. Dogs (dog breeds, plus wolves, foxes, etc.) present a similar problem in Phil Bio. On the second paragraph, this has been addressed in recent years by Neil Risch and others (see for example Tang 2005) -- his conclusions are quite differnet than yours. --Rikurzhen 21:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but my analogy was in response to yours - (or do you have a cite for "hillist versus mountainist"?) - and it is based on the published literature, not merely my own opinion. I'm more than happy to search for a specific citation that attacks the idea of race because of the large variation within these arbitrary categories, but I think you already know of a few.


 * That being said, I was trying to find common ground with you - I think our sources can both agree that genetic ancestry can be a useful construct. Where our sources differ is whether or not it becomes useful in the arbitrary aggregate, be it through external or internal social identification.  My apologies if it came across the wrong way! --JereKrischel 21:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Without being obtuse, the utility of a concept is an empirical matter. The utility of race (or species) is what it is. Whether you should call the social-biological categories of human population structure "races" is the hillist/moutainist part of the debate. The fact that populations have undergone recent selection is important to understanding this population structure, whether or not you call it race. So there's no reason to limit the description in this section to the hillist/mountainist debate. --Rikurzhen 21:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, the utility of a concept is an empirical matter - the problem is when the mismatch between a concept and the actual data is misrepresented. If we concentrated on what we really mean, rather than trying to conflate it with ambiguous terms (such as "race"), I think we'd be better off.  Much of the disagreement here is probably due to the fact that people are trying to use ambiguous concepts to map to clear ones - perhaps we can chalk it up to the dumbing down of society on all levels... --JereKrischel 04:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI -- "hillist vs mountainist" -- ''All sides in the race debate agree that humans can be grouped by descent in many ways, that relative to some groupings they vary genotypically, and that genetic variance plays some causal role in phenotypic variance. Given this much agreement, which groups if any to call "races" looks like a purely verbal question, on par with which ground elevations are high enough to call "hills."'' -- --Rikurzhen 09:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

arbitrarily
JK wrote: Worldwide, human populations can be arbitrarily geographically bounded into five less than perfectly distinct continental areas

this change is not supported by the reference for that section: --Rikurzhen 19:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Racial profiling for traffic stops-???
Nectar, can you explain this one to me? I fail to see the rationale of this one, and if it's a fringe explanation, I'd prefer we mention another one that's more mainstream... Racial profiling for traffic stops-??? What the -? --Ramdrake 11:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, his list is probably best looked at at the level of his categories rather than at the level of the sometimes obscure individual points. The category that one is in is 'Criminal justice,' which suggests differential rates of incarceration as a potential influence in the gap.


 * "31. Racial Profiling for Traffic Stops
 * "The traffic stop is the most frequent type of interaction between police and citizens. Racial profiling for traffic stops and differential treatment during those stops has an economic effect. For example, citations cost more than warnings immediately, and also result in surcharges on car insurance premiums. It also has a non-economic effect, in terms of loss of respect for the local police which in turn may lead to less community cooperation with police on public safety problems. (McDevitt, J. & Bailey, L. “Looking deeper at racial profiling” Boston Globe, August 2, 2003, page A19.)"

--Nectar 20:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What is "hispanic" ?
Spliting humanity into those 4 "races" is absurd and US-centric. Or do you plan to create one article for each country's own stereotypes ? pemelet
 * US : White, Asian, Hispanic, Black
 * France : Nordic, Latin, Black, Arab
 * Rwanda : Hutu, Tutsi, White

evolution, neutral, selection, function, fitness
logical fallacy - recent natural selection does not imply functional differences, especially if most differences are neutral

not fallacious. the definition of "neutral" is not affecting fitness, and thus not subject to "selection". (neutral, or nearly neutral variants can be functional, so long as they didn't affect fitness.) the only variants that can be "selected" for are those that affect fitness, and thus are functional. the logcial relationships are: neutral --> not selection ... selection --> functional. --Rikurzhen 00:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * i.e. "Neutral" is the zero point on the "selection" scale. --Rikurzhen 01:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on that... functional differences between populations would ensue from evolution under selection unless all groups arrived at functionally identical end points. --Rikurzhen 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fitness and functional differences seem to be two completely different things, and the article conflated them in a confusing way. If a region was suddenly swept by malaria, natural selection may favor those with sickle cell hemoglobin, but to assert that this represents a functional difference is misleading - a person with sickle cell hemoglobin, and a person without it, could, by all measures (especially intelligence) be identical.  Simply put, fitness is a matter of survival of specific pressures, whereas functional differences may not be related to survival at all.  Differences between separated populations can also be attributed to genetic drift, unrelated to selective pressures (although how one would assert the difference between the two gene by gene is difficult).


 * If anything, recent natural selection implies that any functional differences continue to be under pressure, and old ideas of "race" based on arbitrary points in time hundreds of thousands of years ago are terribly simplistic and inapplicable. --JereKrischel 05:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * JereKrischel, none of the points you just made support the claim that selection does not imply functional differences. What exactly are you trying to get at with them. --Rikurzhen 06:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The weasel wording, I think, revolved around the sentence structure, which seemed to assert that "recent natural selection" has led to "functional differences between populations", which stronly implied that such functional differences are measurable in terms of intelligence. A more accurate statement is that "natural selection" can lead to "selection of positive traits within various environments" (no specifics regarding what those traits may or may not be), and that recent natural selection seems to contra-indicate the utility of ancient "races" used to categorize people.  The wording of the sentence previously seemed to be confusing and misleading. --JereKrischel 07:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * [DB error ate my response] -- don't interject personal opinions or theories. positive selection doesn't equate with "positive traits" where positive is normative. the concept that races are immutable is pre-Darwinian (along with the concept that species are immutable -- special creation). no researchers described in this article hold that view. regarding your talk page comment on this: old ideas of "race" based on arbitrary points in time hundreds of thousands of years ago -- you've got the dates off by an order of magnitude -- the populations were diverging tens of thousands of years ago. --Rikurzhen 17:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Rushton certainly holds that view, given his assertion that the world can be categorized based on dates hundreds of thousands of years ago (200,000, 110,000 and 41,000 years ago, respectively). The cite you gave specifically mentioned "positive natural selection":

"Positive natural selection is the force that drives the increase in prevalence of advantageous traits, and it has played a central role in our development as a species"
 * This is not OR, nor my opinion - it comes directly from your citation. --JereKrischel 19:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Recent selection doesn't indicate deep population history has been erased, but it does indicate functional differences between populations. The point of the reference in that section is that there are functional differences; it's not necessary to speculate on differences being advantageous compared with each other.--Nectar 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The reference says specifically it refers to positive natural selection of advantageous traits. It does not state that there are functional differences.  It is misleading to state that there are functional differences, since in the context of the article (intelligence), it implies that the reference found differences on the magnitude of measurable IQ.  This is clearly not the case.  I'm open to compromise wording, but it seems OR and weasel wording in the form you're reverting to. --JereKrischel 19:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, population history isn't "erased", it is overlaid. If positive natural selection occurs in terms of thousands of years, instead of tens and hundreds of thousands of years, using ancient ideas of race are obsolete - any differences made 200,000 years ago have been overlaid by differences selected for 5,000 years ago, yielding a population picture not accurately portrayed by the ancient categories - unless you think there are certain traits that once selected for are immutable... --JereKrischel 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(1) What's OR is the discussion of "immutable" races. (2) Positive selection just means selection for an allele, in contrast to negative selection, balancing selection, etc. Selection can't work without functional consequences. Your additions (the quote, etc.) aren't clarifying that the traits selected for aren't known. (3) Humans evolved in Africa ~200-100kya, but didn't start to populate the rest of world until the last ~100kya, with a lot of the branching done in the last 50k years. --Rikurzhen 20:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

JerekRischel, you're edits are still clouding the text. "However" isn't a weasel word. The opposite of "neutral" is "selection". This contrast is important in the paragraph.

You changed
 * The traits that were selected for are mostly unknown, but inferences are made based on known functions of these genes.

into
 * Specific expressions of the combination of genes that have been selected for over time in various environments is unknown, but some make inferences based on known functions of individual genes.

What is the point of this change? It only appears to obscure the meaning. --Rikurzhen 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The meaning is misleading in the older version, and OR. The inferences made based on the distribution of specific genes (like the one for microencephaly), have nothing to do with the positive selection of advantageous traits asserted by the citation.  We should actually split the entire thing into two sentences, and remove the "but". --JereKrischel 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The inferences made based on the distribution of specific genes (like the one for microencephaly), have nothing to do with the positive selection of advantageous traits asserted by the citation. -- If I understand you correctly, then you are mistaken. The text as I wrote it was coherent, factually accurate, and AFAIK not biased towards any particular theory. As you have written it, it confuses me greatly. "Expression" of a gene is a term you should avoid as it is ambiguous. What was clear in my version is that selection is the opposite of neutral and what was being selected for [in the past] can only be inferred by what we can examine in the present (where the first pass look is at known biological functions such as GO categories). --Rikurzhen 22:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The text you wrote did OR, trying to bridge a gap between two very different studies, and making an assertion that evidence of recent natural selection (one set of studies regarding positive natural selection and advantageous traits) is support for inferences made regarding specific gene studies and possible expressions.


 * Conflating these two things is OR, and IHMO, inaccurate OR. A study which shows recent positive natural selection (as opposed to genetic drift), does not support inferences regarding biogeographic distribution of specific genes, nor their possible expression.


 * You wrote: "It is well known that many alleles vary in frequency across human populations. Most of this variation is selectively neutral and has no obvious phenotypic effect. However, a significant portion of human genes show evidence of recent natural selection. The traits that were selected for are mostly unknown, but inferences are made based on known functions of these genes."


 * 1) Showing recent natural selection is not a "however" regarding predominantly selectively neutral variation - they do not contraindicate each other. 2) "The traits" is ambiguous as to what traits it is referring to - if based on the study being cited, or other studies unrelated (and I think unfairly conflated since the inferences are drawn from other specific studies).  3) if "the traits" are mostly unknown, how can we know the functions of these genes??  All in all, a difficult and confusing read.  --JereKrischel 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely lots of confusion. The text as I had it was correct. You've introduced new ideas that shouldn't be there.

However points out that neutral and selection should be contrasted. "Most people are short. However, some people are tall." is better than "Most people are short. Some people are tall."

"Selection for" is about a trait, which is what is the subject of the selection. The statistical tests that tell you selection has happened on a region of the genome don't tell you what was being selected. It does tell you that the gene in that region is responsible for the trait that is being selected for. Thus, the normal function of a gene (that shows a signature of selection) is the first guess at the trait that is being selected for. The function of these genes are known from biological research that has been done to understand gene function in a completely separate context. --Rikurzhen 03:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * neutral and seclection should not be contrasted - neutral selection could be contrasted to positive selection, and it would be more clear.


 * How can a statistical test tell you what "the trait" is while still being unsure of what gene in that region was specifically responsible? It seems you're confusing things here (the study of specific genes, and the study of positive natural selection), and the two should be kept separate. --JereKrischel 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the statistical tests can't tell you what trait is being selected for. It only tells you that some region of the genome experienced selection in the ancestry of some population. But because we already know the functions of many genes, we can guess that the trait being selected for is at least one (of possibly many) that the gene affects. So if you see selection acting on MC1R, then you can guess that the trait selected for has something to do with skin/hair color, but that's a very loose hypothesis. When the gene is a dopamine receptor, then you can guess something neurological was being selected for. Figuring out what was actually being selected for is quite difficult, but the normal function of a gene is the starting point. This may become moot depending on what resolves from the Nectar/UL discussion above. --Rikurzhen 20:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, you start off with "some region of the genome", and OR yourself down to a specific gene. The study regarding positive natural selection is distinctly different than the study of specific neuronal gene frequencies. --JereKrischel 20:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Two studies??? there are half a dozen studies being summarized here. each of the most important has data on allele frequencies in a number of racially different populations. the various papers are mostly different in on whether they are broad and shallow or narrow and deep. but they are all the same kind of study -- population genetics -- at the most basic level of description. --Rikurzhen 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I meant to contrast the one study which summarized half a dozen studies, and the Lahn study which you seem to be alluding to with neuronal frequencies. The two are very different. --JereKrischel 20:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Wang paper (not Lahn) is the one that found that neuronal genes are over represented (more than would be expected by chance) among genes showing signatures of selection. (Lahn only looking at 2 genes, is less important in this section). The Voight paper also finds many neuronal genes but not enough to say they are "over represented" (the tests used by Wang and Voight had different power/specificity). --Rikurzhen 20:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wang or Lahn, it isn't Sabeti et al. 2006. Again, you're conflating two very different studies, and that's OR, and IMHO mistaken. --JereKrischel 21:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sabeti 2006 isn't an original research paper, it's a review paper, which describes the results of previously published research papers, including Wang. If by two different papers, you mean the review paper and the original papers, then that's an totally irrevant distinction. --Rikurzhen 21:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference to the Wang paper? It isn't mentioned in the abstract of Sabeti you referenced. --JereKrischel 04:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Wang paper cited in the review is this one, Wang ET, Kodama G, Baidi P, Moyzis RK PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 103 (1): 135-140 JAN 3 2006; Moyzis is the reprint author and you may be able to get a copy of the paper from him. --JonathanE 07:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The amount of selection found by the hapmap papers isn't just "some", it's an amount of selection that is comparable to the greatest amounts of selection previously documented (domesticated plants and animals). --Rikurzhen 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're going to say "most", then "some" seems appropriate - would you rather say, "nearly all" and "a significant portion"? --JereKrischel 20:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * By virue of basic biology, neutral variants will predominate any mammalian genome. The interesting finding is the magnitude of the selection. --Rikurzhen 20:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we're supposed to try and highlight what we feel is "interesting" here. That sounds like OR.  --JereKrischel 21:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OR means making an original argument. The discussion section of Wang describes the importance of their results. --Rikurzhen 21:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you quote them directly, instead of stepping into what seems like OR territory? --JereKrischel 04:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Copied from the Wang et al 2006. --Rikurzhen 07:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In conclusion, we have introduced a simple probabilistic method to detect unusual genetic architectures associated with recent selection that does not require haplotype information. It is, therefore, suitable for large chromosomal scans with large population samples. Homo sapiens have undoubtedly undergone strong recent selection for many different phenotypes, including but certainly not limited to the general categories we have defined in this work (Fig. 5). Such inferred selective events are not rare (Fig. 3). The numbers obtained, however, are similar to estimated numbers obtained for artificial selection (by humans) on the maize genome (45). Given that most of these selective events likely occurred in the last 10,000–40,000 years, a time of major population expansion out of Africa followed by regional shifts from hunter–gatherer to agrarian societies, it is tempting to speculate that gene–culture interactions directly or indirectly shaped our genomic architecture (46, 47). As such, we suggest that such recently selected alleles may provide useful ‘‘markers’’ for investigating the evolutionary migrations of our species, as an adjunct to studies using neutral markers. We also propose that many of these alleles, because of their high prevalence and recent selection, should be considered likely ‘‘functional candidates’’ for association with human variability and the common disorders afflicting humankind.


 * There is a need to be cautious about this work, however according to Teshima KM, Coop G, Przeworski M (2006) How reliable are empirical genomic scans for selective sweeps? "One implication of these results is that, insofar as attributes of the beneficial mutation ( e. g., the dominance coefficient) affect the power to detect targets of selection, genomic scans will yield an unrepresentative subset of loci that contribute to adaptations." Which if true means that the results of those studies (including Wang et al) have to be treated with caution.--JonathanE 07:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * the paper... True, true. There are definitely power issues. However, the major implication is that the true extent of selection is actually being underestimated, and may be even greater. The fact that Voight and Wang are not greatly overlapping speaks to the extent of false negatives. --Rikurzhen 07:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the warning wrt categories of genes showing a selection signature. Again, false negatives are the concern: --Rikurzhen 08:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The ability to detect recent directional selection from polymorphism data depends on the recombination environment of the selected site (Supplemental Fig. S5), the dominance coefficient of the favorable allele (Fig. 5), the selection coefficient of the favorable allele (Supplemental Fig. S4), and whether the allele was favored from introduction or not (Figs. 3 and 5). Thus, if a candidate region does not stand out in empirical comparisons, it may be that there is little power to detect the mode of selection acting on it. This possibility has important implications for the interpretation of genomic scans of polymorphism data. Ultimately, we would like to use the results of genome scans to make inferences about which phenotypes were recently selected, and how selective pressures differ between populations. But we know that phenotypes differ in their genetic architectures, and thus the power to detect selection on different phenotypes may vary considerably. This raises the possibility that biological processes (e.g., GO categories) picked up in genomic scans are not those on which there was the most selection but those on which selection tended to act on new, co-dominant mutations in regions of low recombination.


 * Is it just me, or are there no direct mentions of "race" in those cites you're giving from Wang? I'm starting to think that Ultramarine was right - the mention of those studies in the "Race" section seems like OR at best, and misrepresentation at its worst...remember, we've got people who are more than willing to assert that population groups can differ genetically, but bristle at the assertion that this maps directly onto classical notions of "race". --JereKrischel 09:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That is the topic of that thread. My objection to UL is that population genetics is about the thing that "race" is about. Hence, you don't need to let the hillist/mountainist debate keep you from describing the other relevant data. --Rikurzhen 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

JK, per my edit comment, they are talking about past selection, not current differences. From above: Ultimately, we would like to use the results of genome scans to make inferences about which phenotypes were recently selected, and how selective pressures differ between populations. That's what they are studying. --Rikurzhen 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Point by point
I'm just going to list the changes, as they occur in the left column of this edit:

1. "can be arbitrarily geographically bounded" - Discussed above.

2. "Nearly all" vs. "most" -Discussed above.

3. "Of this variation" - Unnecessary.

4. "positive/directional selection" by definition indicates selection for advantageous traits.

5. "Some of the studies make inferences on possible differences between populations based on known functions of individual genes that have shown selection with biogeographic distributions."

- This seems less concise and clear than the other version.

6. "The nature of the selective pressure which led to these variants is unknown, and any specific effects of these differing frequencies, if any, on IQ is unknown."

-The other version already seems clear, and this version is 3 times the length. --Nectar 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

npov3
Nectar, I still don't see that all the points raised have been addressed. At least two more that I don't think have been resolved:

1. Mention of the Pioneer Fund in the intro. 2. A systematic bias which sets arguments to try to prove that race exists, that there is a genetic cause to the gap, whereas we should be simply reporting them.

The NPOV tag needs to remain, unless you want to put it to a poll of editors (to which I certainly don't object).--Ramdrake 14:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Done. Perhaps it'll be discussed later whether it's genuinely necessary.
 * 2. Substantiation of the supposed bias has been requested, but hasn't occured. POV tags aren't necessary in order for discussion to occur, so if more discussion is needed, there's no problem continuing that.
 * The moderate editors on the environmental side have in the past stated they don't think a tag is necessary.--Nectar 14:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1.ok the edit is in.
 * 2. POV tags certainly aren't necessary in order for discussion to occur, but in my opinion this article is still biased. The fact that discussion is ongoing to try to attenuate the bias does not mean that the bias has ceased to exist. Besides, what is important here is the opinion of the current editors of this page. I formally object to the removal of the tag as I find it premature. If there is a majority consensus to remove, I will of course abide by it. For now, i don't see it. And lastly but not least, the "supposed" bias is actually rather well documented by the repeated attempts of several editors on the environment side (or the mostly-environment side) to remove blocks of text on the basis that they weren,t germane to a discussion of race and intelligence, only to be reverted and answered that this or that block is needed to "prove the existence of races", or "the existence of so-and-so". This article doesn't stop at reporting the different positions on the subject: it documents and supports a specific viewpoint (the pro-genetic stance, and the prerequisite existence of races and their concordance to the existing social construct of races). In other words, it obviously takes sides and is violating NPOV.--Ramdrake 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * When an article has been edited and discussed by many editors over a period of 16 months, new proposals may need to convince other editors of their value before being implemented, so proposals failing to do so is not in itself evidence of article bias. What I mean by substantiate is can you itemize the points in the article that are of concern and present an argument of how each violates neutral presentation. (Your assurances that the article is in fact biased are not sufficient substantiation.) --Nectar 16:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, then you've made your point that you disagree with my position. Let's hear from the other current editors. When I have time, I'll sift through the history of the article page and submit a few instances of exactly what I mean. --Ramdrake 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If the article is enormously POV it should be simple to give examples. The intro is comparatively quite short; if a large-scale dispute that would warrant a tag for the intro can't be substantiated then a {POV-body} tag would be more accurate. If the idea is articles should have POV tags unless every party finds them to be perfect, then you should tag most of Wikipedia's articles.--Nectar 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nectar, my point is simple: Be patient. Give time enough to the other users to weigh in also (like a day or two, rather than coming back every hour or so). Judging by the first edit from Lulu, I would say my opinion may represent a constituency of more than one editor. There is nothing wrong with leaving the NPOV tag while we make sure that all the points are addressed and we have consensus approval. Some articles have the NPOV tag up front for weeks if not months, and nobody thinks any the less of them.--Ramdrake 17:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I tend to think Ramdrake has some points here. Of course, today was not the first edit I made to this article, nor only the hundredth edit for that matter.  I've just been trying to avoid the article because of the huge difficulty in reducing the POV that I found 6+ months ago.  Per Ramdrake, the article really does read like it's trying to "make the argument" that race exists and is highly correlated with IQ in mostly genetic ways... that is, rather than simply report on what some scientists have argued about this.  On the other hand, I am wary about these tags put up on articles; often they are put there with a kind of "punitive" intention toward articles, rather than to really resolve anything.  Nonetheless, this tag hardly needs be removed "within the hour", a couple days to see if progress can be made seems quite reasonable.  LotLE × talk  19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the discussion. No progress can be made without communication of the putative NPOV problems. --Rikurzhen 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Media portrayal
Let me see what I can do with the section. The situation has definitely changed since it's been moved below the expert opinion section. --Nectar


 * I don't think we need to repeat the S&R reference/discussion. At most we can refer up (or down) to where it is discussed with a single sentence.  But the "stereotype threat" thing I honestly haven't the foggiest idea what it is even trying to claim.  It's not that I disagree, it just looks like gibberish.  Apparently someone allegedly misunderstood something at some point, but that's about the most I can get out of it.  But from what I can guess, it seems to be about some sort of alleged subtly wrong interpretation of some obscure technical point (by somebody)... none of which really sounds like something that needs discussing in an already overly long article.  LotLE × talk  21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ironically, that's probably an accurate description of media portrayal. Ceteris paribus, shorter is better, but zero is too little. --Rikurzhen 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

1st paragraph of the introduction to "Culture or genetic explanation": issue of legibility
The paragraph says this:


 * The most widely accepted view among intelligence researchers is that IQ differences among individuals of the same race reflect real, functionally/socially significant, and substantially genetic differences in the general intelligence factor, g. It is likewise widely believed that average IQ differences among races reflect real and significant differences in the same g factor. While these conclusions are largely beyond technical dispute, the nature of g is still an active area of research.

Basically it says this: ''IQ differences among individuals in the same race are acknowledged to reflect (...) differences in g. Likewise, average IQ differences among races reflect differences in the same g factor. While these conclusions are true, what g represents (its nature) is still being researched.''

In other words, it says IQ differences are due to differences in g but it isn't clear yet what g means. Thus the conclusion is we're not sure what the differences in IQ really mean. I'm oversimplifying, but please believe me that this is what the average reader will get out of this... zippo, no offense intended.

What was intended was:


 * Differences in IQ have real, social and functional consequences, both within and across races. Within a same race, we know a good part of the IQ result is genetic, which may or may not be true across races. Researchers think IQ is a good indicator of some kind of overall pure number that relates closely to actual intelligence (g),but that is still under some dispute.

Very unencyclopedic way to put it, but much easier to grasp.--Ramdrake 22:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

All told, I believe a part of the problem can be ascribed to the legibility of the text, especially when it discusses highly technical issues. The above is just one prime example. --Ramdrake 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That the fundamental nature of g is unknown does not mean that "we're not sure what the differences in IQ really mean". We do not know the fundamental nature of gravity (e.g. quantum gravity), but that does not mean that we don't understand a lot about it. The same is true with g, which should have been introduced in the "intelligence" background section. If the background section is not clear on g, then we should make improvements there. --Rikurzhen 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Rikurzhen -- I know. What I was trying to demonstrate here is that the paragraph is the conflation of two very different ideas (the significance and causes of differences in IQ, and the relationship of IQ to real-world intelligence - through "g"). It is this paragraph that conflates both ideas in a way which may lead to misinterpretation. It's all right if you don't agree - I'm just telling you why I think people who read this article often come away with a very negative reaction. --Ramdrake 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not what I thought you were pointing out. But on that point the two are not "conflated" not necessarily linked. g is about differences in intelligence, and the real world importance of intelligence is about differences in g. Maybe you should try to make your point again? --Rikurzhen 01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe the part about what g is might belong in another paragraph somewhere else in the article. That way the paragraph would just state what differences in IQ (socially and functionnally, mostly) mean and what the majority of researchers think is the cause of these differences. That differences in IQ mean something in life because they are related to differences in g which is the variable that experts associate with functionial issues is scientifically correct, but not needed to make the point for the layman. Sorry, but this is as clear as I can make this explanation.--Ramdrake 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's certainly an idea worth entertaining. The current formulation is built to specifically contrast what's known about within versus between race differences, so that that distinction is fresh in the readers minds (e.g. within race heritability doesn't logically compel between race heritability). Everywhere g is used we could just as well say "general cognitive abililty" or "intelligence". --Rikurzhen 05:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

pf - all vs many
this was discussed 16 July 2006. charles murray is not a pioneer grantee. neither, afaik, is sandra scarr. moreover, it's not safe or appropriate to draw conclusions like that without a good source of data to back it up.

more importantly, nectar's edits were a perfectally appropriate summarization. --Rikurzhen 18:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Murray has only published a popular books using reserch by others. What article by Sandr Scarr has supported the pro-genetic side? Ultramarine 18:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Charles Murray is yet another one of the Pioneer grantees. . And I'm pretty sure I wouldn't characterize Sandra Scarr as one of the leading proponents of the hereditarian stance. She is recognized in the field as being "mostly-environmental" in her stance. I say the "all" stays.--Ramdrake 18:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Murray's name has appeared in such constant conjunction with PF that we need to doubt information in a random press release. If he were funded, his name would be on the PF web site, or one of the other sites that list grantees. According to Jensen (1998), Scarr concludes the series of minnesotra transracial adoption study papers by concluding that the best explanation is a mixture of environment and genetics. Your attempt to disregard Scarr (or anyone else that I might claim is pro-hereditarianism) is a violation of NOR. Either the claim that all leading proponents were funded must be cited directly or it has to go. --Rikurzhen 18:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

a
 * Then, let me state a precedent in Wikipedia, which has been upheld: on the Intelligent Design, it is stated that "all major proponents of Intelligent Design are affiliated with the Discovery Institute", and that has been challenged over and again, and has been proven NOT to be OR, but just a normal conclusion from the data. And if Murray's name has appeared in such constant conjunction with PF, maybe he's funded by it. Alternately, we could rephrase and say that all major proponents of the hereditarian stance have ties with the Pioneer Fund (through funding or otherwise). The fact that we cannot find one major proponent of the hereditarian stance that's not funded by PF means that so far there isn't. The Lynns, Jensens, Rushtons, etc (you know better than I do who they are) are all receiving (or have received) nice chunks of money from the PF. --Ramdrake 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * According to fast scan, this is what Rushton states: "Scarr and Weinberg (1976) interpreted the results of the testing at age 7 as support for the culture-only position." "Weinberg et al. (1992) interpreted their follow-up results as further support for the culture-only theory." Now Rushton thinks that they are wrong and that the data support his position. I do not see how this makes them pro-genetic supporters.Ultramarine 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (Re Ramdrake) If Murray's "tie" to Pioneer is just that he's cited research funded by it, that's not a notable connection, and with such a low threshold there would be many figures who would meet that criteria. (Keep in mind most of Murray's work has not been related to race and intelligence.)
 * Templer and Arikawa haven't AFAIK received Pioneer funding. Their latest partially genetic paper was the most downloaded paper in Intelligence on ScienceDirect from Jan. to March. See also  and . --Nectar 19:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (Ask if you want quotes to verify these are pro partially genetic.--Nectar 19:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC))
 * A paper that has only been cited by one paper by Lynn cannot be very important.Ultramarine 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * 1. Murray I don't think can be called a leading researcher in the field (you said yourself that most of his work has not been related to race and intelligence), in addition to the fact that the "Bell Curve" was much more of a subject review than original scientific research. Lastly there is still this reference that says he is funded by PF.
 * 2. AFAIK, this is Templer's and Arikawa's first paper on the subject. Again, I wouldn't call them leading researchers in the field yet.
 * Willingly or not, you seem to be obscuring the fact that the main researchers in this field (who are cited over and over in this article) are all funded (at least in part) by PF. Trying to add names of people who aren't prominent researchers in the field, or aren't really in the field except for one piece of work, doesn't change the fact.--Ramdrake 19:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine, there are limits to that methodology, particularly in a very specialized field. The paper's one citation puts it ahead of the other five original papers in that recent issue (March-April 2006), none of which have received citations, and the paper and its commentaries did take up half of that issue (giving it significant presence in the literature).
 * 1. Ramdrake, Murray is a leading figure in the field by virtue of the significance of his work. An unsubstantiated assertion by a nobody with a webpage doesn't amount to much. There are numerous organizations dedicated to documenting these kinds of connections and they hate Charles Murray as much as they hate anyone.
 * 2. Did you look at the papers I linked to? The other two also take partially genetic positions, and Templer has written on this subject at least once before.
 * It's misleading to imply the field is composed entirely of Pioneer grantees. It's as well pretty dubious to picture researchers like Loehlin and Bouchard in the same category as Rushton and Jensen regarding Pioneer grants when the single grants Loehlin and Bouchard each received were for mainstream studies in behavior genetics, co-funded by many organizations. Did the funding from the National Institute of Mental Health also "bias" their results? One paper by Bouchard lists in addition to Pioneer the following funders of the project he directed: The Seaver Institute, The University of Minnesota Graduate School, The Koch Charitable Foundation, The Spencer Foundation, The National Science Foundation (BNS-7926654), The National Institute of Mental Health (MH37860), The National Institute on Aging (AG06886), and the Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishing Company. --Nectar 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1.Nectar, one (or two, the second never having been cited by anyone else then possibly one of the authors) paper still doesn't make these people leading researchers in the field, although they may become exactly that.
 * 2. The work by Murray is mostly citing other people's work. I still have problems calling it "research".
 * 3. Case in point, Loehlin sits on the board of directors of PF . IMHO, it's even more misleading to say that "many" researchers holding the hereditarian stance have received PF funding, when in fact we are debating whether there is at least just one of the leading researchers who hasn't. It's much more than many, it's at the very least "nearly all if not all". --Ramdrake 20:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Even Jensen has difficulty finding something positive about the paper in the commentaries and it is dismissed by Sternberg.Ultramarine 20:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Which begs the question if all those downloads of this paper were proof of positive attention (a very good paper) or negative attention (an example of very bad research). The numbers don't say, and I don't think anybody has the data necessary to answer the question without making any assumptions. The absence (or near-absence) of other papers citing this research since its original publication (except the commentaries in the original publication issue) over a year ago is conspicuous.--Ramdrake 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (Re Ramdrake) 1. Right, the point is that their papers count as significant work in the field. There are 3 papers by these authors linked to above that advocate the partially genetic hypothesis. Some papers in sub-areas of specialized areas will receive no direct citations, but that shouldn't be confused with having no significance.
 * 2. I think we mean 'proponents' of the partially genetic hypothesis, as the research that gets drawn from includes much research funded by other scientists who certainly haven't been funded by Pioneer.
 * 3. Re: "Case in point..." Loehlin doesn't sit on the board of directors; you linked to a bibliography page. The page that lists the board of directors can be viewed here.
 * Right, the claim we're making is that the paper had a large impact, not that the paper wasn't controversial. Jensen's review was positive, and the authors' response to Sternberg shouldn't be ignored. The paper was published in March-April 2006, but has been available online since Nov. (less, not more, than a year). A portion of researchers may review the lengthy online lists of in press articles in the journals they read, but the general practice in the literature is to attribute a paper's publication date as being the date it enters the literature. If we want to compare the amount of direct citations this paper has received, why don't we look at the literature instead of just speculating? The other articles in that issue received 0 citations.  Of the articles in the previous issue (Jan.-Feb.) one recieved 2 citations, once received 1 citation, and the others received 0 citations.--Nectar 21:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If the claim is Lynn, Rushton and Jensen have received large grants from PF, that's fine. If the claim is that many prominent supports received grants from PF, that's fine. But we now have several obvious counter examples. (Trying to dismiss the counter examples as either not being pro-hereditarianism enough or not prominent enough is certainly beyond the scope of the ID-Discovery connection. --- UL, the reference for Scarr's final conclusion is described in Jensen 1998.) This would all be circumvented by using nectar's suggestion. --Rikurzhen 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim is that all the important researchers in the field are or have been funded by PF. I would possibly settle for "nearly all" if you insist, but that's as far as I would go. All the names that have been thrown up could be easily dismissed: Scarr is not in the pro-hereditarian camp (she supports the pro-environmental camp, at least in her own words - dismissing what others have said her results support), Murray, although he has written an immensely popular wide-readership book, hasn't to my knowledge, published much if anything as far as peer-reviewed original research is concerned (correct me if I'm wrong), and Loehlin is at least a grantee of PF. The claim, again, is that the leading researchers representing the hereditarian stance have all received monies from the PF. So, these must be leading (i.e. the name is well-known in the field) researchers (published in peer-reviewed journals - PF funds research, not book publishing) that have adhered to the hereditarian stance (i.e. that there is significant genetic component to the B-W gap). --Ramdrake 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It does benefit your side to present the field very narrowly, trying to present advocates as being isolated perhaps, but it does so at the expense of accuracy. Support for the partially genetic position is broad, and Pioneer doesn't even get mentioned in the expert literature that plays the most prominent role in deciding the course of the field (search within Intelligence or PAID; the only mentions are in acknowledgements, Gottfredson's paper on persecution of researchers, and a couple of positive reviews of Lynn's book on the fund). It needs to be clarified that while the leading researchers have all received grants at some point in their lives, the leading research hasn't necessarily been funded by the Pioneer fund. Rushton and Jensen 2005, for example, states:
 * The data reviewed have been collated from articles in specialist journals and a number of scholarly monographs on the nature of intelligence, behavioral genetics, and social policy issues, as well as recent book-length reviews (Devlin, Feinberg, Resnick, & Roeder, 1997; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Jensen, 1998b; Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002; Rushton, 2000; Sternberg, 2000).
 * How sure can we be that all the leading data referred to in the reviews such as Sternberg 2000 resulted from Pioneer funded studies? The Bell Curve did conduct original research in the form of the NLSY analysis, which was significant, and any model of the field that discounts Murray as a prominent figure is deeply flawed.--Nectar 23:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * [Thanks for spotting this; the database malfunctioned somehow on the order and recorded time of my clarification to the above edit. The time stamp in the first edit is later than the time the edit is recorded to have taken place.]--Nectar 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have done a partial revert of the reworking of the phrase for two reasons: 1) prominent funding doesn't reflect that the overwhelming majority of researchers in the field received monies from PF. I think we've had a long enough discussion to prove that, even if it can't really be said that "all" of them did, it still remains true that the majority did. 2) the wording said ideology has led to large-scale ignorance of the human sciences. First, ideology is very vague and large-scale ignorance of the human sciences would mean a significant disaffectation of the researchers in human sciences, or that the knowledge of human sciences has somehow declined. Neither is true. What can be said to be true from the hereditarian perspective is that new developments that suggest a possibly genetic (hereditary) cause for the B-W IQ gap have been ignored out of political correctness. --Ramdrake 13:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ramdrake's edit: This has included accusations that funding from the Pioneer Fund (which has funded a majority of the leading researchers of the hereditarian stance) has biased the field

Does not appear to summarize the article as written: There is no evidence that the Pioneer Fund has biased the research. --Rikurzhen 23:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because the appropriate link to the accusation was lost in the shuffle. I was referring to the University of Delaware's reason for deciding not to allow any of its faculty to accept monies from PF. There are also probably other instances out there. We can say that the PF has been accused of something and we can also add this something has not been proven. Both statements in this case, I don't think should cancel out each other at all. They both help to understand the controversy.--Ramdrake 00:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it really the case that there was accusation that PF causes bias in the Delaware incident? I thought it was a case of political dislike of PFs history & putative motives. --Rikurzhen 00:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * From my info, it was yes, a case of dislike of PF's history and the concern that its putative motives would bias research results. Are we all clear now?--Ramdrake 00:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the concern that its putative motives would bias research results part is seemingly not documented in the article. --Rikurzhen 00:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, I replaced it with a more direct quote that says about the same thing. I'm not too fond of the italics, so if you want to get rid of them, go ahead. But now you have something quotable, although very slightly bulkier. --Ramdrake 02:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's look at that closely:
 * Keith Booker, president of the Wilmington, Del., chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, says that "this research is being done in the name of white supremacy." He says the Pioneer Fund supports only research that "tends to come out with results that further the division between races...by justifying the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another."
 * Arguing Pioneer only funds studies that "further division between races" is a claim about ideology, and not in itself a claim about bias.--Nectar 02:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The word "bias" has been removed, as you can see and 2)logically, it stems that if they only fund one type of research, that may impart a bias on the field. But this is genuine quote. However, if you accept having the simpler formulation "has biased the field", I'm also ok with that.--Ramdrake 03:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Bias" in the sense of science is different than "bias" in the sense of WP. Funding only one kind of research does not create "bias" in the sense of science, which is what is implied here. The implication of the NAACP quoutation is that PF promotes racism by funding only one kind of science ... i.e., what PF does is promote racism, not create bias. --Rikurzhen 03:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)