Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 49

Let's go!
There seems to be a lot of support for making a new article called Race and intelligence (Research) and making this article more general. We keep getting side tracked-- let's start constructing the new article, and request unprotecting for this page. futurebird 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where has this been discussed? Prima facie it sounds like an POV fork to me. --W.R.N. 04:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * FB if you are talking about a prototype to replace this one, I'm game to help in th edevelopment, but if you're talking about an end result of two articles splitting this info. I'm against. --Kevin Murray 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that what you propose has any bearing on unprotecting this page.--Kevin Murray 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * this is the proximal reason for page protection. --W.R.N. 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about making an article called Race and intelligence (Research) and moving the content that needs to go there to that page, then requesting unprotecting the page and doing a massive rewrite. futurebird 04:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping by -- I agree with the idea that the page ought to be split or renamed. A page called "race and intelligence" seems like it would have to delve into the concept of "race" and the concept of "intelligence", which this page ...even the first sentence says this page is about research. Katsam 09:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is impossible - because of our NPOV, V, and NOR policies, that any article on the concepts of race and intelligence not also be on research on these concepts. It is an encyclopedia, after all. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the proposal is to remove all research from the article, just to move MOST of the research to a subarticle with a link like
 * futurebird 13:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * futurebird 13:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Moreover, if our NPOV policies forbid us to split these articles, shouldn't the decision to split the rest of the subjects (Media, Utility of research, etc.) be rescinded? I mean, either we can or we can't split off the articles. I'm as concerned that these split-offs we've already done are POV forks than about the possibility of creating an additional POV fork.--Ramdrake 13:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess, better formulated, that my point is if we already split off some articles from the original corpus of data of the topic, we then shouldn't be objecting to one more split, especially given the size of the article. Either we split or we don't; however, we've already done some splitting, so...--Ramdrake 14:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ramdrake, with all due respect, you need to be clear on the difference between a POV fork, which is prohibited, and a content fork, which is encouraged as articles get too long. There must be pages explaining this stuff but I do not know the links off-hand. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Granted, absolutely. Then, I must have expressed myself badly: there have been content forks spun out of this article in the past. They have raised some objections of POV forking from at least one or two editors here. Now this new content-forking proposal is being turned down on the basis of possibly being a POV fork. In my opinion, I cannot find this one more of a POV fork than any of the others before. If this one is to be called a POV fork, at least some of the others before probably qualified as well. If this isn't called a POV fork but another content fork, I don't have any problems. I hope this is clearer.--Ramdrake 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is of course based on the assumption than any article that would cover Race and intelligence as a wider subject would at least briefly touch on the current research on the subject, without delving into it like the current article does. To me, that goes without saying.--Ramdrake 15:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously this is a contentious article, but I really do not understand why there is any contention over how to characterize it: it is about the relationship between race and intelligence. What if any relationship there is is controversial, so the article has to cover those controversies.  Some will have to do with the nature of intelligence (is the G factor real) some will have to do with the nature of race (is it a proxy for genetic populations of socio-economic groups) and some will have to do with the relationship itself (is it causal in nature or a correlation caused by something else?  Is the relationship significant?  Is it based on direct or indirect evidence?  Is it a statistical artefact or not?).  This to me is what the article is about and I wouldn't think it would be too hard to organize an article that covers these controversies in cogent ways.  Personally, that's what I think. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly think the same way but I'd go just a tiny bit further and say the relative size of each controversy (over the meaning and utility of race, over the measurability of intelligence as a single number, and about the possible relationship between the two) and therefore the space devoted to it in the article should be on the same order (same order - not same size!!!) for all three controversies. It shouldn't make a pre-requisite that people have to accept the meaningfulness of race and its coherence with social definitions of it, and neither should it require that people have to accept the unitary measurability of intelligence. I believe all three controversies need to be eplored conjointly in the article if it is to feel balanced and NPOV.A lot of people don't even talk about the race-intelligence debate because they are on a side of either the race or the intelligence debate that precludes the race-intelligence debate from being a scientifically legitimate debate. And maybe, it could use being renamed "The race and intelligence debate(s)" ("s" optional).--Ramdrake 16:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ramdrake, I think you're now moving from an area that's supported by references to an area that is not. In my experience there is approx. one article per month published about "the possible relationship between the two" and the content of article isn't focused on the "possible" aspect of that characterization. In WP, there are articles for race, intelligence, IQ, and other related topics. This is the article about the relationship between race and intelligence. To the extent that debates about the individual ideas relate to this debate, they are discussed, but otherwise (on these topics) we only need a summary of the debate here, while the actual debate is detailed elsewhere. This is my understanding of the text in NPOV describing articles about topics that operate under some controversial assumption. The actual text of the assumptions in the intro is poor -- Arbor and I at times tried to fix it -- but the APA report makes clear the working assumptions of most people in this field. --W.R.N. 18:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The APA report makes clear that they speak about "groups" not "races" - I think, WRN, that the APA report confounds your assertion that the article should simply be a discussion of "are race differences in intelligence genetic", rather than a more holistic view of R&I that appropriately addresses criticism of the fundamental question and assumptions itself. --JereKrischel 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Moreover "research" is only one way of looking at the questions of race and intelligence, so creating a sub-page makes sense. futurebird 00:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In general, I agree with Ramdrake. But if RIK doesn't mind I would like to rephrase his comment in a way I think Ramdrake will easily agree with: Wikipedia articles are (at least when they are on topics of scholarly research, whether comparative literature, sociology, philosophy, or astronmy) really best conceived as accounts of a body of scholarly literature.  This is a simple way of understanding two of our core policies, WP:NOR and WP:V.  It is not for us to interpret or synthesize that literature, only provide an account of (or "represent") it.  If there are interesecting literatures, we provide an account of the intersections.  If there are controversies in the literature, we provide accounts of the controversies.  If you are familiar with the many genres of academic writing, I think the best model is a "literature review" or "review essay" as exemplified in the volumes put out annually, for a variety of disciplines, by Annual Reviews (Stanford).  Nor, RIK, if I may speak for Ramdrake ... as you ought to understand by now, I think his goal is not to put words in scientists' mouths but rather to ensure we are compliant with the other core Wikipedia policy, WP:NPOV.  I am convinced that NPOV and NOR/V are not in conflict in this article; I am convinced that it is possible to write an article that is fully compliant with all policies.  Ramdrake, this means exploring the controversies only insofar as they exist in the published literature, especially peer-reviewed journal articles and books published by academic presses, but also trade presses if by acknowledged scholars in relevant fields.  RIK, this means including academic literatures that do address race & intelligence debates that you seem resistant to acknowledge, especially in sociology and anthropology.  Ramdrake, this means being very careful to avoid forwarding our own synthetic claims even if based on published sources.  I believe Jere made just this mistake towards the end of this section.  But RIK, I believe Jere was citing an entirely acceptable source in this section.  I think if RIK can be more attentive to NPOV and Ramdrake, Futurebird, and JK more attentive to NOR, we will make much more progress. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies for any confusion, SLR - my "mistake" was intended to answer your question, and give evidence for why inclusion of the "race is an invalid proxy" is important, not intended for inclusion into the article. I understand that we aren't supposed to do original research, but my current criticism is that we should give the important context of what definition of "race" and even "intelligence" is being used by a given study cited.  Too much of WRN's contributions have lacked that critical context, and as such, present an invalid implication of uniformity. --JereKrischel 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * Of course, I agree with SLR's interpretation. If I can try to rephrase what I said, the "race" and the "intelligence" debates need to be reported in this article on "race and intelligence" insofar as they have an impact on the validity of the "race and intelligence" debate, or its outcome, and have been cited in some connection with the "race and intelligence" debate somewhere in the literature, whether it be the psychological, anthropological, biological, medical or even philosophical (or historical!) literature. It all needs to have already been connected together somewhere, that's a given, but I am not ready to restrict this to just the "intelligence" literature of psychometricians. I hope this was clearer, and more kosher towards all WP rules.--Ramdrake 19:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several outstanding issues that need to be worked out in some fashion in this thread. In that thread, my policy concern is that sourced material is being removed or bastardized. The content vs. POV fork page is WP:POV_fork. --W.R.N. 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I think that much of the pruning of excessive citation is important to building a good article. Not to mention the importance of avoiding improper strawmen in framing the issue.  Much of the content may in fact be useful, but what you see as "bastardization" is an attempt to move towards NPOV. --JereKrischel 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Among WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, the criteria for inclusion in WP is WP:NOR and WP:V. WP:NPOV determines how things should be written and to an extent which article they should go into. WP:NOR can also determine the inclusion or not of material in specific ways. You never have to remove something substantial that satisfies NOR and V in order to satisfy NPOV. --W.R.N. 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

FB - research is only one way of looking at the questions of race and intelligence -- different ways of looking at a topic don't get "equal time", they get proportional representation to their commonality in the literature and among experts (WP:NPOV). the "research" literature is massive and it dominates the public discussion of the issue, along with the public policy related topics. find sources on non-"research" and add it to the article. if enough amasses, then a redistribution of sub-articles may occur. --W.R.N. 00:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course there are other ways of looking at this topic beyond "research" the portrayal of race and intelligence in media such as films, books and newspapers is one area, the statements of non-scientists, people such as activists and politicians are another. Especially when dealing with a topic that brings in to play the power dynamics of race, where control over research has been in the past mostly by those who support the historical views of race (though that is changing) it is important to see other sources. What if anything do the people who are being grouped in to these races have to say about this? Those ideas are important too. futurebird 01:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree with futurebird - "proportional representation to their commonality in the literature and among experts" begs the question of what counts as "commonality" (I'd argue that prolific Mr. Rushton shouldn't get extra points just for having his own journal and publishing his own rehashed information five times a year), and what counts as an "expert" (as per futurebird, not only do you have expert psychologists, but sociologists, anthropologists, geneticists, biologists, etc). I think, WRN, part of your problem is that you believe that the statement of NPOV, requiring "commonality" and "experts", is fully in the favor of your hereditarian POV.  I disagree.  --JereKrischel 16:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

what npov says
here's what NPOV says. AFAIK, these are "non-negotiable". however, I understand experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties to be rather inclusive. --W.R.N. 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
 * An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.
 * From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.


 * WRN, could you clarify yourself? Are you saying that as far as you are concerned, your position is "non-negotiable"? --JereKrischel 00:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WRN, more specifically, what are you implying is the "majority" view and the "minority" view? If we extend the debate to all involved walks of science, I don't think the "majority view" is what the article was at first trying to convey.--Ramdrake 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

JK from above: you believe that the statement of NPOV, requiring "commonality" and "experts", is fully in the favor of your hereditarian POV - not really, the literature is quite divided on the question of what causes group differences. --W.R.N. 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we've established that the literature is mostly divided along the question of the magnitude of the causes of group differences. Or was that a conversation I had with Nectarflowed? --JereKrischel 00:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

JK from this section: NPOV itself is non-negotiable. That an article should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties is non-negotiable. However, my understanding of NPOV may be mistaken, and my assessment of the facts about which NPOV judgments are to be made may be mistaken. In this sense, what NPOV demands is very much negotiable. --W.R.N. 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. Now, how can we negotiate with you regarding your understanding of NPOV as it relates to this article?  Do you have any negotiable points? --JereKrischel 00:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake: In some cases a "majority" and "minority" view is clear (e.g. the importance of g to intelligence, the existence of a BW gap, etc.) but I wouldn't pretend to know what the majority of minority view is on more controversial subjects, and it wouldn't seem to matter much given the number of "prominent" sources that can be cited for many POVs. --W.R.N. 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Change intro picture
This maybe a scholarly article but I think you are missing your audience. I still have a high schooler (senior) and I asked her to look at the article. She said the first thing that grabbed her eye was the disparity in the bright colored bell curves-Black vs White. From that point her assumption is the article is about disparities in the black race. The article touches on Race but she said it is really about the black race. If that is your goal then change the article to Black race or Sub-Saharan African descendants and intelligence. She also said the article is too long. The Evolution article had the same problem of being graduate level and not a general encyclopedic article (that is changing). This is not a peer-reviewed journal or forum for academic debate but an encyclopedia. Try and remember that with the move for improvements. GetAgrippa 13:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're going to use the average U.S. high school student as a judge, then any article that takes longer to read than it would take to watch a YouTube video would be too long.Lestrade 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
 * I think the split we are discussing above will help with both of these problems a great deal. This is some really useful feedback. I think that the graphic needs more context. The image of a Bell Curve split was made famous by Charles Murray and The Bell Curve and surrounding controversy-- I think the graphic belongs in the main article, but it ought to be clear that the graphic itself has been a source of debate.


 * I'm glad that they have switch from the graph with curves for other races, since that was based on original research and it gave the impression that race and intelligence research has been about something other than "an investigation of the negro" this may have changed a little in recent years, but, historically it has really been primarily about a black vs. white divide-- We just need to be upfront about this even if it is uncomfortable to explain.


 * I also think two curves make sense becuase showing a bell curve for Hispanic people in an article about race is just silly-- some hispanic people identify as white and other identify as black, it's not a "race," it's an ethnicity.futurebird 13:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with GetAgrippa's characterization and suggestion. (1) The four curve image should be restored. (2) Summary style should be tightened up further, with less detail in this article and more in the subarticles. --W.R.N. 18:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think GetAgrippa suggested that the OR four curve image should be restored. I believe the criticism was that the article was too focused on Black inferiority (maybe there should be a Race and intelligence (Black inferiority) page, where people who assert specific hierarchies like Rushton and Jensen can have some detail).  Summary style should also be observed within references - too many times, argument and editorialization is going on inside refs. --JereKrischel 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the slander libel about Jensen, I'll bring up the 4 curve image again. Here are two images, which if any violate NOR and why? Compare and contrast. --W.R.N. 19:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)




 * Well, first and foremost, "Hispanics" isn't and never was a "race" but an ethnicity. Right there and then, inclusion of that particular curve is a misconstrusion(Eng?). Also, could you point to a specific URL which would present a figure which you feel is the closest to that 4-curve chart? As close to the research world as possible, of course. Just want to see how it compares. If not a URL, maybe a scan of a book could be temporarily uploaded for comparison purposes (don't want to break any wikirules there, just want to have an opportunity to compare by myself)--Ramdrake 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WRN reconstructed the curves from a Gottfredson chart that was very complex - he eliminated a great deal of it, and moved the two curves together. He went further on to add additional curves not on the graph based on data in the same figure.  I don't have the URL off hand for the Gottfredson paper, but I'll look for it.


 * Insofar as Jensen and claims of black inferiority in intelligence, see IQ and Race: A Discussion of Some Confusions Paul Gomberg Ethics, Vol. 85, No. 3. (Apr., 1975), pp. 258-266. - The current outbreak of controversy stems from the paper by Arthur R. Jensen in the Harvard Educational Review arguing that the evidence points to the conclusion that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites. --JereKrischel 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Inferiority is a moral concept. Intellectual inferiority elides the within group variation. Randomly libeling researchers on the talk page is hardly a way to productively discuss the content of this article. --W.R.N. 20:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Inferiority is quantitative and means lower rank. From the Latin comparative for infra ("below" or "under"). JK is not libeling Jensen, just citing sources. "He argues that in some ways the American black is intellectually inferior to the American white." See also "Who Are the Academic Proponents of the Theory of Inferior IQs of Black People?" Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, no. 10 (Winter 1995-96): 18-19. Jokestress 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good points. And thanks for sharing this source. futurebird 00:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the original graph, on page 43. --JereKrischel 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There are three editions of the figure in the relevant form. (1) (p.8) (2)  (p.26) and (3)  (p.43). All of the data is spelled out in a single figure. Contrast with the global warming chart, which compiles 10 different studies. --W.R.N. 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All of the temperature studies use the same definition of Celsius and Fahrenheit. No standard definition of "race" was in Gottfredson's original 1997 article "Why g Matters".  Also, was the original global warming chart in some study with only 2 of the lines drawn?  --JereKrischel 20:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, how about just reproducing the table and/or the two-curve diagram? Neither would violate OR, as long as they were properly attributed (such as the current-two curve diagram looks to be now). However, I still don't know what to make of "Hispanics". And comparing to what another article did may or may not be relevant, as they too may have erred in interpreting Wiki-rules.--Ramdrake 20:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) The table and the curve are identical (nearly so, there's some problems with the originals that FB and I discovered) in their content. Tables don't make for good images, but curves do. (2) Hispanic is used in the conventional sense. It's used that way in innumerable studies in many fields, not just this one. If we can't use the common sense meaning of words when published studies we're cited do, we have a problem. (Note, I understand that a great deal of genetic and social variability is contained within the category, which I believe is noted in the article.) (3) I'm not saying they both can't be OR, but the curves are clearly "less OR" than the temp data. Arguing for OR in this case seems to be without precedent, but I am willing to be proven wrong. --W.R.N. 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't shoot the messenger! :) I was just trying to suggest the simplest possible solution which coudn't conceivably be called OR or synthesis. While I acknowledge that pictures make much better images than tables, have you given a thought that the 4-curve graph may be just too evocative for the good of the article? And while I recognize that Hispanics have been used in a number of studies already, I think their inclusion in a graph or table in this article needs possibly a simple caveat. JK's main objection is the conflation of definitions of "race" together, and defintions of "race" with "groups", with "ethnicities", you name it. I think we should support resolving the conflation, especially in cases where it is easy and simple to do so. Doesn't that make sense to you?--Ramdrake 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't mean to "shout". I obviously was heated for reasons other than you. I'm not sure what your suggestion entails. The main points of the chart are to show that while groups cluster at different points, there's huge within group variability, the curves overlap a great deal, and there are individuals from each group at all common levels of IQ. The reason for included more than just BW curves is to show that there is more to the discussion than BW differences -- though granted they do make-up a solid plurality of the material. You don't need to know much about the nature of race for these points to be made, and I don't see any disagreement with them in the literature. At least to me they seem to be the most important take-away message. --W.R.N. 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with the "main point" of the chart is that it fundamentally frames the question into the acceptance of racial categories as valid. A better graph would probably include known environmental factors that show how close things are once certain variables are taken into account, and simply label the remaining difference as "unexplained". --JereKrischel 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to have a graph from the Columbia University Teachers College and Northwest University study, which found a 15-point BW IQ gap, but found 52% of that gap to be accounted for by poverty factors, and 28% accounted for by other social and economic differences, leaving a "statistically insignificant" 3 point gap. I'll see if I can find the original study. --JereKrischel 21:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this: we reprise something that looks like Gottfredson's graph (the two-curve one), but we skip the abscissa markers (55 to 145 or such) and we just put a measure bar between the two peaks with something like a Greek delta on it. Then, in the description of the image we can say if we want that researchers don't all agree on the exact size of the delta (7, 10. 15 points?), on whether it is shrinking or not, and that some remnant of it persists even when corrected for several factors, cause of the remnant unknown. We put in "adapted from Gottfredson" (or whatever) and the issues about how old the data is, the exact primary source, etc. should become secondary. How about it?
 * Also, I see that a lot of us seem to be here expounding the problems we have with this or that, but the solution proposals while we have made some, are rarer. I'd like to suggest that if you raise a problem, always try to suggest a solution that you think will resolve it, preferably to everyone's agreement if possible. I relaized I myself have failed to do that numerous times. That could also be part of why progress is... maybe slower than we'd all like. How about it?--Ramdrake 13:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Plotting effect size is fine (the statistic is Cohen's d, so it would be d not delta), but you lose the ability to make this about more than the BW gap with only 2 curves. --W.R.N. 18:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Columbia/Northwestern curves
Their calculation for the IQ gap between Black and white on the WPPSI Full-scale IQ included the following curves:

The year for the scores was 1991, the age of the children was 5.

--JereKrischel 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is about the cause of the gap. Using children also introduces issues of age-change. Here's the intro sentence from a recent SciAm article: This much is uncontested: for most of the 20th century, blacks worldwide have scored, on average, 15 points lower on most IQ tests than have whites. There's no need to confuse the issue at stage 1. --W.R.N. 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is misleading to report the raw gap, as Gottfredson is doing, without context. Since we have good, sourced data on the causes of the gap, a proper intro image would reflect that. --JereKrischel 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * JK, you got a link for that study? If you can send me a little more data I can make a nice graphic for this information. I think it'd help a lot in the environment section of the article. futurebird 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely zero consensus on the cause of the gap other than that's its not test bias or just SES and its cause is cryptic. The existence of a phenotypic gap is an entirely different question than its cause. For example, why not plot the scores from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, since adoption controls for all aspects of family effects? Of course we shouldn't. --W.R.N. 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that this fairly recent study showed very clearly very important factors based on SES...you still have 3.42 points to explain, of course...and the Minnesota study has problems beyond the scope of this talk page: At the time they joined their new families, for example, the Black adoptees had had more prior placements, rated of poorer quality, than their White counterparts. This was especially the case for the children with two Black birth parents, who were not adopted until they were, on average, about 32 months old. Because any later IQ differences between these groups may have resulted from differences in preadoptive experience, the Minnesota data provide no clear evidence for the genetic hypothesis. --JereKrischel 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) you are ignoring my first criticisms and trying to argue about the data. such arguments are irrelevant to the point. (2) but on the data, this kind of analysis has been discussed in the sub-article on explanations: if you combine a large number of variables, you can get a proxy for biological-parental IQ which obviously eliminates IQ difference. --W.R.N. 22:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) the Northwestern/Columbia study clearly shows that it isn't "just" SES, but simply mostly SES. I don't see what your argument is with the study results, but perhaps you could provide a reference which directly criticizes that study.  (2) You're assuming a lot about intelligence there, and confusing causalities. --JereKrischel 22:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This study is about the cause of the gap. There is absolutely zero consensus on the cause of the gap, except that its not test bias or just SES and its cause is cryptic. Further, presentation of data using children also introduces issues of age-change that are not just controversial but hardly discussed in the literature. No figure about the cause of the gap can possible lead the article as there is simply no scholarly consensus for such a presentation. An argument that the gap is wholly or almost completely due to SES would undeniably be presenting a POV that doesn't have sufficient scholarly support. Contrast with This much is uncontested: for most of the 20th century, blacks worldwide have scored, on average, 15 points lower on most IQ tests than have whites. -- text from a magazine that is noted as historically antagonistic to everything IQ. The only possible lead image is something showing the IQ test score gap. Per getagrippa's daughter's comment, making it just about blacks and whites is unnecessarily narrow. --W.R.N. 22:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) As per age change, are you concerned that Gottfredson does not indicate the age of those tested? (2) Do you have a source which disputes the Northwestern/Columbia findings, or is this your own opinion that their study is flawed?  (3) Citing a passage from a magazine is certainly permissible, but drawing up a graph to give it some sort of false authority is misleading.  Picking one point in time to illustrate a 15-point BW gap misleads on the basis of the Flynn effect, which would show some significant variability.


 * In all honesty, I think you're trying to rationalize your POV pushing image, and are having a hard time sounding consistent when presented with a image that contradicts your POV, but is just as notable, reliable, and apparently even more well sourced. I have significant doubts about your ability to remain open-minded on this issue, but I'm open to any compromise suggestions you may have. --JereKrischel 23:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I also think you're misconstruing GetAgrippa's daughter's criticism - the fact that most of the citations are focused on the B-W gap seems to be related to racialist preconceptions. A more broad treatment of how ideas of race and intelligence have intersected historically, to justify racism for and against various groups over time, would be preferable to the narrow focus the article has now. --JereKrischel 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) Adults are given the WAIS. (2) I haven't ever seen the paper, but it looks just like dozens of others that I've read. The problems with it are symptoms of the general clash between standard social scientists and behavioral genetics informed research. Disputing the data isn't my interest. Such data isn't appropriate for the lead, as it is about causation -- which is a problem for the reasons I stated. (3) This is getting totally off track. Your citing the Flynn effect is misleading. The BW gap among adults has been ~1 SD and still is according to Flynn. He projects it will change in the future.

The POV in the image is the "uncontested" POV that average score differences exist. The data you are suggesting does nothing to refute that there is a ~1SD gap -- in fact they found a slightly larger one. The data you suggest is about causation, which is different than phenotypic differences. The fact that one is uncontested and one is highly contested is proof enough of this. Failure to recognize this point is a major concern. --W.R.N. 02:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) "Adults over age 16" is what the WAIS tests. It may be significant to know the age ranges of the subjects tested in the data Gottfredson cites - certainly if you're worried about age, you should be worried about that.  (2) Without any dispute that a significant portion of the B-W gap has been established as being accounted for by SES, it seems unreasonable to avoid that kind of important information in the lead graph.  It is the "Hereditarian Fallacy" to assert that any gap unaccounted for by environmental factors must be genetic (instead of simply unknown environmental factors).  As such, it seems to be POV pushing to assert that the cause of the entire difference is simply unknown or completely contested.  We should clearly indicate the known factors that make a difference when controlled for - the argument is not about those differences, but the "unknown" difference.  Or are you asserting that the "partly-genetic" hypothesis demands that there is no SES contribution to the gap?  (3) Citation please.


 * The POV of of an image showing the Columbia/Northwestern study is the "uncontested" POV that when SES factors are controlled for, the B-W gap is reduced. No need to argue about by how many pixels.  Treating the "uncontested" gap without context is akin to asserting that it is completely unexplained, which is not the majority opinion.  Failure to recognize how your graph, without context, is POV pushing is a major concern.


 * Why not accept a graph that has the B-W curves as you've drawn them, uncorrected, and below that a graph that has the B-W curves as they exist when corrected for SES? This would demonstrate both the "raw" gap, as well as the clear, uncontested indication that when corrected for SES, the gap dimishes, but does not 100% disappear.  Do you have any source that contends that corrected for SES does not reduce the gap? --JereKrischel 03:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You cannot make the single most controversial aspect of the article the lead image. It's not ever going to work. Only the least controversial thing could possibly accompany the lead block. Scientists are seldom compelled to believe anything by a single piece of data. There are hundreds of different pieces of data like the one you suggest and none are convincing enough to eliminate the massive controversy. --W.R.N. 18:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought pigs would fly first... but I agree with WD here. I have absolutely no problem with the two curve image if it is presented within historical context. Please see the caption I used in the sample intro for an idea of what I mean by this. An image like the one JK is suggesting would work well in the section on environmental causes. futurebird 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Troubling reliability
In "Desegregating Gifted Education", p145, Gottfredson cites her 1997 article in Intelligence as the source for her graph (she says, "Adapted from"). However, in her 1997 article, there are no racial data. I'm going to follow the bouncing ball to Gottfredson 2003b to see if there are more clues there. --JereKrischel 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked in all of her 2003 papers she listed, and could not find any indication of where she got her data from for her citation. Any help in finding the actual source of data Gottfredson used would be appreciated. At this point, Gottfredson seems to have simply picked numbers out of a hat. Any inclusion of the graph should require both the years of data for the WAIS scores, as well as the specific definitions of race used. --JereKrischel 21:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * JK are you speaking strictly against the inclusion of the Gottfredson graph, or questioning its use as the introduction graph to the article? While there can't really be arguments against the inclusion fo the Gottfredson graph (let's put aside the issue of the origin of her data), its use as the introductory graph may be questioned and a graph such as you sggest (if it can be found in the existing literature) might indeed be preferable. However, I believe we need to differentiate our objections here. The Gottfredson graph can certainly be included; its position can certainly be debated, but I wouldn't want issues confused.--Ramdrake 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The major problem, by the way, with adding the other curves is that the data for the curves shown are from a 1981 WAIS study and the "data" for "hispanics" and "asians" is from a "study" I still have not been able to track down-- we have no idea if the tests, were comparable, and Gottfredson herself didn't include all four curves, most likely because she realized that comparing data in that manner would make an already tenuous study laughable. I see no need to rehash this further, we've been through all of this when the image was up for deletion. The new version is an improvement, in so far as it is an accurate representation of a study done 26 years ago. So, it is, at least, at the level where it can be used in an article, but sources must be cited and it must be clear how old the data are. I'd recommend citing WAIS directly, since that study is more respected than anything Gottfredson has ever written.futurebird 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ramdrake, I think the opening image should relate to the opening paragraph. I would be OK with this graph being used if there is some mention of the bell curve controversy in the caption. I think we should choose the image after we have the text ready. The ere many valid reasons to objecting to the use of the bell curves as the opening graphic. (That said I think it's rather silly to hide this image, you can see it as a snapshot of cultural differences, the ridiculousness of IQ tests, social inequity and the effects of racism, or black inferiority. If the article is balanced, it won't make the image seem like it's saying just one thing.(another reason to cite WAIS as the source rather than Gottfredson.)futurebird 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I do object to including the Gottfredson graph if it is not reliable. So far, the numbers being presented are simply numbers she's reporting, without attributing her sources properly (unless someone can find Gottfredson 2003b and any data tables or citations there).


 * I assume that finding an original study, rather than a meta-analysis, is preferable for making citations. Although I could possibly understand where my detective work may be considered "OR"...the line on that seems a bit fuzzy, since we're supposed to make sure things are verifiable... --JereKrischel 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * JK, the two black and white bell curves she uses are from WAIS. It is as reliable as any intelligence test that's 25 years old could be. The numbers for "asians" and "hispanics" are of unknown origin-- and I agree we ought not include them until we know where they came from.futurebird 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Things are verifiable if they are published in verifiable sources. This is OR, but moreover it's pursuing the advancement of a particular POV. AFAIK, the "main points" aren't contested. Trying to figure out whether the curves should be a pixel to the right or left isn't worthwhile. --W.R.N. 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't about finding out whether the curves should be a pixel one way or another, it is about proper attribution. At this point, we can only verify that Gottfredson said something, and cannot verify the definition of race used in the original study, nor even the original study scores.  This important context should be prominent if we are to include the image.   Also, AFAIK, WAIS is just a test - without information on when that test was administered, or how they divided people up into various "races", we don't have proper context.  --JereKrischel 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ, the stakes are high here-- we should hold this type of data to the highest standard. futurebird 21:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * the stakes are high here-- we should hold this type of data to the highest standard. -- That's not how WP works. --W.R.N. 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting we should accept data published from unreliable sources, WRN? --JereKrischel 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are using a pun on reliable source. --W.R.N. 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There still is no answer to the question about where the "asian" and "hispanic" data came from... That said-- I feel we are being side tracked, here. Let's stay civil. JK, could you please let me know where to look for the data so I can work on a new bell curve graphic for the "environmental" explanations section? In the mean time, let's tackle that intro. futurebird 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * From WP:RS: Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources. Certainly Gottfredson's assertions would be more credible if they were supported by additional sources, including the one she should have cited. --JereKrischel 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a pun on "Exceptional claims". The definition of exceptional claims is about claims that run counter to majority opinions. --W.R.N. 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As per the APA report, the majority opinion is against the use of "race" as a scientific category. - These groups (we avoid the term "race") are defined and self-defined by social conventions based on ethnic origin as well as on observable physical characteristics such as skin color. None of them are internally homogeneous.  --JereKrischel 23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's your overinterpretation of the phrase we avoid the term "race". we avoid the term "race" != the majority opinion is against the use of "race" as a scientific category. that's part of what i mean by "narrowly tailored", but that's actually just an accuracy issue. secondarily, the claim that the majority opinion is against the use of "race" as a scientific category has very low face validity given that race continues to be used as a variable in research of many varieties. the reasons are obviously that race has undeniable social-cultural effects -- social-construct != no causal influence -- and in the opinion of many geneticists genetic factors may also contribute to some currently unexplained phenotypic differences between races, notably biomedically interesting phenotypes, but cognitive phenotypes are also included in such discussions. --W.R.N. 02:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like we simply disagree about the definition of scientific category. As a social category, it certainly is useful, but it is fairly clear that the majority opinion is that it is not a valid proxy for genetics, especially for complex cognitive phenotypes.  The important thing to note is that if we're going to draw bell curves based on social categories of "race", it seems important to note the research which derives corrections based on social categories as well.  Placing Gottfredson's 4 "race" graph without appropriate context misleads the reader into assuming that those categories are genetic ones, and that those curves have corrected for other variables.  Presented as is, we must include the important context of a complete lack of accounting for any other variables which could (and according to the latest studies, do) affect outcomes. --JereKrischel 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

everything following "secondarily" in my reply is secondary and only FYI. it's what comes before that matters, and that's why we can't have a graph that presents some hypothesis about the cause of group differences in the lead. before it was changed, the lead figure said that the cause of the gaps are debated and the intro suggests hypotheses. --W.R.N. 18:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead figure not only asserted that gaps existed, but also insisted on a specific hierarchy of the gaps. This is clearly something that is only held true by a very small minority of racialist scientists.  Historically, the hierarchy of gaps has been different, with earlier hierarchies asserted with Whites on the top.  Perhaps we should look at Lieberman 2001, and show the historical progress of the argued racial hierarchies throughout the centuries.  This would be a more balanced intro image, to have several curves, dated, showing how the conceptual hierarchy between races and intelligence have changed over the years. --JereKrischel 16:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In the new intro (Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07) I have included the graphic at the top, with a caption that I fell places it in context. Could this be a compromise? futurebird 16:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know about this graphic, is it the most important image? Why should it come first? It frames the whole thing as an issue about why black people are stupid-- isn't there more to this than this? I'm not saying we should cut it out... I'm just saying why should it be first. Why not one of the pictures from the scientific racism article? Why not use those images in the intro? JJJamal 01:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest adapting the historical chart from Lieberman 2001, showing the asserted racial hierarchies as thought true over the years. Show multiple bell-curve graphs, showing how in the early days of racialist science, Whites were put on top, and how over the years, Whites were put in the middle.  Seems more appropriate than asserting that a single interpretation of 1981 WAIS scores represents the end-all be-all of what "racial" gaps exist, and in what order. --JereKrischel 16:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * JK, do you have a link to this image? futurebird 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The notion of "racial hierarchies" is currently attractive only to a fringe group of non-scholarly racists. It's interest to researchers (now long dead) is a matter of history. --W.R.N. 00:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely an important historical point of information, I'm sure you'd agree. The vast majority of history regarding Race and Intelligence is cluttered with what you call, "non-scholarly racists".  We can't just ignore that because we find it distasteful. --JereKrischel 00:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Outlines
These are the outlines that have been proposed for this article.

Proposal 1
From JereKrischel


 * 1 Definitions of "race"
 * 2 Definitions of "intelligence"
 * 2.1 The Psychometric Approach
 * 2.2 Multiple Forms of intelligence
 * 2.3 Cultural Variation
 * 2.4 Developmental Progressions
 * 3 History of research
 * 3.1 18th century
 * 3.2 19th century
 * 3.3 20th century
 * 4 Mean scores of different ethnic groups (U.S.)
 * 4.1 Test Bias
 * 4.2 Characteristics of Tests
 * 5 Current debates
 * 5.1 Genetic hypothesis
 * 5.2 Validity of "race"
 * 5.3 Socioeconomic factors
 * 5.4 Culture factors

Organizing principle
This outline is similar to the article as it is at present.

if "organizing principle" = "thing you talk about in the article" then I agree and would suggest that already describes the state of the article. the article must discuss "race" and "intelligence," respectively, in a way that is proportionate and relevant. -- Here's the salient part of the current article outline. I think we do exactly that, and take the time in sect. 1 to highlight the debate about causes.


 * 1 Background information
 * 1.1 Race
 * 1.2 Intelligence testing
 * 1.3 The contemporary debate: results and interpretations
 * 1.4 History
 * 2 Average gaps among races
 * 3 Explanations
 * 3.1 Introduction
 * 3.2 Environmental explanations
 * 3.3 Genetic explanations
 * 3.4 Expert opinion
 * 4 Significance of group IQ differences
 * 5 Public debate and policy implications

so, if there's a dispute about this very specific item, it must be something more subtle that i'm missing. [maybe slow to get to other threads started above.] --WD RIK NEW 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical perspective
This outline tries to expand the article with a deeper and boarder historical perspective. In this plan much of the in-depth material on Race and intelligence (Research) would go in an article by that name. This plan would present a substantial summary and a link to that main article. futurebird 16:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 0 Intro


 * 1 History
 * 1.1 Race
 * 1.2 Intelligence testing
 * 1.3 Origin of the idea of intelligence as a function of race


 * 2 Contemporary questions
 * 2.1 Race
 * 2.1.1 Genetic hypothesis
 * 2.1.2 Validity of "race"


 * 2.2 Intelligence testing
 * 2.2.1 The psychometric approach
 * 2.2.2 Multiple forms of intelligence
 * 2.2.3 Cultural variation
 * 2.2.4 Developmental progressions


 * 2.3 Average gaps among races


 * 2.4 Explanations
 * 2.4.1 Environmental factors
 * 2.4.1.1 Test bias
 * 2.4.1.2 Characteristics of tests
 * 2.4.1.3 Socioeconomic factors
 * 2.4.1.4 Culture factors
 * 2.4.1.5 Public debate and policy implications
 * 2.4.2 Genetic factors/Groups and intelligence
 * 2.4.3  Intelligence as a function of race, contemporary views  (Reword? Ideas?)
 * 2.4.3.1 Significance of group IQ differences
 * 2.4.3.2 Public debate and policy implications

Comparison of explanations
I found this table in the archives, I think it draws important distinctions between different perspectives on this topic. The article should cover the entire field of explanations as will as present historical context for this kind of research. This will address the rampant "recentism" in the present article. I'm including this table as a spring board for new ideas for the outline. futurebird 16:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The possible explanations for observed differences in intelligence between racial groups generally occur along two axes - how valid a proxy race is for most genes that control intelligence, and primarily-genetic/primarily-environmental.

A comment: I think this attempt to map out positions orthogonally is worthwhile, but RIK had criticisms that need to be addressed. I have one criticism: in the square on "race is an invalid proxy" there are four bullet-points. I think the first one is a red-herring. We have to be very careful to introduce it ONLY if it is from a source directly addressing the race-intelligence debate. Frankly, I think the second and fourth bullet points are the real issues. JK, I think byt including all four bullet points you risk doing yourself and the whole dbate a disservice - we may end up debating the red-herring rather than the two bullet points that are clearly relevant. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this bullet point:
 * Races are not useful categories for determining one's genetic background, being inferior to clines on traits, and the majority of the differences in intelligence are determined by genetics. (Environmental) This category includes those who challenge the utility of "race",[5] but believe in strong genetic contributions to intelligence.


 * I don't think this is a red herring at all. It's important to point out that race may not be useful, but intelligence could still be a heritable trait. futurebird 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe my main criticism was that there are no sources which support the claim that there are two dimensions along which "explanations of group differences" fall. All sources I see suggest a mostly one dimension debate along the continuum of genetic versus environment. Discussion of race, where it occurs about the question of "explanations" occurs in parallel, as an argument for or against a genetic contribution. I didn't try to criticize the content of the table because I argued that the table itself is not founded. I asked for citations that explicitly back up the claim that there are two major dimensions and all I was presented with were papers about race, but none said there were two dimensions to the debate. --W.R.N. 23:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WRN, in my opinion, the table represents a synthesis and thus OR. However (and it's a big however), to say that these positions do not exist in research (whether in anthropology, psychology or whatever science) is another thing, and to the best of my knowledge, inexact. I'm fairly confident I can find researchers holding each of these views, even if no one has summarized them in a table like this before. What I would suggest to address your objection might be to segregate the existing viewpoints in much this way. That way, we don't have to put that table up in the article(using it for our own reference in the talk page is allowed), but we can clearly make out what everyone who has spoken up on the subject has said. Plus, it avoids the nearly-infinite strings of rebuttal we currently have in this article. Criticism of another position's viewpoint should probably occur in the section devoted to the position making the critic, rather than the position being criticized. I think it would make for a clearer, less confusing expose of each viewpoint.--Ramdrake 15:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I never meant to suggest that the table be used in the article-- I was thinking, as I see Ramdrake is suggesting here, that the table could serve as a kind of organizational map for the article. But in any case, there are plenty of critical books and publications that makes distinctions between the kinds of research in this way or at least in a way-- see my comments below. futurebird 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that views about between-group heritability (BGH) and within-group heritability (WGH) is improperly described in the article. At this stage in the science, the fact that WGH is high for both blacks and whites is essentially uncontested. Different views about BGH is the single major dimension I described in the comment above. Everyone believes WGH is high. It is BGH that is a matter of dispute. --W.R.N. 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe my main criticism was that there are no sources which support the claim that there are two dimensions along which "explanations of group differences" fall.


 * I think we've been through this before. So I'll make the same exact point I made before again. Just because there is not a whole lot of research on "Why there are no aliens in Area 51" isn't proof that the pseudo-science about why there are aliens in Area 51 is legitimate, or the material that ought to dominate an article on Area 51. It is, of course, correct to mention that such research exists, what it says, and that there is considerable controversy.


 * In any case, texts that look at race and intelligence "research" make the same distinctions as the table above. They do this to separate what they call "scientific racism" from science. American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" and Intelligence does this, The Mismeasure of Man does this, Race as Biology Is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem Is Real: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on the Social Construction of Race by Audrey Smedley and Brian D. Smedley does this, Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth by Claude S. Fischer, Michael Hout, Martín Sánchez Jankowski, Samuel R. Lucas, Ann Swidler, and Kim Vos does this, Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth by Jefferson M. Fish does this, the PBS film I worked on about test score differences for students in Shaker Heights, Ohio "Shaker Heights - The Struggle For Integration" did this. I could go on. It's not OR, it is standard and it is also absolutely necessary if we are to present any of these criticisms. Because, you see, we can't talk about criticisms if we can't be clear about exactly what research is being criticized and why. It's not like everyone is out to attack anyone who tries to give an IQ test to some black peole or everyone who uses "race" in their data. It is the interpretations of the data that are drawn from such studies that are under-fire.


 * Almost no-one credible disputes that a gap exists, or that it is a 'bad thing.' Without clarity about the conclusions of the research it may make it seem as if critics of race and intelligence research that draws sketchy biological conclusions are just critics of doing research in general. Hence, the critics may be written off as no-nothing, anti-science nut-cases. That is unfair and highly POV --and it is exactly what this suite of articles is doing now. futurebird 01:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sidetracked again: Let's focus on the intro
We've lost sight of our goal here again and gotten sucked into to arguments about details. (I'm not saying these things are not important) Let's keep this discussion general. I suggest working on rewriting the intro section as a map for the direction of the revised article. Unless anyone else has proposal, we could start with the intro I wrote and edit it until it makes sense. Sound good? I have created a sub-page with just the intro. My idea is to get this text sourced and cleaned up and come up with something we can all agree on.

Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07


 * Quibble--The caption contains a non-sentence. I can't fix it because I have no idea of what "Idealized normal distribution comparing the IQs of Blacks and Whites in the US in 1981." is supposed to mean. P0M 02:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm on it. futurebird 02:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * FB, I'd rather we started with something simpler to help address existing concerns, like properly attributing citations and affirmations in the current artcile rather than starting right now on rewriting the article from scratch. That way, we'll have a better view of the NPOVised material already written we can use to conceive of an expanded article. What say you?--Ramdrake 14:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article at present is a wreck. It reads like the argument in the mind of mad grad student with six personalities. Not only are there racist undertones, but it's also really inconsistent. There are random "point, counter point" sections that confuse the reader. I feel that we do need to start over and rebuild the article one section at a time. I can't imagine how the present article could be reworked in to something acceptable, when there is still so much disagreement about the scope of the article.


 * As far as citations go, the present system with the references on another page is unacceptable, the references should be in the article so it is clear what citation is being used with what text. Honestly though citations are the last thing we should worry about. Let's start by working in board strokes, if not with the into, then we could start with the outline.


 * What should this article be? We ought not be afraid to ask this question?


 * What if each of us gave five sentence summary of the article? That might help focus the debate.futurebird 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How can I see the new intro. It was here before and I left a comment that said I thought we should use it and now I can't find it. JJJamal 18:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your comment is here: :::: ::::(don't comment on that page, it is an archive. The new intro is at this link- Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07 it is a new subpage I created so we can get a sense of what the article might look like if we revise it. I'd love to have your feedback on this. futurebird 18:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jamal, the missing section has now been restored, you'll find it if you scroll up. futurebird 19:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice start on the intro, futurebird. I put in a place-holder for an additional bell-curve graphic up at the top. WRN, could you please look at Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07, and weigh in on the presentation of the two bell-curve graphs? I think that the others are right - we should stop arguing over abstractions, and get down to working on actual compromises. --JereKrischel 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

talk page length
if anyone is having trouble with the talk page length, please make a note here. otherwise, there should be no need to archive material that's less than a week old. --W.R.N. 02:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair enough. futurebird 02:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a problem when in less than a week the talk page grows over 100 kb. I think if people were focusing on one issue, and clearly working towards some sort of consensus or resolution, this would be tolerable.  But when people keep repeating themselves or go off on tangents, nothing is being accomplished.  In short, a lot of signal is fine as long as the noise-to-signla ratio is low.  I have made a few attempts to mediate but I do not think you "need" me.  What you (all of you) need to do is pick one or two issues and commit yourselves to working out a resolution that is compliant with NPOV and NOR and V.  But I see topics introduced and dropped.  So why shouldn't those be archived, if you all decide to drop the topic and move on to something else? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just archived 79 kb of talk that occured over only three days. Why did I archive it?  Because despite the fact that I thought there were some good suggestions in them, no one followed through on them.  This talk page is not just a place to register random ideas, it is to discuss how to improve the article.  If suggestions are ignored, they may as well be archived.  Right now the talk page is 124 kb long, still almost four times longer than it should be, and it is all from January 30-February 3.  I BEG all of you: look over this talk page and ask yourself how many topics have been discussed and then just abandoned, how many suggestions made and ignored?  It seems to me that the answer to both question is a lot.  for example, there was much thoughtful discussion about the graphs - but no resolution was reached and the topic was dropped. What is the point of leaving that material on the page since people are not willing to talk it through until they reach a resolution?  If this is the general pattern we may as well archive daily. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but at this point, I'm feeling that the very fact that the article page is locked is part and parcel of what prevents us from going forward and trying out solutions on the article. Instead, we bring up possible solutions, but since it's impossible to go and try them out, we're stuck discussing stuff ad nauseam. I believe it might be time to unlock this article. I believe there is enough agreement that the article can go forward without immediate fear of another edit war. It's at least worth a shot.--Ramdrake 13:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I faced a similar situation with a number of other editors on a policy page (so the stakes were high). We agreed to keep the page locked after a lengthy revert war.  We then sorted out specific edits that were contentious.  We then went through them one at a time, to see whether consensus could be reached.  The policy page remained locked, but once all the participants achieved a consensus about an edit, an admin made the edit.  Once all the contentious edits had been reviewed and revised until there was consensus, and edits made one by one, then the page was unblocked. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this isn't a policy page. Stakes may be higher for WP on a policy page, but my guess here is the situation is more emotional. I still think unblocking is worth a shot, as my reading of the situation on this talk page is that many editors here seem to be catching the WP equivalent of cabin fever: we keep focusing on our problems, but we are lacking a bit in the solutions department, and few people seem to be willing to listen to other people's proposals for solution.--Ramdrake 14:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it was not I who protected the page, but Ryan Delaney. I would defer to him.  I suspect that if you and RIK agree about this, you may convince him to unprotect (if he refuses, I promise you that after a few more days - to give the RfC some more time - I will unprotect).  In the meantime, I have a request: go through the most recently archived material.  If you think there is anything there that ought to remain "on the table," I would invite you to copy it and put it back on the active talk page.  I request (it is really advice) that you do so (if you are willing at all) only under two conditions: (1) be very selective and (2) only do it if it fits into SOME discussion already here in the active talk page. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * SLR, I think that futurebird has done a good job of starting us off iteratively with her Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07 page. Can we focus all of our attention just on that intro section, with WRN and I holding all other topics in abeyance, and come to some consensus, and then have an admin put that edit in?  I think that if you opened the page up now, the edit war would continue, with changes being made to the article that WRN found inappropriate, and his response to simply revert them.  I suggest that we should work on the new intro together, then have a straw-poll to decide if it should be put into the article by an admin.  We can probably do the same with other individual sections as well, although I'm certain that some of the iterations will be more complex due to the desired restructuring of the outline. --JereKrischel 16:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you, futurebird, WRN and Ramdrake all agree on a new intro, I will put it in. I will stay out of the process, but I think for any such edit to endure, all of you will need to agree on it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SLR! It would be helpful if you were involved in the process, though, to give us some specific guidance on any disagreements we may have in coming to consensus on a new intro.  I'm just afraid that even with a small section like the intro, we may essentially engage in the same talking-past each other.  Hopefully I'm wrong, and we can all find some sort of compromise, but just in case, even if you don't make direct contributions to the new intro, your calm, measured opinion on disagreements is very valuable to us all. --JereKrischel 17:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I the page was unlocked now it'd be a mess. We need to reach consunsus. This troubles me since I think that for some people preventing us from reaching consensus will preserve the article in its present condition. I think we need to make it clear that not being able to agree doesn't imply we ought to keep the status quo, or that the status quo is good. futurebird 16:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

People need to stop fighting and start doing some real work. That's what I think. This is silly. JJJamal 18:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop (please!)
Guys, have you noticed that in the last couple of days, we've gone back to talking at cross-purposes? Everyone here wants to go ahead with their own personal solution about what to do with the article, but it sounds like everybody is talking into thin air, way past each other. We are getting exactly nowhere doing this. I strongly suggest we go back to SLR's plan and discuss issues one at a time.
 * For myself, I would like to suggest that people stop archiving like crazy. As a rule, if a thread has been inactive for a week, go ahead and archive it, but I've seen threads archived in which I was writing just this morning, for goodness's sake!!! If that means the talk page gets to be 350k, so be it. The Evolution talk page is even larger than that, and nobody seriously complains. I'm sorry if I sound annoyed, but maybe I am. People are archiving left and right trying to get editors to focus on what they think is important, but we don't know that we have consensus on much of anything yet. I would suggest we go back to SLR's four points and pick up the discussion from there, one point at a time. I feel like we took a wrong ledt turn somewhere shortly after that.--Ramdrake 19:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, point taken. I was honestly trying to help. futurebird 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No one doubts your sincerity, but you need to fix the mess you created. Any material from Jan 31 or Feb1-3 that you archived must be restored to where it was. You have to fix it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * People need to stop fighting and focus on what needs to be changed in this article. JJJamal 20:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is out of field for me, but I think it interesting. Slrubenstein's comment on a lack of productive discussion is something I'm guilty of myself. It is easy to make arguments with merit and citations. We often jab and parry, but the hard part is really working together to find a consensus or compromise that ends up in the article (not just Talk). I have removed my additions that were perfectly legitimate and well referenced and CORRECT, but I finally realized that being right was not the point because the article was just giving a simple example of natural selection with antibiotic resistance in bacteria (but my anal penchant for being accurate just got the better of me so I had to qualify with a whole spew which detracted from the point and the article). Slrubenstein is correct to work out each issue one at time. All of you editors appear bright, articulate, and knowlegeable about the topic so I believe you can put disagreements aside or compromise to produce an excellent article. I really have to believe that reason will win the day. GetAgrippa 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind motivational word GA! I will try my best to be cooperative. futurebird 14:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Schwael asks more questions
In light of activity on this page in the past 24 hours, I'm noticing a problematic trend: people seem to have ceased talking with one another. Talking is going on, but it is primarily within two different camps. One camp is starting to rewrite the article from the ground up. The other camp is still trying to determine how/if the original article was not neutral enough and how to fix it in a neutral way. Therefore camp 2 has not been participating in the rewrite. So I'm retracting my suggestion from earlier and now suggesting that the folks working on the new intro back up a bit first and work a little more on clarifying (like using a numbered list) the ways the original article was not neutral.

For example, it seems to me that one important POV in question is "Is race a social construct or is it biological?" Thus these would be arguments which need to be portrayed in a fair way (tho as I wrote yesterday, I don't know if a NPOV article is possible in this case -which I'd still like some feedback on, because if that's true, and some people here still hold it as a goal, then we've got a big problem). I noticed that there was some discussion earlier about this and how the general POV tends to be different depending on the intellectual community (biologists vs sociologists for example) and I didn't understand it completely, so I will go make some comments there next. Schwael 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your point is well taken, and it opens up an avenue to understanding the nature of the conflict over this high-stakes issue more clearly.


 * The question you believe is in question, "Is race a social construct or is it biological?" is probably the way many people are indeed framing an important consideration, but it is not exactly the right question. The way in which it fails to be the right question explains why "the general POV tends to be different depending on the intellectual community."


 * Here is the deal: All propositions that aim to be scientific and empirically-based are constructions that humans place on intersubjective observations. The biological, sociological, racialist, racist... communities may, by dint of careful vetting of observations, agree on a set of data, but each group will put different constructions on that set of data. Any new piece of data poses a different problem for each of the concerned communities regarding how to fit that data in to their currently accepted constructs, and discordant data may be put in the "pending" file by any community that finds it hard to add that data without a major reconstruction of their existing body of constructs. For instance, the man who eventually got a Nobel Prize for discovering that prions cause kuru, mad cow disease, etc., was vilified by his own community members because it so upset existing ideas that diseases were caused by viruses or microbes.


 * Even the way words are understood can change among communities. If a person's everyday experience with definitions of species, subspecies, etc., includes continual reinforcement of the idea that these are all to some extent squishy categories, the idea that there are sub-subspecific statistical groupings of some degree of utility called, for lack of a better word, "races" may make that word a useful tool to that individual. For someone else, the term "race" is a hurtful tool in the hands of others because in their experience of its use "race" means individuals being crammed into "the good bin" and "the bad bin", i.e., for whom experience shows that "race" is used as a rigid category that ignores salient individual characteristics and oppresses some individuals while unfairly rewarding others.


 * It's a pity that Loglan or something like it is not available for general use. I think the experience on this very discussion page shows that it is virtually impossible to think about the topic of discussion because of the degree of slop (an engineer's term, not a slur) in the conceptual tools is so great. P0M 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that if we could just understand what people like Lynn and Jensen mean by race there would be no disagreement? I may be misreading what you're saying... because if this is what you're saying I can't see how it is true. futurebird 17:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Bullet point problems with current article
In no particular order:


 * The debate is being characterized as a choice between "partly-genetic" or "environmental only". This frame is inappropriate, and gives inappropriate credibility to people who believe that observed racial gaps are immutable genetic properties of "race".  WRN will argue that he can cite several sources that lay out the issue in terms of genetic/environmental, both justifying his POV pushing terms, as well as justifying the POV layout of the article.
 * I do not understand the problem. Is it not true that some scholars believe it is partly genetic? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is true, but this way of separating opinion doesn't differentiate between say a Lieberman who thinks the genetic contribution if it exists, may not be significant, and a Rushton, who thinks the genetic contribution is in all likelihood the most important contribution. The debate is how to best describe the spectrum of opinions and properly defining each typical position.--Ramdrake 14:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The debate is excessively detailed in support of the racialist/hereditarian POV. There is little balance to the sections, and often times arguments put forth by hereditarians are recreated, point by point, reference by reference, in the article, rather than simply citing the figure making the claim, and the claim.  Major simplifications can occur in describing the differing points of view as to the magnitude, direction, and significance of either environmental or genetic factors.  WRN will argue that the excessive detail promoting the racialist/hereditarian POV is simply an artifact of the overwhelming body of evidence in favor of that POV.
 * Wikipedia motto: do not delete, add. What do you propose to add? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there are two answers to that question - (1) If the excessive detail of the hereditarian POV remains, I propose to add numerous, directly cited refutations of each tiny point. I'm sure WRN will do the same in return, and we'll have the slippery slope problem I mention below, with refs, counter refs, counter counter refs, etc, making the article essentially unreadable.  I'm desperately looking for some sort of guidance on how that can be avoided, because currently I believe that the only way to avoid going down that road is to not start.  (2) If the excessive detail of the hereditarian POV is removed, I propose adding a great deal more on the historical context of race and intelligence, how it has changed over the years, as well as its part in the history of scientific racism, eugenics, and public perception.  I'm sure FB will have much to add in the area as well. --JereKrischel 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The debate regularly conflates various definitions of "race" in an inappropriate manner without giving necessary context. Claims based on "race", when cited, should include the definition of race used by that particular citation.  The citations are incomplete unless that important context is given. WRN will argue that since the racialist/hereditarian meta-analyses omit these contexts, there is no need to provide context at all.#
 * If they omit the context, then how do we know what definition to provide? If they omit the context/defintion, isn't this fact itself important enough and sufficient to include? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "The debate" (by this I am guesing JK means the debate in the outside world, not this debate on our discussion page) does inevitably involve participants who use different meanings for both "race" and "intelligence." If a book or article discloses the actual data, the definitions of terms, the mathematical/statistical methods used in constructing comparisons, then that individual study can be clear and, barring a poor study plan, there shouldn't be much room for controversy. The problem comes when several studies using different methodologies, at least slightly different definitions, etc. are put side by side in an attempt to synthesize conclusions from them. We are barred from making these syntheses as part of this article. The fact that "they omit the context" is indeed important enough to add. Whether it is sufficient to include that note here and there in the article sounds doubtful to me if it is indeed a real source of the problems in knowing what        if any connection there is between [race] and [intelligence] because the average reader will not have been sensitized to this issue as we have been and may well fail to see the connection between and significance of all those little notes. P0M 18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fairly extraordinary claims are cited from unreliable sources, including IQ data in the 4-curve opening graphic. Following the nested citations of Gottfredson leads to studies and papers that don't have the data claimed to be cited.  WRN will argue that these sources are reliable, and that their overall conclusions are undisputed, even if the specific details are in question.
 * If there are debates over the reliability of sources, those debates themselves must be included in the article. But we do not exclude a source because some people think it is unreliable.  We instead say, "One controversy is over the reliability of these sources..." with an account of the controversy Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Question - since the controversy over the reliability is essentially OR (I actually looked at Gottfredson's citations, and followed them back to the studies she cited, and found no such data or even mention of race - I didn't find a published critique of her reliability), is it allowed to be included? I would gather that the answer should be "no" in the strictest sense of WP:NOR, but I'm concerned that it allows for demonstrably unreliable sources.  Maybe the answer is that I myself should submit a paper to a journal and get my critique published :).


 * I guess I would feel better if something as prominent as the initial graphic was actually sourced from several different sources, not just one. If both Gottfredson, Flynn, and the APA published the data used to build the curve, it would mollify my concerns.  Otherwise, I suppose we could honestly caption the graph with something along the lines of "According to a meta-analysis by Gottfredson, using unspecified and uncited WAIS test results, argues that the B-W gap looks like this.". --JereKrischel 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In every case, WRNs response has been complete denial of any problem with the article. Others have attempted to present various compromise positions, but none seem to be acceptable to WRN. WRN has not presented any compromise proposals of his own. --JereKrischel 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

May I add a bullet point?


 * The article lacks historical context and looks at questions of race and intelligence only with respect to recent research (expect for a small section on history) rather than the relations drawn between race and intelligent in a boarder cultural context (stereotypes) and the history of race, racism and scientific racism. futurebird 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Much of that historical context I suspect belongs in another article. to include all of it here would make the article too long.  I am not arguing to exclude any and all historical context.  I think we should provide as much historical context as has entered directly into debates over reace and intelligence.  Believe me, that still includes a lot of context. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Five bullet points, largely aimed against WRN. Let me start by saying that if anyone here takes an antagonistic attitude towards WRN, the mediation will fail and the article will remain protected.  Of course this goes for WRN too - he should not be antagonistic either.  Second, i am non-partisan, and have provided a response for each bullet point.  My responses do not reflect WRN's POV.  They are my attempts to mediate an impasse.  I think you (Futurebird and JK) need to respond in a way that is consistent with what I suggest here if you ever want to improve the article Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the points aimed against WRN are simply an artifact of our particular concerns, not a personal attack on WRN. WRN wants the article to remain the way it has been under his guidance for the past 4 years, and does not have any problems with the article as written.  Any changes desired by other editors are inherently going to be against his POV.  I truly believe WRN is working in good faith, and hope that he will begin to present possible compromises for our concerns.  If any antagonism was detected, it was unintentional.  --JereKrischel 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Specific example problem
So this argument might go to the WP:NOR problem. Underneath Genetic explanations, WRN has written this -

"Several recent studies have found some neuronal genes have variants that have spread to high frequencies under selective pressure and now occur in different frequencies in different global populations.[20] Some of this selection occurred within the last 10,000 years, such as a recent variant of the ASPM gene that is found mostly among European and East Asian populations. The cause of the selective sweep and the effects of these variants are generally not yet known, although some suspect that they could be related to intelligence.[117] Although neurogenic diversity theoretically increases the chances of functional diversity, ultimately, very little is known about the actual impact of these variants, and the researchers caution that they may not have anything to do with cognition or intelligence at all.[118]"

Certainly this is a "genetic explanation" of something, but it is not an assertion of any sort relating race to intelligence, and the researchers themselves are cautious about this. It certainly doesn't relate to social categories of "race", such as U.S. blacks and U.S. whites. Why such prominent mention in the article? Well, WRN is a geneticist, and he connected the dots together, and decided that these very recent studies were supportive of a "genetic explanation" for observed differences between "races" and intelligence. Can we agree that this paragraph should be removed from the article? Comments? --JereKrischel 04:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The quoted material is certainly interesting, and it actually tends to subvert the common sense idea of [race] that links it to superficial (in the literal sense of the word) marker characteristics. What the quotation depicts as "selective sweep" indicates that these "variants that have spread to high frequencies under selective pressure" are "invasive" to several so-called "racial" groups in different parts of the globe. I'm not sure what ought to be done with the information, or what could legitimately be done with it without "synthesis." Isn't the problem with the quoted material that there may be some degree of "synthesis" just by the way that several summaries of cited materials are placed side by side? In the second sentence there is an implication, I suspect, that the ASPM gene has something to do with the purportedly higher average intelligence of "European and East Asian populations." But there is no citation for that claim, so where did it come from? Then there is a third sentence that confirms the implicit idea but in a weakened form. The fourth sentence also adds a note of caution. So what we seem to be left with is the knowledge that genes can be "invasive" in the way that honeybees are invasive in the Americas. They happen to be very useful and desirable in almost all ways, but "invasive" in the sense that they are outsiders that have moved in to stay. Maybe that paragraph really belongs in the race article. P0M 19:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Another specific example
Under Genetic explanations, WRN has written this -

"To support these claims, they often cite several lines of evidence that they interpret as support for a partly genetic cause of group differences in IQ:"

1. Black–White–East Asian differences in IQ, reaction time, and brain size are observed worldwide in a range of cultures and environments. In the United States, significant Black-White IQ differences are observable at every age above 3 years, within every occupation or socioeconomic level tested, in every region of the country, and at every time since the invention of ability tests.[106]

2. Jensen and other have argued that the magnitude of race differences on different IQ subtests correlate with the extent to which those subtests measures g,[107] which also correlates with measures of the subtests heritability.[108] From these and other findings, they argue that race differences have a partly biological basis.[109]

3. The rising heritability of IQ with age (within all races; studies have found on average in the developed world heritability starts at 20% in infants, rises to 40% in middle childhood, and peaks at 80% in adulthood); and studies showing the virtual disappearance (~0.0) by adulthood of shared environmental effects on IQ (for example, family income, education, and home environment), with adopted siblings partaking in the studies no more similar in IQ than with strangers[110] From these studies, they argue that most suggested environmental explanations for IQ difference between groups do not have a strong enough effect on IQ to fully account for group differences. 4. Studies of US comparisons of both parents to children and siblings to each other finding regression to differing means for different races (85 for Blacks and 100 for Whites) across the entire range of IQs,[111] despite the fact that siblings are matched for shared environment and genetic heritage, with regression unaffected by family socioeconomic status and generation examined[112]

This seems to be excessive detail. WRN has essentially recreated Rushton/Jensen arguments, and placed citations in his citation. This essentially allows WRN to write an entire section, as if it were incontrovertible based on various references, without any possible response. The NPOV fact that should be reported is that Rushton and Jensen make some assertions, not that they make some assertions, and here is the factual evidence they use to back it up. If anything, every one of their "lines of evidence" should be attributed directly to Rushton and Jensen, as much of that same evidence may be interpreted as undermining the "genetic hypothesis", depending on the viewer. It seems very weaselly, in any case.

Can we agree these four points should be removed from the article? Comments? --JereKrischel 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * JK, I do not think you understand our NPOV policy. If these are Jensen's views, or the view of Jensen and a few others, all of this material is absolutely appropriate as long as the article clearly identifies the point of view.  If the article says, "To support these claims, they often cite several lines of evidence ..." then you are dead wrong to suggest that the article is presenting these as facts.  On the contrary, the article is presenting what Jensen and others consider facts, which is all that we can do, and precisely what we should do.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If every "line of evidence" was predicated by, "Jensen and Rushton believe there is...", I think that might be more appropriate, but I still think this excessive detail leads us down a slippery slope where I don't see a stopping point.


 * Perhaps you could answer this question, and help me find a solution to my ultimate concern - if these four points were put in a table, with the Rushton/Jensen assertion on one column, and a direct, cited refutation in the other column, would that be appropriate? Would it then be appropriate to put a third column, and a direct, cited counter refutation in that one?  Would it then be appropriate to put a fourth column, and a direct, cited counter counter refutation in that one?  At what point is it reasonable to stop doing a tit-for-tat argument?


 * I think that because I don't see an end to the slippery slope of excessive detail, I'm concerned about even starting off on that path. Perhaps you could help provide me with some guideline which may lay my concerns to rest?  --JereKrischel 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

YASE (yet another specific example)
In the Environmental explanations section, an interesting claim is tacked onto a discussion of the Flynn effect.

"Such differences would need to develop before age 3, when the black-white IQ gap can be first detected.[94]"

The reference 94 is for Rushton/Jensen 2005a. Instead of making a bald statement of fact, a specific statement should be attributed to Rushton/Jensen. Looking at the reference, it seems there is no claim at all that differences would need to develop before age 3, but simply a statement that The size of the average Black-White difference does not change significantly over the developmental period from 3 years of age and beyond.

Can we agree that this sentence and improper reference should be removed from the article? Comments? --JereKrischel 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you have made a compelling argument that it should be rewritten, not removed. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If the sentence was rewritten to reflect what the actual source said, it would no longer be addressing the particular point being made by Flynn. Are you suggesting that I should both suggest a rewrite for the sentence, and a more appropriate place for it in the article?  Something like, Rushton and Jensen state, "The size of the average Black-White difference does not change significantly over the developmental period from 3 years of ange and beyond", and then stick it in a different section? --JereKrischel 18:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

what Jensen believes
There seems to be some misunderstanding about what hereditarians believe. To help clear that up a bit, here's some relevant text from Jensen (1998) that briefly summarizes the views of the model hereditarian. --W.R.N. 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

IQ differences alone tell you nothing about the cause of the gap: "Because IQ is strictly a phenotype, as is every observable or measurable human characteristic, it does not, by itself, support any inference concerning the cause of either individual or group differences in IQ."

Why is there interest in race w.r.t. IQ: "Whatever their cause, IQ differences are related to variables of immense practical consequence in the modern world. The substantial correlation of IQ with many educational, economic, and social criteria has been well established. Largely for this reason, there has been a long-standing interest in the IQ differences between various populations in the United States that markedly differ, on average, on these salient criteria."

Black-White differences: "Only their strictly phenotypic or psychometric aspects are examined in this section."

"By far the most extensively researched group differences in IQ are those between the two largest populations in the United States: persons of European ancestry who are socially identified as 'white' and persons of some African ancestry who are socially identified as 'black' or African-American."

"The mean difference, which is in evidence by about three years of age, increases slightly from early childhood to maturity. These are simply the phenotypic, psychometric, and statistical facts. The average difference, of course, is relatively small compared to the range of variation within either population and, in fact, is not much greater than the average difference between full siblings reared together in the same family."

Causes: "Human races are viewed not as discrete, or Platonic, categories, but rather as breeding populations that, as a result of natural selection, have come to differ statistically in the relative frequencies of many polymorphic genes."

"Racial populations differ in many genetic characteristics, some of which, such as brain size, have behavioral and psychometric correlates, particularly g. What I term the default hypothesis states that the causes of the phenotypic differences between contemporary populations of recent African and European descent arise from the same genetic and environmental factors, and in approximately the same magnitudes, that account for individual differences within each population. Thus genetic and environmental variances between groups and within groups are viewed as essentially the same for both populations. The default hypothesis is able to account for the present evidence on the mean white-black difference in g. There is no need to invoke any ad hoc hypothesis, or a Factor X, that is unique to either the black or the white population. The environmental component of the average g difference between groups is primarily attributable to a host of microenvironmental factors that have biological effects. They result from nongenetic variation in prenatal, perinatal, and neonatal conditions and specific nutritional factors."


 * More about what a "model hereditarian" believes: Recent Pioneer Fund grant recipients include race scientists Arthur Jensen and Roger Pearson. Famous for his attack on Head Start, Jensen argued in the Harvard Educational Review that black children test at an IQ of 85 and urged "eugenic foresight" as the only solution.


 * Of course, we could continue this for quite a while, WRN, but let's suffice it to say that how people see themselves is often very different from how others see them. You have a very favorable view of Jensen, and I'm sure Jensen does as well.  Why don't we move on to dealing either with the intro proposal, or finding a better outline for the article?  --JereKrischel 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First, note that nothing about "eugenic foresight" has to do with the size or causes of the BW gap. Moreover, you could bother to know the context of those two words. Writing about the phenomena of low IQ individuals (who were supported by welfare) tending to have more children, Jensen wrote: "Is there a danger that current welfare policies, unaided by eugenic foresight, could lead to the genetic enslavement of a substantial portion of our population?" (Jensen 1969, p. 95). You can read the same concern in The Bell Curve (1994). They are suggesting that Welfare was harming more than helping. It is noteworthy that Welfare was changed in the Clinton years, in part addressing these concerns. Yet, none of that relates to the BW gap except to the extent that the IQ-fertility negative correlation is stronger among blacks than whites. --W.R.N. 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WRN, I don't think it helps your position to go there: we go from a pro-racialist to a pro-eugenics positions, which if anything raises even more ethical and scientific objections.--Ramdrake 23:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not pro-eugenic, it's anti-dysgenic and anti-"enslavement". I'm not sure what my "position" is other than that editors of this article should bother to understand the material they are writing about. Nothing in the "eugenics" talk has anything to do with the science being described above. --W.R.N. 23:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In the words of JK: Why don't we move on to dealing either with the intro proposal, or finding a better outline for the article?futurebird 23:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop (please!) (take 2)
OK, now that I have your attention (I hope!), can we please stop arguing about what this or that researcher think or didn't think, said or didn't say, and please concentrate on what to do next to get this article unlocked and improved. To quote one of my favorite shows: Captain, we're going around in circles, and at Warp 10, we're going nowhere mighty fast!


 * We are going around in circles, yet I do see positive moves: I see people trying to argue their points in terms of NPOV and SOR and I think that is a huge step forward.


 * Unless anyone objects I would like to step-up my role as mediator. Here is my suggestion, based on what I have seen over the past week.


 * First, I think two bullet-points I raised are really in the forfront of people's minds; I think also Futurebird's proposed introduction is important to people.


 * I propose that we not discuss the overall structure or oganization of the article. I

propose that we focus on specific issues.

I propose:
 * 1) For now, we focus on these three issues
 * 2) Instead of debating "the truth," we restrict ourselves to proposing specific edits, and revisions of edits, and new edits, with an aim of providing an NPOV NOR account of the topic in the article
 * 3) As JK, RIK, Ramdrake, and Futurebird reach a consensus, I will move the new material into the article.  Once we compelte these three topics, we can discuss unprotecting the article.

Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's just too heated, but this thread is active right now, and seemingly not getting to a solution I think should be possible. --W.R.N. 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the three issues are:


 * 1) First two bullet points (The ones you replied to out of the list of 5??)
 * 2) futurebird's intro

Is that right? --JereKrischel 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How to represent the different interpretations of self identified race in the verifiable literature?

 * The most obivous interpretation of "self identified race" is as a social category, based first on skin color, second on specific racial features and third known ancestry (when it isn't too remote).--Ramdrake 14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the phrase "the most obvious" should be banned from this distinction. The reason this question is salient is because people self-identify race when they take IQ tests.  The only issue is how have verifiable and reliable relvant sources - not us, or some vague abstract general public to which things are obvious - interpreted this.  We need to provide an account not of what we think, but of what participants in debates over race and intelligence have actually written in verifiable sources.  Ramdrake, please, just expressing what you think is not going to move us forward.  We need proposals for additions or changes to the article concerning this question, and changes have to be NPOV and NOR compliant. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I certainly wasn't doing this to aggravate you. What I might suggest then, if you wanted referenced and cited opinions from the literature only, would have been to say: What are different interpretations of "self-identified race" existing in the literature? That would have made it clearer that you wanted only cited answers. As it was clearer for your second question, I didn't answer right away to take the time necessary to look up the literature.--Ramdrake 15:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's how J. Phillipe Rushton interprets racial categories (as they relate to both evolutionary biology and everyday life) on pgs 42-43 of his book: "Yes, to a certain extent all the races blend into each other. That is true in any biological classification system. However, most people can be clearly identified with one race or another. In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a 'Black' is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa. A 'White' is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in Europe. And an 'Oriental' is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in East Asia. Modern DNA studies give pretty much the same results."Wantednewlook

According to psychologist Arthur Jensen, "American blacks are socially defined simply as persons who have some degree of sub-Saharan African ancestry and who identify themselves (or, in the case of children, are defined by their parents) as black or African-American" ref: Jorion, P.J.M. (1999). [Intelligence and race: The house of cards], Psycoloquy 10(064) Wantednewlook


 * Wantednewlook, you are misunderstanding the question. The question is not "what does Jenson or anyone else think races are."  The question is this: Jenson and others use data in which people self-identify their race.  In their published i.e. verifiable literatture, how do Jensen and other researchers move from that data to the larger models of race and intelligence?  What is their criteria, what steps do they take - if they have published on it.  And have their critics provided other analyses of the data and any correlations between self-identified races and average IQ scores?  What has beenpublished that needs to be represented in this article?  How should we represwent it?  Again, I am asking for proposals for specific edits to the article.  Anything else belongs in a chat room or blog. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * SLR, I understand this to be a response to criticisms that originated with JK or other. I don't believe this is going to be productive, because I believe the question has not really been asked or answered in the literature because it's not really of much interest. A review of the literature will most likely find that researchers use straightforward sampling techniques and statistics, such as those used in epidemiology. A sample of people of some self-described race/ethnicity is used to estimate the distribution of traits in the overall population of that race/ethnicity. --W.R.N. 17:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is of great interest, and has had significant consequences on the topic. For example, historically, U.S. categories of "race" have changed, with the 2000 census particularly departing from past options.  Self-described race/ethnicity looks very different depending on the options given and the context.  There are several studies showing that self-describe race/ethnicity changes depending on the context (answers given at school, for example, may be different than answers given at home, answers at one age may be different than answers at another age).  I understand that it is a distraction from the question and the assumptions of "race", but I must strongly disagree with your characterization that this is not "of much interest". --JereKrischel 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rushton and Jensen simply cite studies in which people have either self-identified as belonging to a certain race or are so identified by the author of the study based on subjective criteria. They interpret each study on an individual basis. The following quote from Ruston & Jensen[] provides insight in terms of how people are classified by race by players in the field. I’ve highlighted the relevant parts:

The mean age for the entire sample (9,830 Whites, 4,017 Blacks, and 119 mixed-race individuals) was 16 years. The Black adolescents averaged a lower birth weight, a lower verbal IQ, and a higher number of sexual partners than did the White adolescents. For each characteristic, the mixed-race mean fell between the means of the other two groups. Rowe found the social class explanation of the group differences “un- convincing” because, of the three variables, only verbal IQ showed a moderate correlation with social class and statistically adjusting for it left the main findings unchanged. He also rejected the “discrimination based on skin tone” hypothesis because it was eliminated by deliberately selecting only those mixed-race ado-lescents who were judged by their interviewers to be Black, based on their physical appearance. Three studies of racially mixed individuals at first appear to support the culture-only hypothesis against the genetic hypothesis. Eyferth (1961; Eyferth, Brandt, & Hawel, 1960) reported IQ data for out-of-wedlock children fathered by soldiers stationed in Germany after World War II and then reared by White German mothers. The mean IQs for 83 White children and for 98 racially mixed children were both about 97 (97.2 for the Whites, 96.5 for the racially mixed). As Loehlin et al. (1975, pp. 126–128) noted, however, these results are ambiguous for three reasons. First, the children were still very young when tested. One third of the children were between 5 and 10 years of age, and two thirds were between 10 and 13 years. As discussed in Section 5 (see Figure 3), behavior genetic studies show that while family socialization effects on IQ are often strong before puberty, after puberty they dwindle, sometimes to zero. Second, 20% to 25% of the “Black” fathers were not African Americans but French North Africans (i.e.,largely Caucasian or “Whites” as we have defined the terms here). Wantednewlook

Who (in the verifiable literature) says race can be a proxy for genetic population, and who says it is a proxy for something else (what)?
There has already been a LOT of discussion of this, above. But the discussion was wasted. Why? Not because it lacked thought and research. No - because it was not framed as a discussion of how, through specific edits, to improve the article. Let's get some actual proposals, and work on them, and hammer out a compromise. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what the article says now: --W.R.N. 18:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Racial distinctions are generally made on the basis of skin color, facial features, inferred ancestry, national origin and self-identification in the United States. In an ongoing debate, some geneticists argue race is neither a meaningful concept nor a useful heuristic device,[9] and even that genetic differences among groups are biologically meaningless,[10] on the basis that more genetic variation exists within such races than among them,[11] and that racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries.[12] Concordant with this, a survey of cultural and physical anthropologists done in 1999[13] found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists. Other geneticists, in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful,[14] that these categories correspond with clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data,[15] and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.[16]


 * That introduction is fine. We should leave it as it is. Wantednewlook


 * I think that this section should be significantly expanded, to include more details about the historical categories of race in the United States, and how they have changed over the years (specifically as used by intelligence studies). It should also give specific examples of the use of various distinction techniques, citing intelligence studies using those methodologies.  There should also be a further expansion about the biologically meaningless nature of race, with some discussion about how it is found to be biologically meaningful in certain medical circumstances, and biologically meaningless with more complex phenotypes, specifically intelligence.  "Other geneticists" should be specified, as well as "geneticists" who argue that self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are invalid and not useful, specifically with regard to intelligence.


 * SLR - none of this particularly addresses intelligence, should we try to make this section more specific to racial distinctions made in intelligence research? --JereKrischel 18:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The "problems" JK cites below are not problems. The section is the background about the debate regrading race. (For example, Lewtontin wasn't writing about intelligence when he wrote about Fst, but his opinions are highly cited with respect to race and thus are included.) Likewise, the background on intelligence is a general summary with note of those areas relating to race. These are the "brief summary" sections described by NPOV policy. --W.R.N. 04:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think those comments aren't from JK, they are from mr. The topiv is too sensitive to play fast with the rules on this one. What do you think of my revision below? futurebird 05:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Citation 14

 * With respect to these sentences:
 * "Other geneticists(such as who?), in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful,[14] that these categories correspond with clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data,[15] and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.[16]"


 * "14. ^ Risch et al. 2002, Bamshad 2005. Neil Risch argues: 'One could make the same arguments about sex and age! . . you can undermine any definitional system. . . In a recent study. . . we actually had a higher discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome [than] between genetic structure [based on microsatellite markers] versus [racial] self-description, [which had a] 99.9% concordance. . . So you could argue that sex is also a problematic category. And there are differences between sex and gender; self-identification may not be correlated with biology perfectly. And there is sexism. And you can talk about age the same way. A person's chronological age does not correspond perfectly with his biological age for a variety of reasons, both inherited and non-inherited. Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? . . . Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn't preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility' (Gitschier 2005)."


 * http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010014
 * This article isn't even about race and intelligence. Risch seems to be talking about the clinical applications of race. If you are going to include and extended quote in the footnotes like this, why omit these two sentences: "Scientists always disagree! A lot of the problem is terminology. I'm not even sure what race means, people use it in many different ways." ?


 * I don't know if this source is being used properly to support this statement in this context. I agree with JK we should try to make this section more specific to racial distinctions made in intelligence research-- futurebird 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the problem we have here is the slippery slope I talk about elsewhere. Someone criticizes race and intelligence research for using the category of race as a basis.  To respond, someone finds a study that, although it doesn't touch intelligence, replies to the racial categorization question.  To respond to that, we could find a study, although it doesn't touch intelligence or self-identified race, replies to the use of multilocus genetic data and principal component analysis.  To respond to that, we could find a study, although it doesn't touch intelligence or self-identified race, or multilocus genetic data, replies to the mathematical theories of principal component analysis.  And so on.


 * Where does it stop? And why doesn't it stop once we aren't talking about both race and intelligence?  WRN, SLR, have you any insight? --JereKrischel 06:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Citation(s) 15

 * With respect to these sentences:
 * "Other geneticists(such as who?), in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful,[14] that these categories correspond with clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data,[15] and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.[16]"


 * "15. ^ Harpending and Rogers 2000, Bamshad et al. 2003, Edwards 2003, Bamshad et al. 2004, Tang et al. 2005, Rosenberg et al. 2005: 'If enough markers are used... individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe'."


 * (Which source is the quote from?)


 * "Tang, H., Quertermous, T., Rodriguez, B., Kardia, S. L., Zhu, X., Brown, A., Pankow, J. S., Province, M. A., Hunt, S. C., Boerwinkle, E., Schork, N. J. and Risch, N. J. (Feb 2005). 'Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies'. American Journal of Human Genetics 76 (2): 268-275.."


 * About race, but not intelligence. Probably not OK in this context.


 * "Rosenberg, N. A., Mahajan, S., Ramachandran, S., Zhao, C., Pritchard, J. K. and Feldman, M. W. (December 1 2005). 'Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure'. PLoS Genetics 1 (6): e70."


 * Can't find a mention of "race" in the abstract-- this is about groups and has no mention of intelligence.


 * "Bamshad, M., Wooding, S., Salisbury, B. A. and Stephens, J. C. (2004). 'Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race'. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5: 598-609. DOI:10.1038/nrg1401."


 * This is about race in a clinical context, not OK to list as a source here.


 * "Edwards, A. W. (Aug 2003). 'Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy'. Bioessays 25 (8): 798-801.."


 * This one is fine, as a source here, But where was this published? It didn't say in the PDF.
 * futurebird 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem with last part of the sentence at 16

 * "and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.[16]"


 * This isn't about groups. It's about race.futurebird 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible revision?
Racial distinctions in the United States have been made on the basis of skin color, facial features, inferred ancestry, social and cultural status, national origin and self-identification. Racial definitions have changed frequently over time as made evident by the racial categories in the US census.(more needed on this...)

However, some contemporary geneticists, such as Wilson, Schwartz, Stephens, Cooper and Bamshed argue race is neither a meaningful concept nor a useful heuristic device, and even that genetic differences among groups are biologically meaningless, on the basis that more genetic variation exists within such races than among them,[11] and that racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries.[12] Concordant with this, a survey of cultural and physical anthropologists done in 1999[13] found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists. Other geneticists, in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful for clinical purposes, such as better understanding the risk factors for heart deseise. In his paper Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy A.W.F. Edwards explains that "Genetic analysis of human data reveals a substantial amount of information about genetic differences. What use, if any, one makes of it is quite another matter."[15] futurebird 04:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * add the citations so i can see what the sources actually say. for example, i know bamshad's work pretty well and he's probably being mischaracterized there. which wilson? e.o. wilson? i'm guessing schwartz and stephens probably aren't very notable because I don't recongize them. the removal of citation 16 is not appropriate as it speaks directly to looking at the causes of phenotypic differences (including cognitive ability). on net you reduced the space given to "race is meaningful" and increased the space to "race is not meaningful". was that intentional? why would you try to distinguish clinical phenotypes in this section? why cite Edwards saying "What use, if any, one makes of it is quite another matter."? --W.R.N. 05:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just don't see how 16 relevant if we can't know if by "groups" they mean races. You could use that to explain that biologists have said that intelligence is heritable for groups, though, maybe latter on in this article. But, using it here is stringing ideas together and making inferences for the reader that experts on this topic have questioned. That's OR.


 * (I'll revise this tomorrow and add sources and more about changing categories.)


 * I want to know what JK thinks. I'm just saying, it should be more along these lines-- and some of the sources used for the original didn't really work (as explained above). futurebird 05:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I'm still looking for guidance as to the ground rules and principles we want to apply. Going back to SLR's initial layout, I would say that this type of section is very challenging, because it rolls down a slippery slope of challenge and counter challenge, and counter counter challenge, etc..  I wish we could do something like give the candy bar to one kid, and let the other kid choose which half to take.  Maybe have one person make three references, and have the other person make three references, and each person gets to deep-six two of the references of the other person, giving us just one reference left for each.  It seems that the point we want to make here is that race as a category for use in intelligence testing has a long history, and conflicting beliefs about its validity at present.  We should probably give some history as to its use in intelligence testing, one-drop-rule and all, and probably cite just one strong source for the argument against its use, specifically in intelligence testing, and one strong source for the argument for its use, specifically in intelligence testing.  It would probably help if we quoted directly, instead of trying to summarize what the source "intended" by our interpretation. --JereKrischel 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * JK, could you post your revision of this text? I think that's too many rules, it makes my brain hurt, let's just keep chaing it untill we agree. futurebird 18:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

FB, the title of the paper in citation 16 is "Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among 'racial' and 'ethnic' groups". What racial and ethnic groups are is fairly clear. In my opinion, it is not a good idea to assume that JK has summarized material accurately -- I do not. You'll need to consult the sources directly to see what they are saying. JK's suggestion that we simply build an article of quotes is not feasible. The aim of WP is to build an encyclopedia which summarizes human knowledge. A quotation should never be used where a summary can be substituted. See the race article for an extensive, if sloppy, review of what's been said about race. --W.R.N. 00:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What racial and ethnic groups are is not particularly clear. In my opinion, it is certainly not a good idea to assume that WRN has summarized material accurately - in numerous cases, fairly large gaps between what WRN has summarized, and what the actual source has said, have been found upon actual inspection of the references.  (This is also a common criticism in the literature about folk such as Rushton.)  Which is why I think for the most part, building an article out of direct quotes, instead of POV pushing summaries, is at the very least the safest way to start.  Given the significant controversy over how to represent certain sources, it is probably best to start by quoting them, and then working together on NPOV summaries based on the quotes found. --JereKrischel 09:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible revision (version two)
How about this? Please feel free to jum in and make your own changes. futurebird 01:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Racial distinctions in the United States have been made on the basis of skin color, facial features, inferred ancestry, social and cultural status, national origin and self-identification. State sanctioned racial definitions have changed frequently over time because of shifting ideas about race. Some contemporary geneticists say race is not meaningful concept for studying intelligence on the basis that more genetic variation exists within races than between them. They also point out that racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries. A survey of cultural and physical anthropologists in 1999 found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists.

Other geneticists, in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful for clinical purposes, such as better understanding the risk factors for heart disease. In his paper Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy A.W.F. Edwards explains that "Genetic analysis of human data reveals a substantial amount of information about genetic differences. What use, if any, one makes of it is quite another matter."


 * I am not sure how to correct this text in a compliant way. My problem with it is that it conflates a theory of [race] that sees it as a relatively unfuzzy category with categories that are "useful for clinical purposes." Recently there has been criticism of overconfidence in judgments based on [racial] factors to the exclusion of good clinical workups. The fact that, e.g., "Barack Obama is black," (his own assessment) does not guarantee that he will react better to the heart medications that are generally more effective for blacks. Good physicians apparently make judgments about what to try first on this rule-of-thumb basis, but then they watch the clinical signs carefully to see whether the statistical bet is paying off or putting the patient in the hole. (Maybe literally.) When a good M.D. says, "He's black," that means something far different than when David Duke says it. P0M 21:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

new introduction
Meaning this - but only if RIK signs on board and is willing to work on editing this into a consensus version. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My objections are listed at the end of this thread. I believe this intro would fail to conform to NPOV and that the only way to know would be to try to edit the article itself first. I believe JK's reply demonstrates the NPOV problem for me. --W.R.N. 17:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we have no choice but to put this aside and focus on the above two topics first. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggestions for changing the history section are a substitute in my mind for trying to add history to the lead. --W.R.N. 18:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should still be considering a major reorganization of the article outline. As per above, I'm concerned that simply working around the existing POV pushing framework will not sufficiently address the issues. The current article outline is primarily from Rushton/Jensen 2005, and frames the debate in an inappropriate manner. I would suggest looking at the APA outline as a more neutral frame for the discussion. --JereKrischel 18:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, though we've said all of this before... futurebird 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The topic of race and intelligence is a big topic, and it is very important. That’s why so many people are spending so much time on this debate. This article looks at it mostly through recent research that hasn’t been discredited yet, all of the old things that HAVE been discredited are being shunted off in to one little section on history. Lots of critics see a link between the motives for that old racist research and some the research going on today. This article also shows these recent studies in a way that slants the perspective to make black people seem inferior. I think that two things need to happen-- Number One: This article needs to expand: it needs to cast a wider net to include more perspectives. This topic and this article needs to mention the history of this topic in the first paragraph. This is the first thing that comes to mind for many people when the topic is mentioned. Number Two: This topic needs to take a more balanced approach to the current science. It needs to stop confusing people deliberately about race and ethnicity and it needs to stop confusing people about heritably and genetics. They are not the same things.

Some one here said that there could be various subtopics created—I think this is a good idea—the article now is mostly on research and that really needs to change. I don’t know why people don’t want to consider doing this? It will solve so many of the problems this article has. I know I’m sort of new here, but every time I look back here there is a whole lot of new talk and no real action. It seems that futurebird has taken the time to write something balanced and I think we ought to look at that and see if we can agree on it. I can’t even find any specific criticisms of what’s wrong with the new intro. I think the new intro is still pretty slanted. If I wrote it I’d add more about the Pioneer Fund and how these people really operate, but I can compromise and agree to go with this new intro. I can’t believe that anyone would think that what we have now for an intro is acceptable. It’s omits so much of what’s most critical here—and I think about people coming to this page, wanting to know what this topic’s about and those people won’t get any idea of the real nature of the controversy— and that is the history of the controversy. I don’t like how some people seem to think they can just tell those of use who don’t think the new intro represent the whole topic that we just need to move along and give up (and hope that if the citations are changed anything is going to change about the tone of this article.) It seems like the editors are taking sides without considering what this topic is really about. I think we need someone new to moderate this whole debate—someone who can acknowledge the information quite a few users have brought to light and help write an article that will reflect this. I’m sorry to say so much, but I’m getting fed up with watching our being steered away from what important here- and that is “what is the topic of race and intelligent” really about. It’s about more than just a bunch of recent studies. It’s about a whole history of prejudice and media portrayal of black people. Can we acknowledge this? Or will my comments be brushed off too?

Full disclosure, I’m a friend of futurebird and she won’t stop telling me about this. I don’t have as much patience as her and I think she’s being way too soft on all of you. She asked me if I could share my thoughts and my thoughts are this: This article makes the wikipedia look like a joke. If a few passionate editors and obscure the truth than this project is a failure. I could say more, but I’ve been advised to keep this civil. JJJamal 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to broaden this article. It's not about the history of racism, it's about race and intelligence and so we should limit it to academic experts who publish professional studies about race and intelligence. Wantednewlook


 * You're right, it's not about the history of racism, which would cover much more than the scientific racism practiced through the study of "race" and intelligence. But it is about more than just academic works and studies on "race and intelligence".  The study of "race and intelligence" is not just a matter of scientific exposition, but also a social topic, and a historical topic.  I think the article you want to write is Race and intelligence (Research), which would only be a sub-article of the main article Race and intelligence. --JereKrischel 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Accusations that contemporary "race and intelligence" is scientific racism have a place in this article. The history of "race and intelligence" has a place in this article. (In fact, both have sections right now.) However, WP gives topics prominence in articles according to NPOV:
 * Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
 * An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.
 * Each of these envisions letting the literature speak to the importance of topics and POVs. That is, you can't balance the content of an article from personal opinions about the subject. If there are aspects of history or accusations of racism not covered which are notable, then they should be added. Then in the end, summary style will keep details out of the main article, and the lead will be made to reflect the content of the article. --W.R.N. 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just the problem I have with the intro right now: undue weight. futurebird 05:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Successfully changing the body is the only way to prove to me that the article/lead is unbalanced. In relation to the body of the text I don't think the lead is unbalanced. Unless you think the current lead doesn't match the current body text? --W.R.N. 05:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What successful changes do you think are possible, WRN? Reorganization of material?  Removal of tangential information not directly related to race and intelligence?  Addition of major sections?  Merger of major sections?  Splits of major sections?  I'd like to know what kind of successful changes you don't object to, and maybe we can start from there. --JereKrischel 06:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't be glib. Successful changes are those that are policy compliant and improve the quality of the article. --W.R.N. 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not being glib, I'm being sincere. Do you think a reorganization of the material could possibly be "policy compliant" and "improve the quality of the article"?  Do you think the removal of tangential information not directly related to race and intelligence could be as well?  You have not shown any sign that any change to the article is appropriate, and I want to clearly understand if you a priori object to certain types of changes.  I would like us to work on a successful compromise, and am asking you to identify a type of change you would not reflexively object to. --JereKrischel 09:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at my additions to Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)‎-- I added info about how race has been seen in the media, that's the kind of thing I think this article is missing. We could have a section on that and mention it in the intro too. JJJamal 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The FB's "intro" unbalanced with regard to what is mentioned and biased towards a particular POV. There are many hundreds of references supporting the material in the article. All of these references (and more as suggested) need to be taken into account when when writing the article and in turn writing the lead. The only practical way to do this is the write the lead based on the content of the article. --W.R.N. 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, I think working on the intro will help use to get an idea of the true scope of this topic. How would you suggests changing the current intro to make it more balanced? In what ways is it unbalanced? Can you be specific? futurebird 01:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Being more specific isn't going to help much. I could write an extensive list of specific problems, but it still wouldn't address my overarching concern. Among the broadest problems are (1) the use of a historical narrative rather than a topical summary, (2) the caveats and exceptions to mainstream conclusions are presented where the mainstream conclusions themselves should be presented, (3) the narrative about the rise of Japan is trivial to the topic (4) the phrase "direct evidence" is used where it shouldn't be (5) there's a quotation about race, (5) many of the actual concerns about the topic are not presented, (6) no time is given to describing what's known about group IQ/intelligence differences despite the fact that their existence is undisputed and the central finding upon which the entire topic is based, (7) no distinction is made between ideas about intelligence before and after the invention of intelligence test, etc. --W.R.N. 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Being more specific is always more help than being too general in helping people understand your problems with suggested changes, although your broad issues raise very interesting points. I think we still disagree on what this topic really is, with you insisting on Race and intelligence (Research), and others seeing a larger view.  Do you have any suggestions on how we find some consensus on whether or not the topic you want to write about is actually a sub-topic of Race and intelligence? --JereKrischel 09:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"I could write an extensive list of specific problems, but it still wouldn't address my overarching concern." -WD


 * Now I think you know how I feel when editing most of the text that's up there in the protected version now. It really makes a big difference who writes the article, and the order they present things in, doesn't it? However, the project on countering systemic bias suggests that using a historical framework can help to make articles more neutral. This is why I start out with the history. I feel very strongly that this is the right direction to go. Race and intelligence are more than topics of scientific study-- arguably their interaction has a greater presence in other spears of the human experience such as media bias, cultural practices and expectations, the attitudes of different peoples towards different notions of intelligence and towards testing and towards race.


 * I want to be bold and lift this article up out of it's narrow focus on research and include the entire story-- from the very beginning. There is a saying "a tree is best measured when it is down" we will be able to find greater consensus and more solid facts on the historical information than on any of the new controversial topics. Let's start this article off with the ideas that are well known and widely agreed upon. futurebird 01:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (3) the narrative about the rise of Japan is trivial to the topic-WD
 * I agree, we could move it to some other section, later on.


 * (7) no distinction is made between ideas about intelligence before and after the invention of intelligence test, etc. -WD
 * I was concerned about that, can you make a change that would clear that up?


 * (2) the caveats and exceptions to mainstream conclusions are presented where the mainstream conclusions themselves should be presented,-WD
 * Don't know what you mean here....


 * (5) many of the actual concerns about the topic are not presented,-WD
 * Such as?


 * (6) no time is given to describing what's known about group IQ/intelligence differences despite the fact that their existence is undisputed and the central finding upon which the entire topic is based,-WD
 * What should we add? futurebird 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some of the changes you suggested. Feel free, of course, to edit it yourself. futurebird 02:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, please take a look at the new intro again, I made some changes with your comments in mind, I'd like to know if this is an improvement or not. futurebird 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)