Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 60

Article focus to much on Black-White IQ gap
For some reasons, this article chooses only to focus on the Black-White IQ gap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.227.87 (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The white-asian, the hispanic-white and white-ashkenazi gaps are mostly neglected. --Extremophile (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree also. It appears that the article has a hidden agenda. --Jagz (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article could focus more on the white-asian gap maybe we won't be accused of being racists and fringe fanatics. --Jagz (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the small differences in White-Asian (to Asians' favour) and White-Ashkenazi (to Ashkenazis' favour) are neglected, not because the artical is biased to look whites good (whites who recognizes the black-white difference also recognize these differences), but because including these shows that supposed "discriminated" minority groups such as East Asians still manage to score very well in these tests, AND often rise above the poverty line. Why are blacks consistently the lowest scoring group, and why has Africa been underdeveloped since the dawn of time? These two things are tied together. It is not so much that low IQ is caused by poverty, as that poverty is caused by low IQ. The whole article is leftist propaganda, based on the new religion "egalitarianism", that is as opposed to hard science as the Catholic church in the dark ages. Always moral arguments as opposed to factual. Truth is not important to these people. --Electric Eye (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

restore the Genetic explanation and Environmental explanation sections
Someone decided to remove some parts of it and add some parts to it wihout general consensus. I propose that we discuss what should be put there.

Horrible Article
This article is seriously one of the worst I have ever read on Wikipedia, instead of being an article on 'race and IQ' it quickly turns into a 'black vs white' argument rather than what it was supposed to be. There is little to no data relating to any of the other races on the planet as either... Another thing is that this article (from what I can see) does not really question the validity of IQ tests in general.

Not too mention the way it mixes test scores as data... blacks have an average of 85 and whites 100 - yet no where does it mention what was the socio-economic status of those tested, from what locations, how healthy the people tested were - levels of lead or other heavy metals tested in their blood etc.

I can also gurantee that if I lived in a trailer park and I was nutrient deficient I would most likely receive a lower score against a black person who lived in an 'upper class' city where he receives proper nutrition etc...

There is so much wrong with this article.. heh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.202.138 (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with a lot of the criticisms you've raised. Please keep in mind that this article is the result of a merger of many other articles and we're working on pruning it down to a more manageable size. We need help doing this so if you could make some more specific suggestions that would be great.  If you feel there is a better way to contextulize the IQ scores in particular people be bold and show us how you would do it. Keep in mind, however there is an NPOV policy and we are obligated to show all side of the debate in proportion to their acceptance in main stream science. It could be that some aspects of this article give undue weight to certain theories? What do you think? futurebird 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.227.87 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This article should most likely be deleted on the grounds that the very existence of this article fuels racism and superiority and inferiority complexes. All races of humanity possess the same share of intelligence and should not be construed as otherwise for the very reason that considering the very concept of one race possesing a higher average intelligence versus another race regresses the arugment of the idea of superior and inferior races back to the 19th and early 20th centuries. It would be better if this article diagnoses the historical context of how humanity has perceived race and intelligence in the past and conclude that all races of humanity today possess the same share of average intelligence and not any race is greater than any other, but that all races are equal in possessing the same share of average intelligence as all races ultimately possessed in the past. That is why this article should dicuss the history of how humanity has viewed race and intelligence and ultimately conclude that humanity today perceives all races as possessing the same level of average intelligence with respect to any other race today as all races have always possessed in the past.

S.U. Student   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.162.35 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your desire for all races to have equal powers of reason does not necessarily make it so. --Jagz (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear S.U. Student, freedom of speech doesn't mean much to you, does it? What are you afraid of? If the inequality of the races is a lie, you merely have to prove it so. Unfortunately for you, the supposed equality of the races has not one piece of evidence to back it up, so you CAN'T prove it. That's why you want to shut people up instead. This is how all the "hate speech" laws work - they're not invented to "protect minorities", but to silence opposition, simply because the advocates of these laws KNOW that the opposition tells the truth. And this is also why I call egalitarianism nothing short of a religion. It's based on unfounded wishes and utopian dreams, with not one shred of evidence, and it's enforced by fear of persecution and brainwashing since birth. It counters its enemy - science - not with hard science of its own to justify its existence, but with moral arguments designed to divert people from the truth by making them feel guilty. Egalitarianism has overtaken the traditional religions as the tool that actually justifies open persecution of dissidents! --Electric Eye (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
This article seems to need a total overhaul and I wanted some input on this. All of the co-articles to this article are being nominated for deletion: Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history) and this main one is very very confusing, very unorganized, and seems to have had the POV tag up for years. I'm going to rewrite the entire article similar to the way I did Parapsychology, Homeopathy and Race of Ancient Egyptians. My goal is to turn this into a featured article by December 1st 2007, a little over a month from now. My first request is that everyone willing to participate in a rewrite simply explain firstly how they believe the rewrite should be executed and secondly how they believe that this article should ideally be presented. Please add some input ASAP. I'm going to start working on improving the article soon and I need as many suggestions as I can get to make the process easier. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S., Even if no one is willing to participate in a group rewrite of some form, I will still start to systematically improve this article soon.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Input?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you should be bold and go for it. In my view we should give each school of thought their proper representation according to weight.  I recall reading "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and being pretty impressed with the arguments.  I will look into the references there and see if I can get some good stuff.  To finish, I feel that IQ is given way too much weight on this article.  In the re-write we should give it a lesser portion.  Finally, we should discuss the problems associated with IQ testing.  This is, of course, among other things.  Danke, Brusegadi 00:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the following review of "Guns, germs of steel", to get a more balanced view of that highly biased and wishful book... http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_ggs.html Electric Eye 00:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree IQ is given too much weight. futurebird 00:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Before you make major changes can you post a note to the talk page so that we can discuss those changes? Especially when it involves deleting anything?futurebird 13:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I can remember, but you can always revert if you see a problem. It will be a little while before the changes start happening.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone please explain how they believe that this article should be presented, ideally.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm not too interested in rewriting it (because I'm not willing to put the time in right now, not because I think it doesn't need it). I am interested in making sure it doesn't become a breeding ground for racists, and I'm also interested in making sure that it's not censored, either. Ben Hocking (talk 13:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will carry the majority of the weight when rewriting it. I only ask that everyone here help me out on some issues. My first request is that everyone outline how they believe that the article should be presented.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I will carry the majority of the weight when rewriting it. I don't think this is a good idea, we need to have more people involved. Any one user will have a hard time keeping the article balanced in terms of POV.

To answer your question: I think the the order and sections that we have now are pretty good. The article needs copy editing and more of the material from the sub articles should be merged in, especially from the article on media portrayal. futurebird 14:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Should all of the other articles currently being nominated for deletion be merged into this one?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that was the plan. Merge and crop. futurebird 14:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can have a section that supports a scientific basis for race and intelligence differences, and a section that opposes it. By the way, many "blacks" in the United States for example are actually of mixed ancestry, mostly African with varying amounts white ancestry. See the article Mulatto. Apparently the term mulatto is no longer used in the USA for some reason, it is used in Brazil. When you see someone in person that has pure Sub-Saharan African ancestery, it is usually easy to see the difference. Therefore, the race and intelligence debate in the USA becomes more difficult because of how the word "black" is commonly used. See the article One drop rule. --Jagz 15:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "When you see someone in person that has pure African ancestery, it is usually easy to see the difference." Only for certain definitions of "pure" and "African". By "pure", you probably mean > 3/4, and by "African" you probably mean western African. There is as much genetic diversity within the continent of Africa as there is within the rest of the remaining globe. An Egyptian doesn't look much like an Ethiopian, and neither one looks much like someone from Nigeria. Ben Hocking (talk 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, But let's not debate that here.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think most people, at least those in the USA, know what I mean without having to go into further detail. --Jagz 17:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. Brusegadi 00:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm from the US... and I don't know what you mean. futurebird 00:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He's saying that not all Africans would be considered "Black" by most people in the U.S., especially northern Africans.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm from the US (I'm a citizen by birth, and I've lived here for 35 years).
 * Most Egyptians and Ethiopians (the two groups I mentioned other than Nigerians) would be considered black by most people in the US.
 * In Jagz's comment that I replied to, he was actually making a similar comment (that in the US most people use the word black differently from how it is used in Brazil).
 * For those coming late to the discussion, he has edited his comment to refer to those of Sub-Saharan African ancestry (instead of just African ancestry), but many (if not most) people in the US wouldn't be able to distinguish someone of mixed Sub-Saharan African ancestry from someone of "pure" Ethiopian or Egyptian ancestry. Nor would many even understand what the term meant.
 * Ben Hocking (talk 15:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well its good we've all stumbled on why race is such a garbage idea. But, past that, just make sure you only draw conclusions based on data that actually support such conclusions, I will be happy.

Frank0570618 02:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618
 * I'm from the US too, and that's not true about how others view people, they go by looks. They don't care if you have 1/4 African, or what part of Africa one's ancestors are from, if you look the "type" you're black. That's why a lot of it depends on the social concept of race, and not so much biology. At least here in the US. Another is how one of mixture self-identifies. ~Jeeny (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In the USA, a person who is of mostly white ancestry can still be considered black, see the article One drop rule. That's why "black" does not correlate well with "race" in the USA. --Jagz 05:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As the article is about race and intelligence, it probably ought not to get buried in defining race, but rather focus on the data and theories regarding race differences in intelligence. It could have a paragraph on the concept of race, linking out to a page on the various folk concepts, sociological-construct definitions and to the genomic-stratification clusters revealed in the HapMap project. The article can then simply note which sense of race is being used at various sections. Tim bates 12:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right on paper, however, some of the definitions of race used in many of those reasearch endeavors suffer from a lack of rigorous definition of race, i.e. it's a new construct of two or more of the definitions you mentioned above, which is part of the reason these studies come under such heavy criticism (another being downright sloppy methodology).--Ramdrake 13:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What to do with this table?
I think it's too large for the article, (and putting it in would be "undue weight") but I'd like to summarize these ideas in some shorter way and inculde them. Anyone have any suggestions? futurebird 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Caste position table
This table illustrates how social status or caste position is related to test scores and school success in nations around the world. Source: 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

These results, just like the inferior test scores of Eastern and Southern Europeans immigrants in the United States 75 years ago, may represent a social division that leads to the gaps in test scores, rather than a pre-established and "natural" hierarchy of "races." In other words, these divisions, are closely aligned with local "social constructs" of race, the outcomes for ethnic groups are, in the opinion of these authors, a result of the social structure rather than confirmation of its validity.


 * I like that it is easy to understand for someone who doesn't know much about genetics and that it effectively illustrates how genes are not a sole contributor to test scores (~intelligence, for much of this article at least). Still, it would be best to point out that this is not a conclusive sort of proof (i.e. "social status" does not have the same direct kind of influence on intelligence as the chart may make it appear) before someone is to read the chart. As well, reducing the number of rows to one group on each continent (for example) and mentioning that the full chart is available at another link would probably work best.

131.104.235.213 15:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618


 * Add the whole thing, it's not undue weight. 23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJamal (talk • contribs)


 * It's sort of confusing.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How so? futurebird 15:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What is it saying exactly? That High status correlates to high test scores and low status to low test scores?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. futurebird 16:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The article currently is far too large and I think that this info could either be moved to another page for reference or should be summarized.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's not really confusing...it is more like match the words. High matches with high, and low with low. I don't think that is going to be a major issue; although, the clarity it shows could easily create bias. Still, I prefer to keep information such as this in the main body of the article.

131.104.235.213 21:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618


 * I'm not sure how clarity could create bias. If it's making things "too" clear (i.e., by hiding certain details), then the details should be included. E.g., if there are counter-examples, they should be included. (I'm not aware of any counter-examples, mind you.) Ben Hocking (talk 22:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an alternative that might please Wikidudeman:


 * It can possibly be done better, but at least you get the idea. Ben Hocking (talk 22:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a little silly, but it maigh make sense if it showed some data from a few countries, say one from each part of the world... I don't like the idea of hiding the whole thing. (and frankly I'd rather just leave it the way it is. It's more user friendly that way. I don't think it's too big at all. JJJamal 23:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is over 100kb in size, which according to WP:LENGTH means that it almost certainly needs to be divided up. It currently IS divided into 12 separate sections which are currently being merged. Many of such sections are themselves over 100 kb long. Drastic shortening, condensing and cutting is needed. This table's info could be summed up a sentence or two. No need for all of the detail. As far as "hiding" it, it still takes up space even if it's hidden.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From WP:LENGTH: "For stylistic purposes, only the main body prose (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose." Secondly, why are we merging if the length of the current article is a concern?!? Ben Hocking (talk 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't specifically oppose the inclusion of the table, but without giving some quantitative information within the table (e.g., test IQ ranges), the binary distribution between high and low is subjective and may violate WP:OR. --Kevin Murray 03:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not original research because this is the way the table was in the book. (I typed this up for one of the sub-articles maybe a 8 months ago) it is presented as the authors intended it and the ideas in it are presented as their opinion. So I think it's NPOV. The sources are the sources used by the authors. So it's not original research. It could be undue weight, due to its size. I wonder what others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 03:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Kevin, I think you are mixing up a few different things. First, the lack of quantitative data does not render the binary distribution subjective - it means that the proponents of this view are making a structural argument. Now, people can argue over the validity or power of this argument, but it is not subjctive as such. Second, the lack of quantitative data does not make it violate NOR if this graph, or the relationships the graph represent, come straight out of a verifible source. Indeed, even if one conceded that the view represented is subjective, as long as it is the subjective view of a verifiable source and not that of a Wikipedia editor, it is not in violation of NOR. I believe that it represents a notable view and NPOV requires inclusion in the article - I am assuming by the way that the graph comes directly out of Inequality by design or is a precise representation of data and the view forwarded by that book. I haven't read the book bu it is published by a very reputable press and I am familiar with the view from other sources which is how I know it is notable. One question: does the book itself use the word "caste?" If so they are using it in an ideosynratic way and I think we should include a note or paranthetical statement providing their definition of cast. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 03:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Kevin Murray 04:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Since FB copied it exactly from the source, then OR is not an issue. However, I think that (A) some clarification is needed that the references are to the sources which the original author used, (B) clarification that this is copied verbatim, and (C) confirmation that the source of this table is from a significantly respected source. Notwithstanding this, I do think that demonstrating the variances among the highs and lows would put the information into a better perspective. On the other hand, fussing with the table does flirt with OR. --Kevin Murray 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Graph from bell curve, text from APA...


I don't think we should use this caption with this graph. The graph is from The Bell Curve right? Shouldn't the caption say where the graph came from? Using the APA text is paring together ideas in a way that could be original research. futurebird 02:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in principle that a graph from one source and accompanying text from another violates NOR; it certainly is misleading and poor practice. I also have a couple of questions about the text. First, who does the "they" in "they say" refer to?  Surely not the authors of the report, since this is a quote from the report.  Second, is SES adequately defined in this context?  Third, the phrase, "though it is clear, they say, that these differences, are well within the range of effect sizes that can be produced by environmental factors" is either sophistry (if the claim is being made that income and education do not explain the difference) or profound (if it is claiming that income and education are for some reson poor or grossly inadequate indices of "environment") - I'd like to know which one it is, and I'd like an adequate explanation why.  By the way, there has been so much controversy of Merry and Herrnstein that any account of data taken from their book must be presented as reflecting Murray an Herrnstein's point of view and not - at least in most cases - objective data. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with FB. --Kevin Murray 03:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I had made this change before, but it got reverted when the article was merged, so I made it again.

Racial strife
The section "Racial strife" while mostly accurate is really not germane to the topic of this article. This article is too long already to become a lecture on the failures of US society. --Kevin Murray 04:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. The sources are not about race and intelligence anyway. I think that sources that do not mention both of these topics need to be used a little as possible. futurebird 04:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Does race exist?
Here is a good article from Scientific American: Does Race Exist?, article dated 2003 --Jagz 07:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The link doesn't work!

Definition of race
This article does not settle on a definition of "race" that is going to be used in the article. Therefore, the discussion constantly shifts between every possible definition of race and trying to make sense of the article is like trying to grasp a handful of water. Some of the editors have apparently chosen to use their favorite definition of "race". They can also use different definitions of race to justify removing statements that don't support their beliefs. I suggest making the name of the article more specific, like "Race (biology) and human intelligence". --Jagz 12:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What you call the biological definition of race does not apply to human beings. Most evolutionary scientists in biology as well as other human sciences have rejected the notion of race altogether (as a biological phenomenon).  When people identify their race when taking IQ tests, they self-identify. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article you'll notice that I have not added a biological definition of race as applied to humans. I wish someone would add it though. Your statements above make it clear why the article may continue to be useless. Here is a good article from Scientific American. Do you believe that groups of the same species that are geographically separated for millions of years can evolve into separate species? Would there be differences between those groups after thousands of years even though they are still the same species? Could this also apply to humans since we are a species too? --Jagz 13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course there are differences. There are biological differences between two siblings, and between a parent and child.  Nevertheless the majority of anthropologists and evolutionary scientists reject the validity of the concept of race as a meaningful and useful way to describe or explain these differences. The editorial you cite supports my point - as they suggest, genetic analysis is much more sophisticated and accurate than racial classification in describing human biological variation, and while race can sometimes be helpful in specific sicutations, as often as not it is unhelpful.  The question is "why" and the answer has to do with the ways race is socially constructed. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are using the word race but I have no idea what you are referring to anymore. That's one of the points I'm trying to make. --Jagz 00:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, makes a great point. Also, the article should by no means "settle on" a single definition when academia has no done so.futurebird 13:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How can one discuss whether or not there is a connection between race and intelligence unless race is defined? --Jagz 13:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jagz, that is simply not your problem - unless you want to use wikipedia to publish your own original research. you do not want to violate NOR, do you?  That is a core policy.  No, it is not our job to discuss whether or not there is a connection between race and intelligence.  It is our job to provide an account of work by professional, competent researchers who discuss whether or not there is a relationship between race and intelligence.  And yes, it is reasonable to think that they would define what they mean by race.  But it is not our job to police what researchers do.  it is our job to find out what they do.  Some define race, some do not.  Of those who define race, some define it in different ways.  Our article needs to provide accounts of the different ways people define race.  Otherwise we would be violating NPOV, another core policy.  I beg of you to read our NOR and NPOV policies because your suggestions mostly involve violating them and we won't do that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In biology, "race" basically designates a subspecies. Genetics has proven that there are no subspecies within the human species (not enough variability), therefore the standard definition of race as a subspecies doesn,t apply to humans, and its inclusion is misleading.--Ramdrake 14:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, thanks for this comment I was trying to remember why this definition had no place here and that is just the reason. It's about subspecies. futurebird 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, but the definition given in the article Race (biology) does not say race is a subspecies. It says race includes subspecies. That's an example of using a different definition of race to justify removing statements that don't support your beliefs as I mentioned above. --Jagz 00:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole main entry is so PC/Apologetic in tone
.. with "But, But,.. this may be at work""

Go with the Facts. Do not Pander or Waffle. An example of Societal More's/Committe writing, rather than an Encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.183.132 (talk • contribs)


 * What you seem to think of as waffling, we call NPOV. It is our core, non-negotiable policy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. Waffling and NPOV aren't the same thing. Waffling is quite confusing. Just lists of contradictory viewpoints without context isn't the same as NPOV. I've read this article from top to bottom (last weeks version of it at least) and it was quite confusing. Most of the recent changes haven't helped.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with WD. A concern which I have in this and other socially charged topics is a tendancy to overstate the opinions of third party POV authors.  I don't know of a soulution, but a good step is to form a project to come up with a solution with which we can all abide.  Cheers! --Kevin Murray 17:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, let us start with a specific sentence or paragraph and see how we can fix it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bless you for your enthusiasm, but the task at this point seems overwhelming for dealing with case by case sentences, and it does not seem practical until we reach a consensus on an overall goal or policy. I have seen discussion about forming a project around these topics.  I think that is a first step.  --Kevin Murray 18:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't need a whole project. It's just one article, and it not even the most central or important topic in any of the many disciplines it falls under. The only reason we have so many sources is due to the controversial nature of the topic. If this was an article of Left handedness and singing ability there would not be 13 different pages and... god forbid a whole project on the topic. We should keep working on the article bit by bit untill it makes sense. futurebird 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) I do agree that there should be only one article, and that it be brief and focused. (2) My thought on having a project would be to allow dedicated contributors to set some standards to which we can adhere.  However, any process that achieves #1 has my support.  I don't think that we should be denying differences, but at the same time our presentation should be to some good or not at all.  If we can help people to have more understanding, that is good.  But if information is twisted to do harm, that is bad. --Kevin Murray 00:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
Here is a shortcut to the Wikipedia policy regarding the neutral point of view (NPOV). --Jagz 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

remove the debate over microcephaly
Recently scientists at the University of Chicago identified two genes, microcephalin and ASPM. Mutations in these genes are associated with brain size abnormality, microcephaly. The normal variants are found at high frequencies in Asian and European populations but they are not found among Sub-Saharan Africans. The scientists stated that microcephalin may have arisen some 37,000 years ago coinciding with upper paleolithic transitions in Europe. They also stated that a variant of APSM arose about 5,800 years ago roughly correlating with the development of written language, spread of agriculture and development of cities. They thus believe these two genes conferred some cognitive abilities upon Asians and Europeans.

Other scholars have criticized the University of Chicago scientists because they made claims about these genes without undertaking any direct experimentation to test their hypothesis on increased intelligence and brain size. Subsequently when these experiments were done, no relationship was found between these genes and intelligence or brain size.

I think we should remove this section. Here is why: All of this research is recent. We only have an article in the times, then two academic studies saying that those results were not what they seemed to be. In fact here are some quotes form the article in the times that is supposed to support the first statement.

"'It's likely that different populations would have a different makeup of these genes, so it may all come out in the wash,' he said. In other words, East Asians and Africans probably have other brain-enhancing alleles, not yet discovered, that have spread to high frequency in their populations...Another geneticist, David Goldstein of Duke University, said that the new study was 'very well done,' but that 'it is a real stretch to argue for example that microcephalin is under selection and that that selection must be related to brain size or cognitive function.' The gene could have risen to prominence through a random process known as genetic drift, Dr. Goldstein said."

I don't think that the times article is being characterized in a fair way by: "They also stated that a variant of APSM arose about 5,800 years ago roughly correlating with the development of written language, spread of agriculture and development of cities. They thus believe these two genes conferred some cognitive abilities upon Asians and Europeans." That's one of many ideas mentioned in the article-- and then there are these other studies saying that the findings aren't valid. It's all very flimsy.

So, rather than rewording it to water it down, let's just remove the whole thing, rebuttal and all. This will also help with the waffling problem. We should limit the article to well supported facts, not speculation, because once you let in one theory that's speculation you must outline all of them to be fair. futurebird 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While we're waiting for the merge to get done, anyone want to share your thoughts on this? futurebird 14:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever is decided, this detail strikes me as weird: "the normal variants are found at high frequencies in Asian and European populations but they are not found among Sub-Saharan Africans". What counts as "normal" here? The most common? Does not seem quite appropriate. Since abnormalities in this gene are linked to microcephaly, it's almost like implying that sub-saharian are all microcephalics, or that they lack the gene altogether. They just have another, normal variant, which isn't the most common.--Extremophile (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Although it seems disproven, it sounds like an interesting study that might merit its own article. As Extremophile points out, there are some unanswered questions which could be addressed in such an article. However, an argument could be made for removing it from here for sake of size or flow. Ben Hocking (talk 19:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of intelligence
I moved the section "Evolution of intelligence" to the article "Evolution of human intelligence". --Jagz 01:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD debate on child articles
The AfD debate on the child articles of this page has closed, and the result will be to merge all of the children into this article. It's going to make a pretty horrible mess of this page (I'll try my best to keep the damage to a minimum) but it should afford a good opportunity for anyone working on a rewrite (I'm aware that there's at least one planned) to have all of the existing content in one place to work from, should they want to build on this content.

For reference, this is the last revision of the page before I start the merger. This could take a while, so please be patient. --bainer (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is currently 500 kb already! Merging them would make this the largest article on Wikipedia. Far too large for dial up users. Nearly too large for cable users. It needs to be under 100kb, not 3000kb!  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So I got sidetracked with some things, but the merge is now complete. The article now contains more than half a megabyte of text, making it easily the longest article in Wikipedia by a healthy margin of more than 40%. It's more than twice as long as the line of succession to the British Throne, which is pretty long. It's more than three times as large as all the mountain peaks of the United States, and they're fairly large. This leads me to a couple of conclusions:
 * Rendering this article makes the servers cry;
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an entire library.
 * Articles are meant to take a broad view, and give readers an overview of a topic. Specialist works are there for a reason. As it stands this article (even when it was broken up into parts) seems like it's trying to say everything that's ever been said on the subject, and as such it's failing in its duty to readers. So to those planning a rewrite: KISS. --bainer (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's time for us to start cropping. But let's not too too much at once, we'll need to stop and revert/discuss along the way. I'm going to remove a few things. If you think they are important just revert the *one change* and take it to the talk page. futurebird 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * bainer is a seasoned editor and admin without an axe to grind on this topic. Why don't you let him do his job of merging and then jump in.  If FB and others are fussing with the copy all along the way it will just complicate the project.  --Kevin Murray 09:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Kevin, he just said the merge was done, it's on us now to shorten the article. futurebird 12:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries Kevin, the merge is all done, and my job as AfD closer is finished, so it's up to anyone interested in maintaining this article to keep working on it :) My personal suggestion, given the degree of baggage that this article has, would be to get the interested editors together and make a plan to start from scratch: identify the key areas that the article should cover, and try to write about each of them in a fairly concise manner. That would be a lot of work, of course, so there's no problems with people taking their time. --bainer (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My mistake.  --Kevin Murray 18:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I really think that we should evaluate what we have and form a strategy before attacking this. I think that the recent flurry of edits is premature.  Let's go back to what Bainer left us and discuss where we go from here.  Please! --Kevin Murray 18:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not do that. I've put in a lot of work cropping it to the point it's at now. Why not make some suggestions about what to add or remove next?futurebird 19:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine to leave it where it is, but please let the rest of us digest the status quo so we are not trying to evaluate a moving target. --Kevin Murray 03:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OKfuturebird 04:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * SO much changed very quickly and with contributions from unregistered users that it is impossible to see and evolution. I think that we need to go back to square one (Bainer) as a starting point (see "too much" section below).  I respect your hard work, but by doing this in many little cuts, it became impossible to track your work.  Now by looking at the diff between my reversion and your edits, all can be seen at a glance.  Your work is not lost, but can now be evaluated as a whole rather than piecemeal.  Please look at my suggestions below.  There is no reason to rush this process.  It took a long time to fall apart and can't be repaired overnight.  --Kevin Murray 09:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why on earth is the page locked?!? I stopped making major edits, Kevin. Since I started editing you have no raised a specific objection to any single edit. Why can't we talk about the changes that were made so far? First you accuse me of mucking up the merge, when in fact it was over, then you lock the page? Can you have a little respect for the work that I do? Please? futurebird 13:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin can you specific about what the problem is? JJJamal 13:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Article size
My only concern at this point is that we are currently at 80kb of prose when wikipedia recommends 30-50kb of prose.Muntuwandi 20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we can get it down. I've been trimming the most tangental things but now comes the hard part... I love it if I had some help with this task. From anyone, not just you, Muntuwandi. futurebird 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about: Evolution of human intelligence as a new POV fork.
I'm concerned about the balance and focus of this article Evolution of human intelligence. It talks a lot about a few speculative theories of how race might be related to intelligence and little else. The sources used are mostly supporters of theories about race and intelligence:


 * Mankind Quarterly
 * Richard Lynn
 * Linda S. Gottfredson
 * Philippe Rushton

It seems like a very one sided article about a fascinating topic where the most prominent and well accepted research has little to do with theories of race. Could some one take a look at it and suggest how to revise it? or perhaps where to merge the material in this article? Should that material be in this article? Most of this material was moved out of the article on Race and intelligence, and I agree that it fits better under Evolution of human intelligence... but now that article is unbalanced. futurebird 14:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I rolled the article back to a point before it became entangled with racial theories, but I think this article should be nominated at AfD.--Ramdrake 15:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been watching the article develop in to a fork and didn't know what action to take. futurebird 17:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just left an extended comment with specific suggestions on the article talk page. There is no need to rely on the speculations of people who have no training or expertise in human evolution, when there are real scholars who have spent their careers studying human evolution and draw on the available empirical evidence to document what we know, so far, about the evolution of human intelligence.  I appreciate Futurebird's concern, but I think that some actions are very obvious to take: (1) Wikipedia doesn't allow POV forks, and (2) articles should favor notable views among scholars who specialize in research on the topic.  I recommended two on the RHI talk page.  I am sorry that i am not in a condition to help add content right now, but if Futurebird, Ramdrake, and others can take the time to read at least some of what I suggest I think it won't be hard for them to assess the structure of the article, and add some basic but crucial, valuable content. As long as there is solid scholarship by notable and widely well-regarded scholars, there is no need to rely on crank theories and pseudoscience.  My proposal for a course of action, which I think is common sense: start with mainstream notable views, and only when you are satisfied they are well-represented, then see how to fit in speculative and controversial views (if they are relevant and notable, of course) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thought your ideas there were great. I can't say I'll have time to deal with it any time soon. But, at least there are people over there now talking about what to do. futurebird 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is insufficient
Were the editors trying to write a confusing book? --Jagz 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know. Let's try to be constructive, shall we?  First, can you provide one example of a particular part of the article that is confusing to you?  maybe we can figure out a way to improve it.  Second, what do you mean by "insufficient?"  Are you saying wee need to add something to the article, or are you saying that we need to add anothe article to Wikipedia?  What specifically do you think needs to be added?  If you think lots of things need to added may I suggest you provide just one or two examples - whatever is most important to you, so we can focus on those and try to achieve some progress? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Too much change too quickly
This link to a diff page shows the sum of the changes since Bainer merged the articles together. While I applaud the energy of some of the participants there has been too much change too quickly for most of us to evaluate the whole of Bainer's work. I agreed above not to revert until I'd taken some time to assess, but now that I have had some time I have two major objections: (1) too much was cut by one editor without demonstrating consensus, and (2) some editors added new information and graphics when we are trying to cut. I propose that we (A) look at the diff above and evaluate the hard work done in trimming, (B) implement these changes and others on a section by section basis after we discuss, working from the top down, with the exclusion of the lead section which we write to reflect the finished article, and (C) we seek semi protection to prevent anonymous interference as has happened in the last day or two. Alternatively, we ask for page protection and set up a sandbox version where we can work together section by section. --Kevin Murray 09:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What new material was added? I mean, what new graphics? JJJamal 13:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead graph in the health section. futurebird 13:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Protected
Bold is good, but the merge is only recently complete and the pace of editing is too fast to unpick what's being done; we don't need to repeat the faults of the articles that got merged back. I protected this for a while to allow some kind of consensus building process to start. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why were all of the changes reverted?
It's way too huge now. I don't understand why we can't work on this piece by piece. If people want to add or cut something say something. Don't just say "the pace is too fast" JJJamal 13:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Several respected neutral admins have made the determination. --Kevin Murray 13:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I wish they come and explain their decision. I'm really angry about all of this. Why can't we TALK about the changes that were made? The article was improving. I made a lot of changes and so did others. I've been watching every change, even the ones from IPs It's not that hard. JJJamal 13:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes to make
OK, let's discuss each of these changes:


 * Media portrayal: shorten to a single section with no subsections
 * Controversies: cut everything except for one or two sentences about the Pioneer fund which should go in the section on scientific racism.
 * Physiological responses to racism remove this section
 * Health: we could say a little more here
 * Explanations: would like to see a photo of Dr. Ogbu for balance.
 * Under "Intelligence" remove the sub-section called "Environment" that only contains a quote by Steve Sailer
 * Remove one image from the section on history.
 * more information in lead levels. (where's the graphic?)

JJJamal 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * JJ, could we incorporate your list into our goals, but try to draft changes to one section at a time? --Kevin Murray 13:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't write an article one section at a time. we need to think about the big picture. We're going to get bogged down working on the details. JJJamal 13:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a special case and the big picture should be kept in mind at all times. Please try something different, since all prior courses seem to have failed.  I notice that your contributions to WP have mostly been to this article.  Perhaps you might experiment with some other articles to get a feel for a less volatile environment.  --Kevin Murray 13:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of these changes, but I think that the health section had gotten to be too long (before Kevin's revert and lock) I don't think we need the lead levels graphic, a lot of the stuff is mentioned in the Health and intelligence article and the Race and health article. But there should be a section on health, the one that is in there now is a little short. The articles: Health and intelligence and Race and health shouls be linked as "see also" above those sections. futurebird 13:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what might be a good idea... instead of having half a dozen opening sections that amount to leftist apologetics, maybe the article should be about what the acknowledged experts in the field have to say about it, and a separate article filled with leftist bleating? I know something about the subject, having read books by the prominent researchers, and enormous amounts of emotional energy seem to have been expended trying to salvage a place for Karl Marx in the world. This kind of transparent ideological warfare against science serves to argue against the concept of a collaborative encyclopedia. If flat-Earth Creationists had ever had one percent the luck defacing science in evolution-related articles as leftists have here, people would be incensed. Can't honest people even agree that the acknoledged experts in the field should have their case represented first, and the apologetics later or in another article? Find every skeptical voice you want and put it in a separate article, light a candle, do the hippy rosary or whatever, but please let this article be about what qualified people have to say.70.91.235.10 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above comment is problematic and confrontational. It does not led anywhere constructive because the 'other side' is just going to say "... that amount to nazi apologetics, maybe the article should be... do the nazi rosary..."  You see what I am saying?  Be more specific and leave the decorations out. Brusegadi 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A start
I have started a working page at User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound; this is in the userspace of a neutral admin. Here we can work together on a section by section basis. This represents the first section after the lead, based on my suggestion above that we work from the top down. Why don't we work with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. --Kevin Murray 13:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Kevin, why can't we just use the diffs? I find typing "strike" all over the place confusing. I don't think is is a good way to work and I'm annoyed that all of my work was reverted. I also don't see why you should be incharge of this whole thing. But, at any rate, I made some changes, where do we talk about the changes? Here or at the talk page of this new page you made?


 * JJJamal 13:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * well, with the diffs it is hard to see where we started. Please try this as a new approacah at this page, which has worked well elsewhere, and is a typical procedure in the business world.  I'm not in charge, but I'm trying to make this work for us all.  Thanks for cooperating.  --Kevin Murray 13:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest discussing the changes at the sandbox pages. Maybe we can summarize here when we transfer the end product. --Kevin Murray 13:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We've had a good start, but we had a snafu with a new user trying to speedy our sandbox and cutting out some text. In the process of trying to fix that I accidently reverted one of FB's changes along with a couple of my own; I appologize.  Thanks!  --Kevin Murray 14:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's at Talk:Race and intelligence/background now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Think this aricle sucks? Want to help? Go here
User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound

User:Moonriddengirl has nothing to do with this article. it's just a place where we can work on this one section. I don't want to hear any complaints from people who are not helping. Editors please make your changes there and discuss them on the talk page there.

Use bold when you add things "strike" when you take stuff out. Let's do it. futurebird 15:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * God bless you! --Kevin Murray 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the recent history of the talk page for this article and identified the following recent participants back throgh September, and asked them to join with us to form some consensus at the sandbox page: Victor Chmara,‎ W.M. O'Quinlan‎, Wobble,‎ Lquilter‎, Terraxos‎, Leladax,‎ ConfuciusOrnis‎, MoritzB,‎ Mathsci,‎ Jeeny,‎ Brusegadi,‎ Benhocking,‎ Wikidudeman,‎ Muntuwandi,‎ Ramdrake,‎ Jagz,‎ Slrubenstein‎. Please let me know whether I've left out anyone. Futurebird, JJJAmal and I are already participating. --Kevin Murray 19:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I also started through the history of the article and invited Kingj123 and Ryan Delaney to join. However, it dawned on me that inviting people who have not joined the discussion but have been changing the text unilaterally may not be productive, so I've not gone further there.  --Kevin Murray 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All recent editors to the talk page have been notified and invitesd to participate at User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. We think that the section looks good, and would like to ask that an admin replace the existing section at the article with our collaborative effort.  However, we don't want to be premature, and would like some nore feedback from the group.  We would like to move to the next section ASAP, so if you've got some comments, please let us know soon.  Thanks! --Kevin Murray 16:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's at Talk:Race and intelligence/background now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

IP Additons when unprotected
Protection expired this morning and an IP made these changes: []. The page was reprotected, but under policy the changes stand unless we can demosntrate a consensus for removal. --Kevin Murray 16:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Eoganan, this bloke has been around for a long time, always editing from St Catharines in Ontario. He's vandalised my user page lots of times. His IPs often begin with 69.156 or 69.157 but not always. He always has a racist pov to push though. Alun 16:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of intelligence
I moved this information from the article and now I'm moving it back to the Talk page. --Jagz 22:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard Lynn has proposed that the exposure to two recent ice ages, one 77,000-50,000 years ago, and another, more severe one 28,000-10,000 years ago, created evolutionary pressures which increased the intelligence of Europeans and East Asians significantly above other world populations. However, Lynn's views are controversial and the increased intelligence of Europeans and East Asians over other races is a matter of dispute.

J. Philippe Rushton, a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario and the current head of the Pioneer fund, has written a controversial book called Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. Rushton claims in the book that race is a valid biological concept and that racial differences frequently arrange in a continuum of Mongoloids (Orientals, East Asians) at one extreme, Negroids (blacks, Africans) at the opposite extreme, and Caucasoids (whites, Europeans) in the middle. Rushton also claims that the survival challenges of making warm clothes, building durable shelter, preserving food, and strategically hunting large animals, all selected genes for greater intelligence and social organization among the populations that migrated to cold climates.

According to the Out of Africa hypothesis, one or more subgroups of early modern humans left Africa between 55,000 and 60,000 years ago to become the ancestors of the non-African populations. Population-level differences in climate-selected traits such as skin color evolved in this time period. Gerhard Meisenberg suggested in the Mankind Quarterly that a similar time scale applies to the evolution of possible cognitive differences between human populations. Meisenberg argues that measurements of genetic diversity by the population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza indicate that the difference in “genotypic” intelligence between the most divergent human populations caused by random genetic drift should be about 12 IQ points.

In his 2007 book, "Avoid Boring People: Lessons From a Life in Science", James D. Watson writes, "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically." "Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

According to Linda S. Gottfredson technological innovation has been in a significant role in the evolution of human intelligence. Members of lower social classes are the largest risk. As new technologies have created new physical hazards this disparity has increased. Consequently, new technologies have gradually increased the IQ level of a population which has increased the capacity of the population to produce new innovations and led to further gains in intelligence.

Article is too long and disjointed
Someone please make this article CONCISE and casual reader friendly Two problems that seem to stand out to me at least. 1) Way too long and unorganized throughout 2) Criticism of data is inserted all around with no order Suggestion I would make whoever is bold enough to re-write Incorporate most relative data supporting the topic and have a separate section for any and all criticism. Eliminate the back and forth tone that makes this article sound like it's debating itself with every statement presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.236.116 (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is destined to failure because some of the editors are over zealous in the personal views. --Jagz 14:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jagz, you have been invited to join a cooperative effort to rewrite the article in a systematic fashion, but have thus far not participated. --Kevin Murray
 * Jagz, you are off topic. This is not a constructive comment. Alun 23:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that some editors have an anti-racism agenda. There should not be such an agenda even if it is well intentioned. Here is Wikipedia's policy on presenting conflicting perspectives on a topic. --Jagz 20:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't discuss race if everyone has a different definition. That's why it feel it is pointless to participate. Maybe if you had separate sections with different definitions of the word. --Jagz 15:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is one approach, to present varied opinions, but there is a limit to how many and how much weight to give each. To give all possible opinions equal weight would be (a) impractical, and (b) elevate obscure notions to a status equal to well documented science.  And I see potential for this abuse form all sides of the issue.  I think that we need balance, but we should adhere to well recognized research.  I also think that as an encyclopedia, our role is to provide a summary overview and not try to solve a dilemma which has not yet been solved in professional forums.  --Kevin Murray 15:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * @Jagz. It would be impossible to include a discussion of every different conception of "race". You reasonably and correctly state that it is impossible to "discuss race if everyone has a different definition", but has it not occurred to you that this is in fact the very reason why anthropologists have rejected the concept of "biological race" altogether, because it is almost impossible to arrive at any definition of "race" that is acceptable to all? Besides your own statement precludes your own solution: "You can't discuss race if everyone has a different definition....Maybe if you had separate sections with different definitions", so you are suggesting a different section for any and definitions, but also acknowledge that everyone has a different definition. Alun 23:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This article shows that the subject of race is controversial even amongst anthropologists. Is this article going to be about race in an indigenous sense? Countries may use varying criteria to classify their citizens as belonging to particular races. --Jagz 20:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think most people would agree that there is race in an indigenous sense. Some anthropologists would disagree for example. I'm not familiar with how the term is used to classify people within nations around the world other than the USA but it seems to be arbitrary. The use of race to classify people within the USA correlates somewhat with how it is used in an indigenous sense but not quite. For example, the black race in the USA includes people of mixed ancestry. Why is race important? I think the answer is biologically rooted and not something that will totally go away by pointing out the inherent inequity. --Jagz 23:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (sorry to but in Ramdrake). Hey, Jagz I think you make some really excellent points here. I agree with you, I also think that "most people would agree that there is race in an indigenous sense". This is a very valuable contribution to the discussion. Wikipedia doesn't reproduce what "most people think", it is an encyclopaedia, it reproduces what "educated people" think, it reproduces the concepts and ideas of people who have studied and thought about subjects and have been able to produce published reliable thought on these subjects. That's why we have a verifiability policy and also why we have a reliable sources guideline. We're not here to reproduce "what the bloke down the pub said" to use my culture's vernacular. When you say that "some anthropologists would disagree", I think you'll find that all anthropologists disagree, but that might depend on what you mean by "indigenous", because academics are sticklers for well defined concepts, and without defining your criteria well a priori you'll only end up with debate about what "indigenous" actually means. It probably means something different to you, as a (presumably) US citizen, then it does to me, (as a UK citizen). Your observation that classification of "race" is arbitrary is spot on, this is a prescient and well observed comment, you are clearly an observant and clever person. But you fail to draw the obvious conclusion, if these are arbitrary distinctions, then surely all "racial" concepts are arbitrary? What races we do or do not accept as a society depends on how we choose to "cut the cake," and more importantly, what cultural referents we use when these "cake cutting" decisions are made? The only negative is that you say that only "other" countries than the USA use arbitrary means to identify "race", this implies that you implicitly accept that the concept of "race" in the USA is not "arbitrary, even though you clearly understand that it is arbitrary elsewhere. So let's look at it another way. You acknowledge that in the USA black people are often of mixed ancestry, most often African and European ancestry. It must be apparent to you that very often so called "black" or African Americans are obviously of majority European ancestry, so why are they still called African American or black? Does this not strike you as an arbitrary classification? And why would African Americans want to deny their obvious European roots? Wouldn't you? The majority of European ancestry of African Americans is due to coercive practices, in the modern world we would call it rape. To know that your ancestry is derived from such practices must be a powerful motivation to reject the ancestry of the oppressor. Couple that with the fact that the European fathers of many African American children during slavery seemed to be unconcerned that their children would grow up in slavery and misery, i.e. these "white" men and "boys" went and raped their "slaves" and then became the owners of their own children, and treated their own children as slaves. Knowing that your "white" ancestors treated your "black" ancestors like that would be a huge motivation to deny your "white" ancestry, would it not? So when you claim that the "black race" in the USA includes people of "mixed race", should you not consider why this might be? Oh, and another observation. I have concentrated on the fact that many African Americans have denied their European ancestry, but it is obvious that in fact the main reason for a differential between "White" and "Black" in north America is that "white" or so called "European Americans" do not and never have accepted that these "racial" concepts really are arbitrary, they still live under the myth of a colour line. They don't seem to nderstand that African Americans share their European ancestry to a large extent.. Fortunately Mexican and south/central American immigration will kill this racism in America. Alun 23:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't mean that the USA was an exception. --Jagz 19:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your point-of-view (POV) with us. However, Wikipedia is about verifiable  positions from reliable sources, and not about what individual editors think. Thus, I would suggest you may wish to come up with reliable, verifiable sources for your positions if you want them included in the article.--Ramdrake 21:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's about what you think. --Jagz 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, WP:NPA.--Ramdrake 22:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Making the article more NPOV
Here is a sentence from the anti-racism article that could be used as the first sentence of a section in this article to help make it more balanced:

"In recent years the belief that race has no effect on intelligence or potential -- a basic tenet of anti-racist philosophy -- has been challenged by scholars such as Charles Murray, Michael Levin, and J. Philippe Rushton and defended by other scholars such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin." --Jagz 05:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

another view
(section moved from sanbox talkpage)

Kevin asked me to comment here. I have long refrained from expressing my own views on the matter because I think they are at odds with most others and would call for a very different approach that I fear may just cause more endless debate. But personally, I see no value in an article on race and intelligence. The bulk of scientific research on variation in IQ either does not use race as a category, or uses it in a very different way than most people use the word race. My approach would be this: an article on "IQ and genetics" which would draw on serious scientific research, including several recent and sophisticated twin studies; another article on "IQ and socio-economic status." I see the virtues of this approach as two-fold. First, the terms IQ, genetics, and SES are more precise and clearly understood among scientists than "intelligence" or"race." Second, two articles would side-step the question of whether intelligence is a matter of nature or nurture as if it has to be one or the other when most scientists agree it is both; genes and environment are two contributing factors, not competing theories, for most scientists. I think these two articles would accomodate the best current scientific research. Now, I know that nature versus nurture and race/IQ are hot political controversies in which some scientists have involved themselves. But I do not think these popular controversies should shape serious encyclopedia articles on the general topics. Rather, I would propose to have separate articles for controversial books, for example, an article on The Bell Curve and an article on Rushton's major work. This approach has the merit of focussing on specific theories proposed by a rather snmall set of individual scholars; the books themselves sparked public (not really scientific, although some scientists chimed in) debate and articles focused on the books can cover the popular debates. Once these articles are written, both the IQ and genetics and the IQ and SES articles can have a small section called "Public controversies" that summarizes the public/popular debates with links to the articles on the books by Murry/Hernstein and by Rushton. Well, this is how I would do it. It would require deleting an article that has been around for years as well as a number of recent articles I know many of you put a lot of effort into. But I have no constructive comments concerning any of the articles currently in play - I just see the issue from a whole other pespective. It's just my two cents. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I too have mixed feelings about the value of this topic, and would like to see a maximum of an overview of the topic. However, I would support a separate article on "IQ and genetics" independent of this topic. --Kevin Murray 21:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with this idea, but let me think it over. First of all we already have: Genetics of intelligence and it's almost the same thing as IQ and genetics. The question remains: what is "serious" should we take the Bell Curve or articles from Mankind Quarterly seriously? Maybe it is best to keep the information with the title of the work or writer. I think this is fair. futurebird 22:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If I may chime in, these views, although they may certainly be viewed as pseudoscience, still have attracted a significant amount of public exposure, and as such, NPOV requires that we mentin them somehow. We can't just silence them; we may not think of them as serious, but some people do, and if we ignore them, people will just constantly keep reinserting them in the article, s it's really best to deal with them.--Ramdrake 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why isn't having a whole article on The Bell Curve, or on the work of Jensen, good enough? That way you can see the idea, and the criticism in one place and we avoid the whole "point counter point" problem that has made this article bloated. Who says that "Race and intelligence" is a topic of study? When I serch google scholar the only paper by that title is hosted at stormfront.org -- Let's change the title of the Genetics of intelligence article and then list all of the things from this rticle that we think could go in to that one. The rest will go to the writer's page, or be deleted... I don't know if this is a good idea, but I'm just thinking about how it might make more sense. futurebird 23:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that relegating these ideas, even if they are fringe, outside this article basically constitutes a POV fork, as these theories, no matter how unsavory they are, are germane to the subject. However, as a side note, I do find 140,000 hits in Google scholar when entering the words "Race" and "intelligence" (without the "and"). So, as much as I dislike these theories, I don't see how we can forego at least mentioning them.--Ramdrake 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just had a look at the Genetics of intelligence article, and it is hardly about genetics at all. In fact I don't think there is anything very much (or possibly at all) known about genetics and intelligence, beyond the fact that quite a lot of genes can reduce intelligence, but these are mostly not associated with brain development directly (think of something like Phenylketonuria). I think Graves claims that up to 40% of genes can have some effect on intelligence. Seems to me it would be better to have an article called something like IQ and heredity, after all we can show that cleverness runs in families without actually knowing anything about the genetics of "intelligence" (if such a thing exists, which I doubt). Besides cleverness running in families might be evidence of heritability, though it could just be that specific families have specific environments/traditions that promote inquiry in young minds, things that run in families are not always genetic! So maybe Genetics of intelligence should just be moved to IQ and heredity and rewritten according to SLR's suggestion? Alun 06:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a clarification: the Evolution article has a brief mention of creationism and ID, with links to their own articles. There is a stable consensus (for many years0 that this is actually a content fork rather than a POV fork because evolution and creationism are two different kinds of knowledge. This was my thinking behind having articles on genetics and IQ and on SES and IQ, which would focus on debates (yes, multiple points of view) within the scientifi communities expert on these topics.  The views expressed by Murry/Hernstein and Ruschton are not fringe views among scientists, they are popular views espoused by scientists who are not experts on these topics.  That is why I think their views and views of their views are best addressed n separate articles.  I think a section in the IQ&Genetics and IQ&SES articles summarizing the popular controversies with links to separate articles will be sufficient to comply with NPOV.  It certainly has been sufficient in the Evolution article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Another clarification (just being asked to comment in general is a rare opportunity at Wikipedia so forgive me if I indulge myself). I think that one important difference between science and pseudoscience is scientific research does not start out looking for a specific answer; it asks a question and follows the data to the answer. Pseudoscience, as in Intelligent Design, begins with the answer and then looks for the data that will support it. I make this distinction to make two points. First, I think in going about writing encyclopedia articles we should follow the former model, not the latter one. I think too many people think complying with NPOV means they start out with a view they think is important and then look for verifiable sources to support it so they can justify including it in the article. Realistically I admit we cannot prevent this at Wikipedia and in some cases when enough people with good research skills and good faith collaborate they can do this and still end up with good results. But I think a much better way to research an article is to find out what the notable verifiable sources are and then find out what they say (what views they hold) and then come up with an outline for an article that accommodates their views and whatever arguments exist among them. Second, following this principle I have discovered that there is plenty of good scientific research on the heritability of traits including IQ. A sample of key studies: Now, I have not read most of these, but this is precisely my point: I have not chosen them because they support my POV, but because they are frequently cited by scientists and thus represent notable views, whatever their views are. And this is plenty of material to work through. Kevin Murray asked me what I think. This is what I think: Why waste time arguing about Rushton and Murray and Hernstein when what we should be doing is reading the good scientific articles, like the ones above, sorting out the different views - points of agreement and points of contention - and based on this research figure out a good way to organize an article on IQ and genetics. I think that only then should we turn to fringe (among scientists) views and see what they say and decide ow to fit them into the article. There really is solid (not meaning unequivocal, rather, meaning good research design by people who were trained to do just this research, and which produced results other scientists take seriously, even when they disagree) research related to these topics. lets start with the stuff that is notable among scientists first. This is i grant harder than just writing about views we know and believe, or even views we know and hate. It requires actual research. I just think it is a better way to write a better encyclopedia. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bouchard, Arvey, Keller, Segal, 1992, Genetic Influences on Job Satisfaction: A Reply to Cropanzano and James,” Journal of Applied Psychology 77(1): 89-93
 * Devlin, Daniels, Roeder 1997 “The heritability of IQ” Nature 388: 468-471
 * Jacobs, Van Gestel, Derom, Thiery, Vernon, Derom, and Vlietinck, 2001, “Heritability Estimates of Intelligence in Twins: Effect of Chorion Type,” Behavior Genetics 31(2): 209-217
 * McCartney, Harris, and Bernieri, 1990, “Growing Up and Growing Apart: A Developmental Metanalysis of Twin Studies” Psychological Bulletin 107(2) 226-237
 * Phelps, Davis, Schwartz, 1997, “Nature, Nurture and Twin research Strategies” in Current Directions in Psychological Science 6(6): 117-121
 * Plomin and Loehlin, 1989, “Direct and Indirect IQ Heritability Estimates: a Puzzle” Behavior Genetics 19(3): 33-342
 * Race, Townswend, Hughes, 285-291, “Chorion Type, Birthweight Discordance, and tooth-Size Variability in Australian Monozygotic Twins” Twin Research and Human Genetics 9(2) 285-291 (no, not about IQ – but as it is about other clear phenotypic traits it provides a good benchmark for assessing the value of twin studies and the various factors one must also take into account)
 * Reed, Carmelli, Rosenman, 1991, “Effects of Placentation in Selected Type A Behaviors in Adult males in the national Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Twin Study,” Behavior Genetics 21(1) 1-19
 * Segal, 19999, Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell us About Human Behavior
 * Sokol, Moore, Rose, Williams, reed, and Christian, 1995, “Intrapair Differences in Personality and Cognitive Ability Among Mynozygotic Twins Distinguished by Chorion Type,” Behavior Genetics 25(5) 456-466
 * Stromswold, 2006, “Why Aren’t Identical Twins Linguistically Identical?” Cognition 101(2): 333-383
 * Mostly these studies discuss heritability and not genetics. I still think the article should be called "IQ and heredity" or "Heritability of IQ" or some such thing. Being able to estimate how heritable a trait is is not the same as knowing the genetics of a trait, especially it is not the same as the molecular biology/biochemistry of a trait. Alun 14:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote "genetics" rather than "heritability" because forfronting heritability, a tricky concept even non-specialist scientists do not understand - usually functions to turn it into a debate of nature versus nurture. You are right technically that most of the articles I mention focus on heritability - but this is just a sample of the scientific literature and I am assuming there are other studies that look at genetics too (but maybe I am wrong). Be that as it may, my suggestion is to have two articles, on one IQ and genetics and one on IQ and SES in order to avoid a debate over which influence is more important when I think most scientists acknowledge that both are important, and that the interesting research is NOT in which is more important but in what is the importance of genetics and what is the importance of social environment. I think inheritance and heritability too easily slides into race and the point of my comment and suggestion is to propose a way to avoid that. (Though I would not want to get bogged down in an argument over the names of the articles - key to me is the overall approach: two articles for two bodies of literature, one coming out of life sciences and some psychology, one coming out of social sciences, and articles on books prominent in popular debates) But it is just my opinion, of course you are free to disagree. As I wrote up top, I didn't expect people to agree with my approach to the matter. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do think it's a good approach to have two articles, though as you say the interaction of inherited ability with environment is very important, and I don't think anyone has ever really been able to successfully separate the two. Keep a clever kid in a social vacuum, and I don't care how good their "genes" are, they're going to be a bit thick. I'm not sure about genetics vs heritability, we know that ability is inherited, but we have no idea what genes are responsible for cleverness. Still it is probably true, as you say, that the actual title of the article may not need to be that specific, and maybe I'm quibbling. All the best. Alun 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is about procedure. Maybe you are right about what happens if you keep a clever kid in a social vacuum. But my point is that we should bracket our own points of view. If a topic has academic notability, there will be one or more discernable bodies of literature about it. I believe that with regards to variation in IQ scores there are two distinct bodies of literature, one including studies by biologists and psychometricians, and one predominantly by sociologists. I think scholars contributing to these bodies of literature ask different questions and use different methods which justify two different articles as a content - and not POV - fork. I do not start out assuming I know what the views of these scholars are. Instead I seek out books and articles that I know to be notable among scholars trained to conduct research in this area because these books and articles are frequently cited by other scholars. The procedure I suggest is to identify important books and articles on that basis, and then identify trends and debates, and then figure out the best structure for an article ... and the appropriate title of the article follows from this. My main point is that I think that the race and intelligence article was produced through a procedure that is pretty much the opposite of what I suggest: people start out with views they hold or know of because of the popular media, then then seek out books and articles to support these views. I admit this is an easier procedure, but I think the result is an inferior article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, IQ and genetics is much better and easier to deal with. It will also avoid battles since intelligence is not measurable, but IQ, by def, is. Brusegadi 02:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Layzer D. (1974) Heritability Analyses of IQ Scores: Science or Numerology? Science 183: 1259 - 1266
 * Turkheimer, Haley, Waldron, D'Onofrio, and Gottesman. (2003) Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of iq in young children. Psychological Science. 14: 623-628. "Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with SES. The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse."
 * Some relevant papers. I can only see the abstracts of these papers. I still think IQ and heredity is more accurate. Cheers. Alun 06:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See Nature versus nurture in the IQ debate. --Jagz 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * JAgz, you seem to be mixing up within-group heritability and between-group heritability. IQ is highly heritable and that has been demonstrated; what people have failed to demonstrate is that genetically-driven racial differences account for the B-W IQ gap; there is no direct evidence for it.--Ramdrake 20:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't have to try to resolve it but only to write an article as a third-party without an opinion, which this article has thus far failed to accomplish. --Jagz 20:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

IQ tests are an attempt at measuring intelligence but how well they measure it is controversial. Common IQ tests seem to measure components of intelligence that are useful in certain circumstances; the results may indicate potential in academia but not the potential to play or compose music for example. The only way I know of to compare the intelligence of two people or two groups of people is through the use of test results. Unfortunately, the article that I created that could have discussed these issues was deleted. For an example of a NPOV article on a controversial subject, see Boy Scouts of America membership controversies (an article I helped to write). --Jagz (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)