Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 87

"Richard Nisbet in replying to hereditarian arguments, structures the debate into several major areas"
Possibly, but certainly not into those areas presented in the section "Debate overview". Either before or after adding "The validity of "Race" and "IQ"". As such this sentence should be removed.Miradre (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Straw man argument
"Nichols (1987)[62] critically summarized the argument as follows: We do not know what causes the test score changes over time. We do not know what causes racial differences in intelligence. Since both causes are unknown, they must, therefore, be the same. Since the unknown cause of changes over time cannot be shown to be genetic, it must be environmental. Therefore, racial differences in intelligence are environmental in origin."

Summarized what argument? Never seen non-hereditarians use this flawed argument. Most likely the old quote is misleading due to lack of context. Looks like a straw man representation of the non-hereditarian side. Therefore I suggest it should be removed.Miradre (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy contains essays by lots of different people, and the quote from Nichols is a response to an earlier essay by Flynn. The article should probably mention it's a response to Flynn rather than to environmentalists in general. Apart from that not being clear, though, I don't think it's misleading, and I don't think it's a straw man either. Even if it were, it's our job to present what the sources say, straw man or not. Something like half the quotes in the "views on research" section are hard to understand out of context so I don't know why you've focused on this one in particular. We could try to add information about the background for all of these quotes, but what the section really needs is a complete rewrite.Boothello (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clearly a caricature of Flynn's argument not an actual attempt at faithful summary or understanding. There is no need at all to include that quote.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can add sources explaining the quote and that presents an accurate "summary" of a important current argument, and what that argument is then please do so. Otherwise it should be removed as unintelligible, outdated, and most likely a misrepresenation. If there are problems elsewhere, then that is not a reason to not fix this one.Miradre (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Victor Chmara already made a proposal here about how to rewrite this section. I don't completely understand why his revision wasn't added. To my knowledge, I don't recall anyone disputing that it was an improvement over the current section. There was a bit of disagreement over whether his rewrite or someone else's was better, so eventually the current version was kept even though no one liked that version much. I think this was a case of paralysis by indecision unfortunately. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems biased to hereditarian side by only mentioning supposed attacks against them while ignoring the Pioneer fund as well as the attacks hereditarians such as Rushton has made against whole groups on non-IQ and political issues. Also, spends a lot of time defending "race" as a valid concept. That should not a goal for this article, the validity of "race" or "iq" should be discussed in the articles about IQ and race. Although this should be pointed out more explicitly in this article by referring that discussion to those articles.Miradre (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how attacks by some group on others on non-IQ issues would have any relevance to the views on research section, could you give an example please? Also how do I identify a hereditarian, is it someone who says there is some influence of genes correlated with areas of the world people lived in for the last few thousand years? Do non-hereditarians hold that there cannot be such correlation, that there is none proven, or nothing that should be investigated, or is the distinction more nuanced? Dmcq (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A hereditarian would be one claiming that it is scientifically proven that at least part of the gaps are genetic in origin. A non-hereditarian that it is not proven. It would be a double standard for an article to only mention that some hereditarians feels "demeaned, ostracized and occasionally threatened with tenure revocation", when for example Rushton on extremly weak grounds accuses various groups of having various dysfunctional behaviors due to non-IQ genes and through the Pioneer Fund continues to fund various far-right extremists.Miradre (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Except a hereditarian might not necessarily claim it proven - but just express a belief in genes being the most important reason for the IQ gap. If we want to delve into why Rushton has been treated as he has we need to describe why as well - his tenure revocation threats were not just because his university didn't like his research it was for unethical reserach methods involving students. Any other professor would have probably been fired for what he did - regardless of whether they were also racists, Rushton only kept his tenure by claiming to be a martyr of PC. ·Maunus· ƛ · 18:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardly anyone is a hereditarian by that standard. Not even Jensen thinks the hereditarian hypothesis is "scientifically proven," he just thinks it's more likely than the alternatives. You also can't equate being insulted by Rushton with an actual threat to someone's career. No one has been in danger of losing their job because of him, or been forced to abandon their research. This has however happened because of people on the other side.


 * I think Victor's version of this section (on the page Trevelyan linked) is an improvement over the current section. Maunus and Miradre seem to be the main people who disapprove of this proposal, so I would support adding that section to the article if Victor could modify it to address their concerns. For example, it shouldn't be difficult to add the paragraph about the Pioneer Fund and Science for the People to the end of it.Boothello (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several other editors whose opinions would be valuable before making any drastic changes - Slrubenstein, Aprock, Ramdrake, Weijibaikebianji to name a few.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rushton's Pioneer Fund have supported various far-rights extremist organisations and individuals that have advocated everything from eugenics to repatriation to Africa and he himself accuses other groups of everything from genetically high psychopathy to genetically poor child-rearing. Wikipedia's content is not a popularity contest determined by straw polls. Content is based on other policies like discussion and what reliable sources say.Miradre (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the proper term for dragging in stuff like that is WP:COATRACK rather than anything to do with straw man. Dmcq (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am for returning to the original topic. Does anyone have a source for that this 1987 "critical summary" refers to an important current argument? Exactly what is this argument? Who claims it? The argument is obviously logically flawed so why keep it except as a straw man?Miradre (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I see it is a straw man argument. However, that is not a reason to remove it, because if we remove all the straw man arguments, there will be nothing left. This whole controversy is based on straw man arguments. Each side is so outraged at the other making large claims with no evidence that they'd claim the opposite (also without evidence) in revenge. Since neither side has any evidence, they resorts to criticizing the other side for their lack of evidence. So in this case, straw man arguments should STAY, as it is everything this controversy is about. If you don't like straw man arguments, don't take part of the controversy (not saying that you did). 173.183.79.81 (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Processing time section
Is largely unsourced. One supposed source is "Nisbett 2009". This is likely this, http://www.scribd.com/doc/29596219/Appendix-B-to-Intelligence-and-How-to-Get-It-by-Richard-Nisbett, in which case the content has little similarity to the source. Also undue weight for something with so low a correlation with IQ. As such this section should be grealy pruned and made to resemble a source.Miradre (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reaction time has been shown to correlate with IQ pretty strongly. Jensen's book Clocking the Mind talks about this in depth, and so do a couple chapters in Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy. I agree the section can't remain unsourced, but please don't delete it yet, if you give me a few days I'll add some sources and make it shorter.Boothello (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if the current content has little resemblance to Nisbett's text there is a lot of interesting criticism in Nisbett's text of reaction time as evidence of a genetic cause. A correlation of 0.2 is weak. But I will wait and see if the text improves.Miradre (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pruned, npov, source.Miradre (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just been 2 days since you raised the issue. I'm working on rewriting the section. Please give me a little more time to revise it before you delete most of it.-Boothello (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no justification for reverting to a bad version with unsourced and pov material. If there is something to add with sources then that can be added later.Miradre (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I revised the section to make it shorter and include refs. I had to do kind of a rush job with this, since I know you're impatient to get rid of the unreffed content. It was surprisingly hard to find sources that discuss race and reaction time from a pro-environmental perspective, there's a very large body of literature about this from people like Jensen, Rushton and Eysenck but Nisbett was the only source I could find about it from the other side. if you think I left out something important, feel free to add it. If not, though, I think this may really reflect the balance of viewpoints that exists in the source literature about race and RT.Boothello (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You made it longer, not shorter. Also states claims as facts. I will certainly go over it.Miradre (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Initial overview done.Miradre (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Now the text contains way too much uninteresting and irrelevant information about how RT works. Those interested can look that up in the main article about reaction time. It is not the purpose of this article to explain what MRI or reaction time is in great detail. As such as I think the following should be removed: "Reaction time (RT) is the elapsed time between the presentation of a sensory stimulus and the subsequent behavioral response by the participant. RT is often used in experimental psychology to measure the duration of mental operations, an area of research known as mental chronometry. In psychometric psychology, RT is considered to be an index of speed of processing. That is, RT indicates how fast the thinker can execute the mental operations needed by the task at hand. In turn, speed of processing is considered an index of processing efficiency. The behavioral response is typically a button press but can also be an eye movement, a vocal response, or some other observable behavior.[123] Scores on most types of RT tasks tend to correlate with standard IQ tests, but the exact amount of correlation varies a great deal and depends mostly on number of possible choices in the task: in general, the more choices, the higher the correlation. RT tasks also tend to correlate with g, and no relationship has been found between RT and any other psychometric factors independent of g. The correlation of both IQ and g to RT tends to be more pronounced for elementary cognitive tasks (ECTs) than other types of RT tasks. Like IQ, the correlation between g and RT varies depending on the type of task preformed."Miradre (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with miradre - the topic of reaction time is of marginal importance to the topic of the article as claims about the gap overwhelmingly rely on other tuypes of evidence - it should get little more than a cursory mention.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a tricky balance to get right. Race and reaction time isn't discussed anywhere else on Wikipedia, so we have an obligation to make this part of the article informative to readers. I agree it should probably be shorter, though. I've tried condensing it, and I combined the first two paragraphs. How's it look now?Boothello (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Letter to The Economist January 29th–February 4th 2011
The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh the humanity! aprock (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Structure of the article
The article has numerous problems of every kind but here I will focus on the overall structure.

1. The "History" and "Current debate" sections. Consists mainly of a long chronological list of the titles of various publications and by whom. Most likely completely uninteresting to almost everyone. The sections should be combined, the content greatly pruned, and most of the list moved to the "History of the race and intelligence controversy" article. Some other material like policy and research implications should be moved to the "Policy relevance" section.

2. The "Debate overview" and "Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups" sections. Extremely unclear what the is supposed the the differences between these sections. Instead I propose two new logical sections: "Environmental factors potentially causing racial IQ differences" (with subsections such as nutrition, test bias, SES, and so on) and "Evidence against and for genetics causing racial IQ differences" (with subsections such as brain size, adoption, inbreeding depression, and so on). Miradre (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that procedure - i would name the second section differently - something like "Discussion of possible genetic causes of the IQ gap" or "Arguments for and against ...". "Evidence" suggest that the conflict is based on varying evidence while it is often varying interpretations of the validity of proposed evidence and of different lines of argumentation based on that evidecnce that is the issue. Also there would need to be a section where the valditity of both race and IQ as categories on which statistics can be based is discussed - that falls out side of the environmental/genetic discussion both of which viewpoints assume the validity of both concepts. ·Maunus· ƛ · 18:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I have restructed the article and moved content to appropriate new sections. Nothing deleted or moved to other articles as for now.Miradre (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a few issues with the new structure: first of all, "Spearman's Hypothesis" should go in the "Group differences" section. Spearman's hypothesis only says that racial IQ gaps are mostly due to differences in g. It says nothing about whether that differences is genetic or environmental, so it shouldn't be listed as an argument for or against a genetic contribution to the IQ gaps.


 * Second, "Heritability within and between groups" should go earlier in the article. The relationship between within-group and between-group heritability is perhaps the most important point in the entire race/IQ debate, so it needs to be mentioned early on so readers can understand it.


 * Third, the section "Arguments for and against genetic causes of the IQ gaps" shouldn't use the word "cause." I think "Contribution" would be better. Hereditarians don't believe that genetics are the exclusive cause of IQ gaps, just that they play a significant role in it. I'm also not sure that having this title refer to genetics specifically is a good idea at all. For example, differences in brain size could be taken as an argument for IQ gaps being due either to genetics or due to nutrition. The only thing they really argue against is that the IQ gap can be explained completely in terms of education or culture.Boothello (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What aout "influences" - I think this may be more accurate than both "cause" and "contribution" - differences in nutrition is of course both an environmentla and a cultural factor. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Group differences in brain size, reaction time, inbreeding depression, and g (Spearman's Hypothesis) are used as arguments by the hereditarians. In fact, likely all the arguments used by hereditarians are about various group differences on other variables than IQ itself. It would be very confusing for the average reader to split the discussion of these subjects into two parts with one part mentioning claimed group differences for these no-IQ factors and another part much later discussing these differences. How about a brief sentence in the group differences section stating that there also claimed differences for these non-IQ variables which are discussed in the later section? The difference between within-group and between-group heritability fit squarely in a discussion about the role of genetics. Cannot be more important than the whole section about genetics itself. Changing to "contribution" seems fine to me.Miradre (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I m all for anything to make the narrative more interesing. I think as a general rule more context helps.  I only wish to point out that WP articles often have list-like sections, because one of WP's major strengths is hypertext and we want to link this article to all the relevant articles.  I am not arguing against the discussed changed, only pleaing to keep all of the links. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The list-like material is in the history section. I am not advocating removing anything from the list-like material completely from Wikipedia. But how much should be in this article and how much should only be mentioned in the History of the race and intelligence controversy article can be discussed. I think it is questionable that this article should include, for example, "Various other books of collected contributions appeared at the same time, including The black-white test gap (1998) edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, Intelligence, heredity and environment (1997) edited by Robert Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko.[12] A section in IQ and human intelligence (1998) by Nicholas Mackintosh discussed ethnic groups and Race and intelligence: separating science from myth (2002) edited by Jefferson Fish presented further commentary on The Bell Curve by anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, historians, biologists and statisticians." I do not think that these are notable enough to mention outside the the main history article and they make this article looks like a boring listing of rather unimportant publications. Only the really notable ones should be mentioned.Miradre (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that those books should all be used to reference the article instead - those books are all first class reliable sources for this topic and they are severely underused in writing the article. I agree that there is no point of mentioning them in the text itself.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * After putting some more thought into this, I think the biggest problem with the new structure is that dividing all of the debate topics into "potential environmental causes" and "genetic arguments" amounts to original research. Most of these topics have been written about extensively by both environmentalists and hereditarians. For example, Flynn and Nisbett think that regression toward the mean is best explained by environmental factors, and Neisser thinks race differences in brain size are evidence for nutritional effects rather than genetics, and Jensen and Rushton often mention the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (listed under "Rearing conditions") as evidence for a genetic basis. But by dividing these topics between environmental and genetic arguments, we're implying that each of these lines of evidence supports one position more than the other. I think this is also a bit of a POV problem.


 * Another problem with dividing the article this way is it opens the door to pointless argument over whether the genetic arguments section is too short or too long compared to the environmental section. Creating this false dichotomy lends itself to stacking up of one section against the other, which is pointless because topics in both sections have been covered from both positions. I think the two sections should be recombined into a single section titled something like "debate overview."Boothello (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the key is to only present "evidence" in the context in which it is used - so that when we have a section about "hereditarian arguments" that section includes Jensen's arguments about the adoption studies amentioning that this is the reason he sees this as evidence for hereditarianism and we include a small mention of why others may not be convinced by the validity of that argument. The same in the environmental section we present arguments and counterarguments - the evidence does not mean anything by itself it only means something when it is interpreted and different scholars interpret it differently - that is what we must report.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a fundamental difference between a factor that may cause IQ differences (like nutrition, SES, and so on) and arguments for that there are genetic differences. Regression towards mean is not a factor that may cause racial IQ differences; it is has been used as an argument for that the differences may be genetic. Obviously hereditarians and non-hereditarians are going to disagree regarding whether this regresseion is evidence for a role for genetic or not. But they agree on that this is not a cause of racial IQ differences. So here we have a fundamental och logical division.Miradre (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me just say that I think "presentation of the evidence" is very much a dangerous and difficult path to travel. The main problem with this is that evidence presented to the laymen tends to be like reading tea leaves or horoscopes. People see what that they want to see, and ignore the stuff they don't want to see. Taking this tack as the primary structure of the article exposes the problem multiple times. First, when editors try and sift through the mountain of data trying to determine which evidence is "good" and which is "bad", all the while presenting argument and counter-argument for the data. Second, such a presentation encourages readers to synethesize their own conclusions, with little regard to what the science says. Third, this leads to endless strife amongst maintainers who then have to tirelessly check and recheck all the edits that various POV pushers come in to "tweak" or "correct" the evidence. If there is one thing I think would improve the article while simultaneously make it more stable, that would be moving away from evidentiary exposition and more into summary of conclusions with the appropriate weighting. That's not to say there is no place for some explanation of specific evidence, but my guess is that most of that would be best handled in sub articles. aprock (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That echoes my point above - we should only include "evidence" when we are describing a particular researchers conclusions based on that evidence - the evidence on its own means nothin, we can only report evidence as it relates to particular scholars arguments.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that some of the data currently in the article should be cut out. If one reads what both Jensen and Nisbett have written on this topic, both of them are discussing the same data and they both accept that the data itself is valid. What they disagree over is just whether the data supports a hereditarian or environmental interpretation. If we change the article to just say "Jensen interprets the data this way" and "Nisbett interprets the data that way" - without explaining what the data actually is - we'll be making it impossible for readers to critically evaluate either of their arguments. Our goal for this article should be to give people an accurate overview of the race and intelligence debate, so that they can decide for themselves which argument is stronger. That is not possible without including the data.


 * I think Aprock is right that lay people who are looking at the data will often see what they want to see, but that's just part of human psychology and I don't think we should try to avoid it. It's called confirmation bias. In any article on a controversial topic, this is completely what we should expect if both sides of the debate are being fairly presented.Boothello (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tried to clean up the genetic-or-not parts of the articles but I am getting increasingly doubtful about the usefulness of continuing this. The latest summaries of arguments from both sides seem to be Nisbett 2009: and Rushton and Jensen 2010 in reply (not well represented in the article currently): . Both sides accuse one another of large-scale selective citations, misrepresentations, involving numerous different and complex lines of arguments, and often involving non-trivial mathematical calculations described in detail in other papers. Confusingly they often seem to ignore studies and claims by other side and only respond to part of what the other sides argues. Representing both sides fairly will be extremely difficult and make the article very long and most likely regardless be unintelligible to most readers. Maybe the best would be simply to delete the genetic-or-not section and refer to these summaries... Miradre (talk)


 * I've learned a lot about the race and intelligence debate from this article. I feel that other people can learn a lot from the way it is now too. I think it would be really unfortunate if the informative parts of the article had to be deleted. Isn't there any middle ground between presenting absolutely all of the data down to mathematical calculations and not presenting any of it? Maybe part of the problem is that everyone's focusing too much on Jensen/Rushton vs. Nisbett. Jensen and Rushton aren't the only two hereditarians and Nisbett isn't the only environmentalist. Maybe instead of covering every detail of the Jensen/Rushton vs. Nisbett argument we should focus more on what other people from both perspectives have written about this.-SightWatcher (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On principle I agree with the idea of adding other perspectives - I think material from Jencks, Sternberg, Alland jr., Marks would be good perspectives to include.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Score convergence in the U.S. needs correction
The figure of 5 or 6 is incorrect. This figure is a projection. Rushton and Jensen (The totality of available evidence shows race-IQ gap still remains 2006) point out that the actual figure is 3.44. In addition Rusthon and Jensen point out that Flynn and Dickens excluded several tests that all showed little to no decrease in the Black-White American IQ gap. Rushton and Jensen state that the actual figure, when including these excluded tests, is 2.1 and not 3.44 and again state that Flynn and Dickens use the projected score to exaggerate the trend line. (The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black-White IQ gap 2010)

Rushton and Jensen note, at the end of the 2006 article cited above, that the 3.44 figure is well within their own estimated h²/e² 80/20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.43.133 (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not decide who is right. That Rushton and Jensen have a different view is noted in the text.Miradre (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of IQ testing environmental variances


The article IQ testing environmental variances has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's an ongoing deletion discussion concerning this article. More people should take a look at it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Variance table
Should be part of the test scores section because it demonstrates that racial differences are a small fraction of total IQ differences (i.e., there is more variance within than between races).This is commonly accepted, but numbers speak louder than words in making the point. --Cant1lev3r (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In my copy, the average IQ difference due to measurement error is 4 not 7 (which also matches the the variance %).--Victor Chmara (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many people will have difficulty understanding that table. Better would be an image like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sketch-4race-transparent.png Miradre (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)○


 * Yeah, a bell curve image like that would be informative. We could also make a new graph based on WAIS-IV data; the one you linked to is from the 1980s (although the new data are more or less identical).--Victor Chmara (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with using bell curves is that they tend to conflate model with reality. Actual intelligence scores are not distributed on a bell curve. Rather the actual distributions are well modeled by bell curves. aprock (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * All models are wrong, but some are useful, and modelling the distributions of IQ scores as bell curves is certainly a reasonable thing to do.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, modeling IQ scores as bell curves is fine. It's modeling bell curves as IQ scores which is wrong.  Cheers. aprock (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I just created this graph of WAIS-IV data:

What do you think?--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks fine.Miradre (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is clearly WP:SYNTH, not to mention that the bell curves are all messed up. Additionally, it puts too much emphasis on US testing. aprock (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also don't know why we would include this - as we were discussing - data is relevant for the conclusions scholars are drawing from it. We shouldn't encourage laypeople to draw conclusions based on data that they are not qualified to interpret.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see how this could be synth anymore than the many other graphs and diagrams in Wikipedia that have been created using cited sources. Such a graph would be a fine way to illustrate that the differences between means are small compared to variance of each group. If we need a source for that then we need look no further than the table at the top of this section.Miradre (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those curves to not represent IQs of populations. They represent models of IQs of populations.  And yes, there is other synthesis in wikipedia. aprock (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is of course correct, they are models, but the same could be said of other mathematical model of the world like Newton's laws of motion which most would accept as usually valid and useful with various limitations despite not giving perfect predictions in every circumstance.Miradre (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the image could be WP:Synth any more than other graphs in Wikipedia. The whole article puts lots of emphasis on US testing, so I don't think this graph would be a problem. I don't know what you mean when you say that the bell curves are messed up, but it's a gnuplot image, so the the color scheme and other specifics can easily be altered. The bell curve of course represents an idealized distribution, but this could be mentioned in the caption.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are discussing using content not included in any reliable source. These are exactly the sort of problems I discussed above about using data.  Not only do I have no desire to spend unbounded energy discussing the difference between physics and statistical models, but that's not an appropriate use of the talk page.  If that chart isn't something that's used by reliable sources, then it's not appropriate for the article.  If you have strong concerns that I may be misinterpreting policy, then by all means raise this in an RfC or the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a Wikipedia policy stating that graphical representations of numerical data from reliable sources are automatically regarded as WP:OR? I don't think so. Are you opposed to including these data in general, or just to the specific bell curve format? Would something like this be preferable?--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to go around and around with you here. If the chart is not in a reliable source, it is not in a reliable source. aprock (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the policy you're looking for is WP:OI: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. The unpublished ideas here being that intelligence scores are actually distributed as a bell curve, have no uncertainty, and that US scores are representative of the racial disparities. aprock (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the image is essentially what Rageh Omaar drew by hand in his BBC special while making the same point. The use of normal curves to show how the means and variances measured reflect overlapping distributions is also in Jensen (1998). --Cant1lev3r (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The cautionary note is given immediately above the Weiss et al table itself: "Although we have taken care to elaborate the psychometric, environmental and individual difference variables that must be considered when interpreting these data, we are nonetheless concerned that some will take this information out of context and interpret it either as evidence of genetically determined differences in intelligence among the races, or as proof of test bias. We are convinced that such interpretations would be scientifically unsound, divisive to society, and harmful to patients". And this is after an in depth discussion about what's being measured, the factors known or conjectured that contribute to these scores, and the rationale for their sampling system.  To use the data in showing a different argument than the authors is original research (as in arraying them in overlapping bell curves to contrast the magnitude of "between groups" differences against their respective sample variances.)
 * And the figures obviously hold no value at all for conclusions about group differences outside the US. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you are saying. Obviously a graph showing racial/ethnic differences in IQ means and variances does not imply anything about what causes those differences. And as I pointed out above, this article is largely about the US, so it's only natural that the images used are as well.


 * I'm not that adamant about including this particular graph in the article. We could create a different one, or use a different data set, but in general I think we should add some pics, and one describing racial IQ differences in a recent representative data set like the WISC-IV standardization sample would be a good choice.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The WAIS, do you mean? Or is there a second chart under discussion? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, WAIS. Sorry.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So, does someone want to add this to the article? I agree with Victor Chmara and Miradre that it would help illustrate how IQ scores are distributed, and that the scores of all racial groups overlap more than they differ. And if anyone really thinks that IQ scores being distributed on a bell curve is an unpublished idea, it's pretty easy to find a source for that.Boothello (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that it was published with a disclaimer is a good indication that we should be cautious in presenting this data. The further fact that using it here is essentially doing exactly what they warned against, namely taking the data out of context, I think it would be quite simplly a big mistake to use it.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * They warned against using the data to conclude that the differences were due to genetic causes or test bias. As we would not use the graph to claim either of those things, what's the problem?--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would help if you could explain what the graph is being used for. aprock (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It could be used in the Test scores section to illustrate how the IQ scores of the largest ethnic/racial groups in the US differ and overlap.-- Victor Chmara (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That would certainly be OR, and seems to go against the quoted caveat that precedes the data "we are nonetheless concerned that some will take this information out of context". aprock (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please explain how it would be OR, or taken out of context. Strictly speaking, every single sourced argument presented in this article has been taken out of context because the full argument as it exists in the source has not been reproduced. That, however, is a silly criticism. The WAIS-IV data are based on representative samples, and they reflect actual, existing differences between populations -- the authors of the cited book do not disagree with this.--Victor Chmara (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That, however, is a silly criticism. There's no need for that, so I'll ask you to please strike.  Multiple issues have been raised about the use of the image.  At this point I think it's pretty clear that synthesizing such an image without presenting the data in the same context as the source constitutes original research.  If you are interested in including such a chart in the article, it would probably be better to find such an image published in a reliable secondary source used in a manner similar to how it would be used here.  As mentioned above, if you think there is some misuse of policy, I suggest an RfC or taking the issue to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously an image in a publication falls under copyright. Otherwise we could take such images from for example the Bell Curve book. An image simply showing the distributions of IQ according to an IQ test is not more OR than an image of any other statistic of which there are numerous in Wikipedia.Miradre (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An image != chart. If you have specific questions about what sorts of things fall under copyright, by all means bring them up at the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CMF only lists text, images, video, and audio files as media types. All images in a publication are under copyright. Data is not, which is why Wikipedia have contains numerous user created illustrations of statistics. So an user created image simply showing the distributions of IQ according to an IQ test is not more OR than an image of any other statistic of which there are numerous in Wikipedia.Miradre (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking here. If you have a specific question about policies, I suggest that you bring it up on the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let see what the objections are: 1. IQ is only a model. The same could said for numerous other statistics and theories. Anyway, Wikipedia does not aim to decide what is the Truth regarding reality, we only represent different views and the same applies to images. 2. The image is WP:SYNTH. Again, not anymore than any other image in WP of various statistics. 3. No one has published such images before. Wrong, look at the book "The Bell Curve", for example. 4. The authors of the IQ test cautioned interpreting the data incorrectly. No interpretation of the data is claimed by a graph simply illustrating the data. Obviously the authors intended for the test and data to be used, otherwise they would not have published.
 * So if no further good objections are raised I suggest inserting the image.Miradre (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All the objections above still stand. None of your points address the concerns highlighted above.  Please review the discussion above for details of the objections.  I will at this point note: saying that introducing WP:SYNTH here because there is synth elsewhere in wikipedia is not an acceptable policy interpretation.  If you'd like to post an RfC to get outside views, you are welcome to do so.  aprock (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain why the objections stand after they have been replied to. No, there is nothing in WP:SYNTH prohibiting illustring statistcs with images. To quote "Because of copyright law in a number of countries, there are relatively few images available for use in Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under the GFDL, CC-BY-SA, or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." As noted such bell curves images have been published previously and such an image does not advocate an unpublished argument.Miradre (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, if you feel that I am not correctly interpreting policy, you should post an RfC or bring it to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I may, if the issue cannot be resolved here. You have no further arguments which you want to add or replies to those I and others have given?Miradre (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Degree of geographic ancestry section
The degree of ancestry section fails to note the specific Hereditarian reply on a few issues. Since Flynn, Nisbett, and others give much weight to these studies, it might be more balanced to note the specific criticisms. Each criticism can be abbreviated in one sentence.

1. Human skin color:  "Nisbett writes that the correlation between US skin color and IQ are very weak, typically in the range of 0.1-0.15. The correlations between facial features rated as stereotypically African and IQ are similarly low in a 1966 study. Nibett argues that even if one ignores the possible advantages a whiter skin color may give this is inconsistent with a strong genetic influence"

Jensen discussed this issue in his 1974 work "Educatability and group differences (p. 222-223)." According to Jensen (1974), the skin color correlation could be .2 at maximum.

To quote: "The highest correlation that can be obtained between the two measures is the square root of the product of their reliabilities.  So the highest correlation we could expect to find between IQ and skin color  would be sqrt [(.16)(.25)]= .20.  Any higher correlation than this would most probably be attributed to factors other than racial admixture, per se."

[Reliability is the square of the correlation between two factors; Jensen argued that the ancestry-skin correlation for African Americans is about .4  and that the maximum the ancestry-IQ correlation could be, assuming that the Hereditarian hypothesis is correct, is .5.]

2. Prodigiousness Black Children:  "A study from 1934 and 1936 of black schoolchildren with high IQ examined their self-reported family history and found that they had slightly less European ancestry than the black average at that time.[19]"

According to Mackenzie (1984), in "Explaining race differences in IQ: The logic, the methodology, and the evidence," the study invalidly compared the sample group to an unrepresentative national sample.

To quote: "The Witty and Jenkins study. In their reviews of studies on race differences in IQ, Loehlin et al. (1975) and Flynn (1980) both placed considerable emphasis on a study of 63 black Chicago schoolchildren by Witty and Jenkins (1936). In fact, the study cannot support a heavy weight of interpretation, but it does have some uniquely relevant features in its design. Witty and Jenkins did not compare the IQs of blacks with different proportions of white ancestry. Instead, they focused on the distribution of ancestry in a selected high IQ sample of black students. Their rationale was that "the hypothesis that Negroes are inferior to whites in mental ability" should generate the prediction that "Negroes who make the very highest scores on mental tests should be those who come from admixtures predominantly white" (Witty & Jenkins, 1936, p. 180). They therefore estimated their subjects' racial admixture, on the basis of parent interviews, as N (all Negro), NNW (more Negro than white), NW (equally Negro and white), or NWW (more white than Negro) and compared the distribution of reported ancestry to that found in a national sample of adult blacks by Herskovits (1930). There were no significant differ1226 ences between the two distributions, and the small differences that existed were not in a consistent direction. They concluded that their findings provided fairly strong evidence against the "hypothesis of Negro inferiority" (p. 191). In fact, however, these findings do not provide such evidence, even if the genealogical estimates are taken at face value. For Witty and Jenkins's findings to have any value as evidence, it is essential that their comparison sample (Herskovits's national sample) be an appropriate one. An appropriate sample would be one that represented the population from which the children were drawn, that is, a comparison sample of black Chicago schoolchildren. This point is not mere nit-picking; in Reed's (1969) figures, blacks in Chicago have less white ancestry than the average for the black population in the U.S. If the same was true in 1936, then a Chicago sample matched to a national sample would have more white ancestry than the local average. More important, Herskovits's national sample cannot be considered representative. About 32% of his sample was composed of Howard University undergraduates, and another 16% was taken from the "well-to-do and professional portion of the population of the Harlem district of New York City" (Herskovits, 1930, p. 5). Thus, almost half of Herskovits's national sample was highly selected for scholastic achievement or SES.3 A genetic hypothesis for race differences in IQ is not embarrassed by the finding that such a sample had a similar distribution of ancestry to a smaller sample that was highly selected for IQ. A genetic hypothesis is not actually supported by this finding, because it remains an open question whether the national sample itself had more white ancestry than the average for the black population. It is clear, however, that as it stands, the Witty and Jenkins study yields no interpretable results."

3. Blood group studies:  "The frequency of different blood types vary with race. Correlations between degree of European blood types and IQ have varied between 0.05 and -0.38 in two studies from 1973 and 1977. Nisbett writes that one problem is that white blood genes are very weakly, if at all, associated with one another, and therefore they may not be associated with white IQ genes.[19]"

According to Reed (1997,"The Genetic Hypothesis: It Was Not Tested but It Could Have Been"), an expert on blood groups, given the methodology used, these studies were unable to detect any difference.

To quote: "I wish to comment on “The genetic hypothesis” (p. 95; for the Black-White difference in psychometric intelligence) in the Neisser et al. (February 1996) article, particularly the reference to two studies that used blood groups to estimate the degree of African ancestry in American Blacks in relation to their IQ scores (they found no relation). I have experience in such admixture estimation (e.g., Reed, 1969, 1973) and, as mentioned in the target article (Reed & Jensen, 1992, 1993), in studying biological factors in intelligence. My 1969 article gave the fast estimate of the proportion of White ancestry in American Blacks (Pw) with a standard error, 0.220 ± 0.0093 (using the Duffy blood group gene Fy~), and because it was based on large samples (more than 3,000 each of Blacks and Whites), it remains the best single estimate for non-Southern American Blacks. I contend that, because of their methodology, the two studies cited above—Loehlin, Vandenberg, and Osborne (1973) and Scarr, Pakstis, Katz, and Barker (1977)–did not adequately test the possible association of cognitive ability with Pw” Consequently, their negative results provide no evidence against the genetic hypothesis. I suggest a method that, had it been used with data of the second study and if the genetic hypothesis is true, probably would have confirmed the genetic hypothesis. The methodologies of these two studies share a basic misconception–that all blood (and serum) groups are useful in estimating P. This is plainly false, as I (Reed, 1969) showed. The P estimate in this population, w using the A and B genes of the ABO blood groups, was 0.200 ± 0.044; the above esti- mate with Fy’ provides (.044)V(.0093) 2 = 22 times more information than this ABO estimate. If I had estimated Pw using the MN blood groups (both the Loehlin and Scarr groups used them), the standard error would have been even much larger than for ABO and would have been worthless (see below). The racial informativeness of a gene used to estimate P (measured by the reciprocal of the variance of Pw) is a function of its relative frequencies in the two ancestral populations, African and White. A genetic Locus I is perfectly informative (an “ideal locus”; MacLean et al., 1974; Reed, 1973) when it has two codominant alleles (genes; say I and 12), with one allele being homozygous (i.e., PI ]) in all individuals of one ancestral population and the other allele being homozygnus (I 2I 2) in all individuals of the other ancestral population. Thus, when testing an American Black, every allele at this ideal locus derived from a White ancestor is recognized as such. The Gm serum group locus (testing for nine factors) closely approximates such an ideal locus, but with multiple alleles; three are White alleles and four are sub-Saharan African alleles (Roychoudhury & Nei, 1988). The Fy ~ allele alone, with a frequency of about .43 in Whites and about 01 in Africans, is not ideal. When present in. an American Black person, we are reason- ably sure that it came from a White ancestor, but other White matings could have contributed an Fy b allele (frequency about .57 in Whites and about .01 in Africans) and so would not be recognized (when testing only for Fy~). But contrast this with the situation using the MN blood groups: In both Whites and Africans, the M and N alleles each have frequencies close to .50. This locus provides essentially no information on the ancestry of American Blacks! The consequences of using all blood and serum groups available, without regard to their great differences in racial informativeness, as the Loehlin (Loehlin et al., 1973) and Scarr (Scarr et al., 1977) teams did, are severe." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

New section needed: racial hybid
Under the "Degree of geographic ancestry" section you include the following:

"Rushton (2008) in a study of South African university students, found that the IQ of Coloured, a mixed-race group, was between that of blacks and whites."

Rushton (2008) was a racial hybrid study. It might be worth making a separate section on this as there were two additional such studies:

Rowe, 2002. IQ, birth weight, and number of sexual partners in White, African American, and mixed race adolescents. Willerman, 1974. Intellectual development of children from interracial matings: Performance in infancy and at 4 years

At very least, it might be informative to mention these studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

comment on "Gradual gap appearance" section
In this section, Flynn is references. Levitt and Fryer (2006), in "Testing for racial differences in the mental ability of young children," make a similar argument. They could also be noted.

Additionally, Rushton and Jensen are references: "Rushton and Jensen argue that the black-white IQ difference of one SD is present at the age of 3 and does not change significantly afterwards."

There are two (inconsistent) hereditarian replies: 1) the gap emerges by age 3 and does not change afterwards (Jensen and Rushton), and 2) the gap's increase with age is consistent with the hereditarian hypothesis as geneotypic differences express themselves with age (Murray, 2005). Murray makes the last point in the "The inequality taboo" (fully annotated version):

"32. The black-white difference emerges as early as IQ can be tested, but the gap is usually smaller in pre-adolescence. Among pre-schoolers, the gap can be just a few IQ points. Why does it increase with age? One obvious hypothesis is inferior schooling—e.g., Fryer and Levitt (2004). But black children attending excellent schools also fall behind their white counterparts, as discussed subsequently in the text and in note 14. The alternative explanation is that the heritability of IQ increases with age for people of all races, and this is reflected in black IQ scores in adolescence and adulthood. See Jensen (1998): 178." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions.Miradre (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Effort optimism be merged into Race and intelligence. One sentence article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Miradre (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or just into Intelligence or just prod as non-notable? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

heritability and group differences
The section on heritability and group differences doesn't make sense.

You have:


 * High heritability does not imply that a trait is unchangeable, however, as environmental factors that affect all group members equally will not be measured by heritability, average height increase despite high heritability being an example, and the heritability of a trait may also change in response to changes in the distribution of genes and environmental factors.[1]

And then you start talking about X-factors.

This is a fairly complex issue; let me try to outline it and then you can decide if it's worth making changes. ............................................................................................................................................

Lewontin and others have pointed out that one can not infer between population heritability from within population heritability; Jensen, however, argues that high within group heritability constrains environmental explanations for between group differences[1]. Flynn has summarized the argument thusly [2]:


 * Originally, Jensen argued: (1) the heritability of IQ within whites and probably within blacks was 0.80 and betweenfamily factors accounted for only 0.12 of IQ variance — with only the latter relevant to group differences; (2) the square root of the percentage of variance explained gives the correlation between between-family environment and IQ, a correlation of about 0.33 (square root of 0.12=0.34); (3) if there is no genetic difference, blacks can be treated as a sample of the white population selected out by environmental inferiority; (4) enter regression to the mean — for blacks to be one SD below whites for IQ, they would have to be 3 SDs (3 ×.33 =1) below the white mean for quality of environment; (5) no sane person can believe that — it means the average black cognitive environment is below the bottom 0.2% of white environments; (6) evading this dilemma entails positing a fantastic “factor X”, something that blights the environment of every black to the same degree (and thus does not reduce within-black heritability estimates), while being totally absent among whites (thus having no effect on within-white heritability estimates).

Given the high within population heritability, Jensen maintains that environmentalists need to posit an implausible X-factor to explain group differences [4]. Given the accumulated evidence, Both Flynn and Nisbett, two leading environmentalists, now agree that X-factors are implausible [2] [3]. Nisbett, however, maintains that the heritability within the Black population is lower than Jensen's estimate and that high within group heritability only rules out major, single environmental causes of the gap; he argues that the gap can be explained by many small factors [4]. Hunt and Carlson agree, stating that "[i]t is quite possible that the present discrepancy in achievement is due to multiple small and subtle social effects, many of which may be due to cultural practices in the affected groups, such as attitudes toward education, indirect effects of health practices, and relative degrees of family solidarity." [4] Flynn, on the other hand, argues that the conventional understanding of heritability is incorrect; he maintains that the Flynn effect demonstrates this [5]. Flynn states that [2]:


 * "I used the Flynn Effect to break this steel chain of ideas: (1) the heritability of IQ both within the present and the last generations may well be 0.80 with factors relevant to group differences at 0.12; (2) the correlation between IQ and relevant environment is 0.33; (3) the present generation is analogous to a sample of the last selected out by a more enriched environment (a proposition I defend by denying a signiﬁcant role to genetic enhancement); (4) enter regression to the mean — since the Dutch of 1982 scored 1.33 SDs higher than the Dutch of 1952 on Raven's Progressive Matrices, the latter would have had to have a cognitive environment 4 SDs (4 × 0.33 =1.33) below the average environment of the former; (5) either there was a factor X that separated the generations (which I too dismiss as fantastic) or something was wrong with Jensen's case. When Dickens and Flynn developed their model, I knew what was wrong: it shows how heritability estimates can be as high as you please without robbing environment of its potency to create huge IQ gains over time"

Flynn's interpretation of heritability and intelligence has been challenged by Linda Gottfredson and others [6] [7] [8]

[1] Sesardic, 2000. Philosophy of Science that Ignores Science: Race, IQ and Heritability, Philosophy of Science [2] Flynn. 2010. The spectacles through which I see the race and IQ debate [3] Nisbett, 2010. Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count. [4] Nielson, 2010. Intelligence of Culture. Contemporary sociology. [4] Hunt and Carlson, 2007. Research on group differences in intelligence is scientifically valid and socially important [5] Taylor, 2006. Heritability and Heterogeneity: The Irrelevance of Heritability in Explaining Differences between Means for Different Human Groups or Generations [6] Gottfredson, 2007. Shattering logic to explain the Flynn Effect. [7] Rowe, et al., 2001. Expanding variance and the case of historical changes in IQ means: A critique of Dickens and Flynn [8] Mingroni, 2007. Resolving the IQ paradox: Heterosis as a cause of the Flynn effect and other trends ....

Hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Regression towards the mean
This section could use some editing. This is how I would put it: .......................................................................................................................................

"Jensen and Hans Eysenck reasoned that if average racial differences in IQ had a genetic basis, then the average IQs of black and whites would show regression towards their respective population means [2] [3]. Studies have confirmed that blacks and whites do regress towards their respective population means [1]. Jensen and Eysenck argued that this provides evidence for genetic based differences in IQ. This line of argument, however, has been criticized [2].

Nisbett (2009) agrees that blacks and whites do regress towards their population means, but he argues that this effect would also be expected if environmental factors depressed the average black IQ more than average white IQ.[19] Rushton and Jensen have replied that the results are seen for siblings who should have a very similar environment, that low scoring blacks regress upwards, and that, when looking at the magnitude of regression, the results are as predicted by a partial genetic hypothesis [20]. Rushton agrees that the differential regression could be explain environmentally, but he argues that such an explanation would be contrived [4]"

[1] Murray, 1999. The Secular Increase in IQ and Longitudinal Changes in the Magnitude of the Black-White Difference: Evidence from the NLSY [2] Mackenzie, 1984. Explaining Race Differences in IQ: The Logic, the Methodology, and the Evidence. [3] By Sohan Modgil, Celia Modgil, Hans Jürgen Eysenck, 1986. Hans Eysenck: consensus and controversy. page. 116 [4] Rushton, "Race differences in g and the "Jensen effect." In "The scientific study of general intelligence: tribute to Arthur R. Jensen" H. Nyborg (ed.). Pergamon, London, 2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Uniform rearing conditions
Some of the numbers are off in the section on "universal rearing conditions."

Ignore the previous comment on the Moore study.

In the Minnesota study, there was attrition. At age 7, there were 143 biological white, 25 adopted white, 68 adopted biracial, and 29 adopted black. At age 17 there were 104 biological white, 17 adopted white, 55 biracial, and 21 black.

In Eyferth there were 98 interracial and 83 white children. In Tizard et al. (1972)the numbers (and scores) vary depending on the assessment you are talking about (there were four different ones). Look up: Tizard, 1974. Race and IQ. The only statistically significant finding was on the Minnesota non-verbal test (White N=24, 101.3; BW N= 15, 109.8; Black N= 15, 105.7.) The highest Ns were in the  Reynell's comprehension and Reynell's expression assessment, which are not IQ tests. Those N's were White = 39, BW =24, Black = 22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Fertility and intelligence differences
There is one hereditarian line of argument that you forgot: relative rates of dysgenic fertility. Shockely, Jensen, and others have made this. They argue that given a non-zero heritability and differential reproduction patterns a genotypic gap is inevitable; they then cite evidence showing that African-Americans have more dysgenic fertility than European Americans.

From: Jensen, 1998. Population Differences In Intelligence: Causal Hypotheses. In: The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability

"Genetic Implications of IQ and Fertility for Black and White Women.

If IQ were more negatively correlated with fertility in one population than in another (for example, the American black and white populations), over two or more generations the difference between the two populations’ mean IQs would be expected to diverge increasingly in each successive generation. Since some part of the total IQ variance within each population is partly genetic (i.e., the heritability), the intergenerational divergence in population means would also have to be partly genetic. It could not be otherwise, unless one assumed that the mother-child correlation for IQ is entirely environmental (an assumption that has been conclusively ruled out by adoption studies). Therefore, in each successive generation, as long as there is a fairly consistent difference in the correlation between IQ and fertility for the black and white populations, some part of the increasing mean group difference in IQ is necessarily genetic. If fertility is negatively correlated with a desirable trait that has a genetic component, IQ for example, the trend is called dysgenic; if positively correlated, eugenic...

Is there any evidence for such a trend in the American black and white populations? There is, at least presently and during the last half of this century, since U.S. Census data relevant to this question have been available. A detailed study based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and affiliated agencies was conducted by Daniel Vining, a demographer at the University of Pennsylvania. His analyses indicate that, if IQ is, to some degree heritable (which it is), then throughout most of this century (and particularly since about 1950) there has been an overall downward trend in the genotypic IQ of both the white and the black populations. The trend has been more unfavorable for the black population."

References

Jensen, 1998. The G-Factor Meisenberg, 2010. The reproduction of intelligence Shockely, 1972. Dysgenics, Geneticity, Raceology: A Chalenge to the Intelectual Responsibility of Educator Vining, 1982. On the possibility of the reemergence of a dysgenic trend with respect to intelligence in American fertility differentials —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rushton and Jensen do not mention this argument in their later reviews. Even if correct, there seems only to be evidence for a recent and weak effect and would at most mean that a very small part of the US gap is genetic (and this is of recent origin).Miradre (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't think it adds to the discussion don't add it.

Flynn effect
"Others argue against expecting the Flynn Effect to narrow the US black-white IQ gap since they see that gap as mostly genetic in origin.[53]"

You might mention that Wicherts, Dolan, Hessen, et al. (2004) [1] found the the Flynn effect was qualitatively different from the US Black-White gap.

"This clearly contrasts with our current findings on the Flynn effect. It appears therefore that the nature of the Flynn effect is qualitatively different from the nature of B–W differences in the United States. Each comparison of groups should be investigated separately. IQ gaps between cohorts do not teach us anything about IQ gaps between contemporary groups, except that each IQ gap should not be confused with real (i.e., latent) differences in intelligence. Only after a proper analysis of measurement invariance of these IQ gaps is conducted can anything be concluded concerning true differences between groups."

Wicherts, Dolan, Hessen, et al. 2004. Are intelligence tests measurement invariant over time? Investigating the nature of the Flynn effect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems only to refute someone claiming that the Flynn effect and BW gaps have exactly the same causes. To quote Flynn:

"I never claimed that the Flynn Effect had causal relevance for the black/white IQ gap. I claimed that it had analytic relevance. Jensen had argued that environment (at least between groups both located in a modern Western society) was so feeble that an astronomical environmental difference had to be posited to explain a one SD IQ gap. The Dutch showed that the environmental difference in question was less than whatever environmental enhancement they had enjoyed over 30 years. The gap needed was dragged out of the stars down to earth."Miradre (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will add some material on this.Miradre (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Logographic writing systems
Hangul is not logographic, and Koreans have the highest national IQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.14.52 (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Which kind of precludes writing system to intelligence causality. Also trans-national adoption does not affect IQ distribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.14.52 (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also Vietnam and Japan dropped their logographic systems. In Vietnam it was done recently and the adoption is complete. In Japan the adoption is not complete and very long and gradual. There is a mixed logographic with syllabary system with continuously growing syllabary part usage. Also the Chinese themselves simplified their writing in mainland China. And the now trend is growing logographic illiteracy due to technology, so younger generation forget how to actually write the complicated characters by hand, since there are written from choose-and-pick input systems. I think these situations must have influence on intelligence. But is there any research on that ? pwjbbb (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

POV tag
I feel this should be removed now after much of the article being rewritten since I do not think the article currently has systematic POV problems. There may possible still be POV problems but then a more constructive approach would be to mark a specific section or sentence with POV tags and explain the reason.Miradre (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When you're through making your hundreds of edits, post a notice here and I'm sure you can get some editors to review it. aprock (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe this was that notice?·Maunus· ƛ · 00:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on his contribution history, he's not quite done yet. aprock (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are still things that should be fixed. But I do no think there are systematic POV issues. Stating that something is POV without explaining why is not constructive (and also unfalsifiable). So in order to be constructive, please state what is POV and tag the appropriate section or sentence.Miradre (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the template does not state that someone may or may not check to see if there are POV issues sometime in the future. Is states that the neutrality is disputed and that one should check the discussion on the talk page. So, if there are reasons for the article being systematically POV, then please state them. If there are problems with a particular sentence or section, then please state them and tag that section or sentence.Miradre (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I quote from WP:NPOV: "If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article."Miradre (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. 1. I don't like what you've done with the lead. It does not seem very biased but it doesn't adequately describe what the actual issue is and why it is contentious. And rather than a summary of the article it gives cherry picked bits of information. 2. The history section is now simply a chronological list of hereditarian publications, that are not put into historical context, it seems very lopsidedly focused on hereditarian publications and describe their viewpoints in more detail than the opposing side. It mentions the 52 signatories in favor of the hereditarian hypothesis, but none of the much larger mobilizations against it. It also fails to supply the relevant historical context of most of the events: The relation between IQ testing and the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. Jensens original paper was written in the context of the supreme court case regarding segregation in the school system, that is relevant for understanding the events. When it does provide historical context it does so in a tendentious fashion - e.g. noting that Stalin and Hitler were against IQ testing, but not mentioning that their eugenic policies were similar to the one's advocated by those who investigated the relation between IQ and race at that time. It also suggests that the environmental view became standard because of fear of repressalia rather than because of the overwhelming evidence in favor. The validity of race and IQ section make the fallacy of attributing widely held consensus views, such as the invalidity of race as a biological concept to a single proponent (not just Sternberg rejectes the validity of race - the entire profession of anthropologists do so). Such as misrepresentation is classic POV tool. By putting Rowe's and Hunt and Carlson's problematic statements before the critics it suggests that race is generally accepted as a valid biological category with only a few fringe critics - that is at best a gross oversimplification and at worst a complete falsification of the actual state of affairs. In all earnestness - the past two times that someone said that they wanted to remove the POV I have given detailed accounts of the POV issues - you do not seem to have taken them into account in your rewriting of the article at all. In fact I would say that the problems have become worse.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the archive page where I last gave my objections last time someone wanted to remove the POV-tag. Most of it is also valid for your version. There are also some relevant objections from Professor Marginalia Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_86·Maunus· ƛ · 13:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. What exactly do you not like about the lead? Be specific. That is the part I have edited the least. 2. Ok, will make some changes regarding that. I note that you make lots of claims without sources so those will be difficult to fix. 3. Again, if you have a source for what "the entire profession of anthropologists" argues, then we could add that. If those two section, the history and validity sections, are the only problematic ones, then do you oppose tagging only them?Miradre (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was assuming that you had done at least the most basic homework, including reading books by authors you may not agree with. And acquiring working knowledge of issues that have been debated to death in the archives. As for the profession of anthropologists you could check: the American Anthropological Association's website on race: [www.understandingrace.org] or their statement on race from 1996.[www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm]. I haven't read the rest of the article yet.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that every anthropologist agree with that statement anymore than that every psychologist agreed with the APA report. But I will add that view. Until you may read the rest of the article, do you oppose you tagging those secitons? Miradre (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even Mikemikev was aware that the overwhelming consensus in anthropology is that race is not a biological but a social reality. Whether or not "every" anthropologist agrees is irrelevant - it is clearly and verifiably the majority view in the profession. I don't oppose tagging those sections - I oppose untagging the article. Also I don't think you can adress the concerns of weight by merely removing superfluous information, e.g. where it was published from the hereditarian publications. That will turn the section into a mere chronology of publications - that is not what the history section is supposed to be - it is supposed to be a prose narrative explaining the development and historical context of the debate.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we have a whole long subarticle for the history. Obviously we cannot replicate all of it here. It may too long as it is according to MOS. Also, I fail to find a source in the subarticle for that Jensen's 1969 paper was a response to the 1954 Supreme court decision. If you have one we could add it. What is wrong with the other sections? Miradre (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you write "It also suggests that the environmental view became standard because of fear of repressalia rather than because of the overwhelming evidence in favor." Here is what the subarticle states regarding this (not written by me): "According to Franz Samelson, this change in attitude had become widespread by then,[32] with very few studies in race differences in intelligence, a change brought out by an increase in the number of psychologists not from a "lily-white ... Anglo-Saxon" background but from Jewish backgrounds. Other factors that influenced American psychologists were the economic changes brought about by the depression and the reluctance of psychologists to risk being associated with the Nazi claims of a master race."Miradre (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire pargraph states that "In 1935 Otto Klineberg wrote two books "Negro Intelligence and Selective Migration" and "Race Differences",[30][31] dismissing claims that African Americans in the northern states were more intelligent than those in the south. He concluded that there was no scientific proof of racial differences in intelligence and that this should not therefore be used as a justification for policies in education or employment. In the 1940s many psychologists, particularly social psychologists, conceded that environmental and cultural factors, as well as discrimination and prejudice, provided a more probable explanation of disparities in intelligence. According to Franz Samelson, this change in attitude had become widespread by then,[32] with very few studies in race differences in intelligence, a change brought out by an increase in the number of psychologists not from a "lily-white ... Anglo-Saxon" background but from Jewish backgrounds. Other factors that influenced American psychologists were the economic changes brought about by the depression and the reluctance of psychologists to risk being associated with the Nazi claims of a master race.[33] The 1950 race statement of UNESCO, prepared in consultation with scientists including Klineberg, created a further taboo against conducting scientific research on issues related to race.[34] Hitler banned IQ testing for being "Jewish" as did Stalin for being "bourgeois"" For some reason out of this entire paragraphg that clearly documents that Klineberg produced evidence against the racial disparity and that the general dismissal of the topic was first and foremost based in increased knowledge about the nature of race among social scientists who were now less influenced by doctrines of white racial superiority, you only include the statement that IQ tstudies were abandoned due to fear of being associated with Hitler, and the statement about Hitler and Stalin.... ·Maunus· ƛ · 14:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see nothing there stating that Klineberg presented overwhelming evidence or that it was he who the main cause of the changed view. The two sources [30][31] go to the books by Klineberb, not someone claiming they were the important cause. Franz Samelson has a different opinion as stated.Miradre (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot see that out of the many ways in which this paragraph could have been summarised and framed you have chosen to focus only on the part that suggests that the primary reasons for abandoning research in biological racial differences was politically rather than scientifically motivated? That leaves very little hope for your ability to improve the POV problem of this article. ·Maunus· ƛ · 14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a source stating that increased evidence was part of the reason for changed view, then please state it. The books themselves are hardly evidence for their importance. I will add the depression.Miradre (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously doubt that the abandonment of research in racial biological differences had nothing to do with the mass of evidence produced by Boas and Mantagu against the biological reality of race, or the mass of evidence in favor of social and environmental causes of racial disparities in the US produced by Myrdal, DuBois, Klineberg, Powdermaker? Are you asking me to prove that the moon isn't made of green cheese? If you were interested in presenting a balanced view of this topic you would be fully able to find some of those sources yourself - I ghuarantee you that they are there. I don't have more time to deal with this now, but I obviously do not support removing the POV tag. I hope other editors like Slr, Aprock or Professor Marginalia will be able to review your changes and provide more input. But untill you start taking the environmentalist side seriously, which includes acknowledging that those who hold it are not just brainwashed communists but do base their argumentation on evidence I don't see how any edit you make can counter the bias.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I, as Wikipedia, likes sources. I have found one myself on the history of psychology that I will add.Miradre (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We all like sources. But you are looking at a subset of sources and challenging other editors to include information from the ones you don't look at - which happens to represent one entire side of the debate. If you were interested in making the article balanced you would be looking at the entire body of sources. I am telling you that that way to proceed will not cause balance. And I really cannot understand how you can be surprised that the article requires a POV tag as long as you are not actually working to integrate the other side equally into the treatement. ·Maunus· ƛ · 15:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at my editing you will that I have added many pro-environmental arguments and sources. I have already responded to your arguments and added more material. I will also add some more like the AAA statement. I hope you will continue to with constructive criticism if there are remaining problems. If no concrete POV problems remains, then there will be no reason for a NPOV tag.Miradre (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the statement that "Stalin banned intelligence testing as bourgeois", cited to Eysenck, is questionable. Eysenck was not an expert on Soviet social science. In fact the USSR had its own school of psychology, founded by Lev Vygotsky, who died before Stalin came to power. Vygotsky was highly critical of Cyril Burt's "psychology of individual difference". So intelligence testing was never really on the agenda in the USSR. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact that is like citing McCarthy about the correct interpretation of Marxism.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Eysenck was at his death the most frequently cited psychologist in the world and as such certainly is an acceptable source. He was also of German origin and published the book originally in Germany so I see little reason to doubt the part regarding Hitler. If you have a reliable source stating that Eysenck was wrong regarding Stalin, then please state it.Miradre (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a substantial academic literature on Soviet developmental psychology. I will have a quick trawl, but I doubt any of it deals with Stalin in detail. It was one of the areas he left alone, unlike linguistics. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a recent scholarly account that, as you will see, is far more nuanced than Eysenck's. It does support the idea that the ban on intelligence testing was political in nature. It should be read in conjunction with the fact that Luria developed the Luria-Nebraska test as an alternative. Although Vygotsky's texts weren't read during the Stalin period, his ideas remained influential on Soviet psychology (and are now influential worldwide). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot read the Google link to so please add the relevant paragraph here and I will add this view to the article. Or add it to the article immediately.Miradre (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

After some concrete and constructive criticism the article has been modified and improved. I feel that the concrete objections regarding POV has been answered. Are there anything more concrete that is problematic? Then please state it so the situation can be corrected. I will eventually remove the NPOV tag if no more concrete POV problems can be identified.Miradre (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You have done some cosmetic changes, none of the problems are resolved. You should be quite a bit more patient I think. Several other editors will be interested. You can of course remove the POV tag if you believe no-one will reinsert it. I won't. But I caution you not to think that so fundamental problems can be resolved with so little effort.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will let others judge if the changes were cosmetic. I will certainly wait and hear the views of others. I think the article has been improved by your criticism and hope that other can contribute with other concrete suggestions.Miradre (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As another point, it is not only in psychology that IQ is viewed as important. All the g-correlated tests are used because they are viewed as useful by those who pay to use them. IQ testing is used in medical research like on dementia and other diseases. It is used by economists who study relations to other variables. And so on.Miradre (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that other fields don't us IQ, but they are not really in a position to state whether it accurately measures the psychological traits its designed to measure - because psychologists are the experts on whom they have to rely on that issue. I have just gotten my hands on a good Psychology textbook and its description of intelligence is actaully a lot more nuanced than simply saying ""IQ" is the measure of intelligence". For example it does not at all dismiss Gardner's intelligence theories, or make any blanket statements about what intelligence is or isn't, or how well measurable it is. After a long discussion they end up defining intelligence like this: "We may then (at long last) define intelligence as a hypothetical mental ability that enables people to direct their thinking, adapt to their circumstances, and learn from their experiences. Although this definition is not particularly crisp, it does seem to capture the basic themes that characterize both the scientist’s and the layperson’s conception of intelligence."·Maunus· ƛ · 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also the APA report pointed this out. I do not think most psychologists try to argue that IQ is important because it may or nor may not capture everything that people think is in the concept intelligence. I think they would rather argue that it captures some part and that the value of IQ testing depends on its ability to predict future achievements. I will add something on this.Miradre (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will edit in some new material, but think that it would be helpful to get some more expert editors to look at the article. I also think that the Eysenck quote is probably rather inaccurate on the Hitler side as well. Not really because of bias, but because of the time in which it was written. Historians of the Nazi period have put in a lot of effort to disentangle the views and actions of Hitler himself from those of other Nazis and sympathisers. So that needs attention to. Or the Eysenck quote can come out. Does this article actually need to say anything about intelligence testing in the USSR and Nazi Germany? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Eysenck is a very noted researcher and a book by him pass all criteria for a WP source. If there are opposing views regarding Hitler, then they should be added. What happened in Nazi Germany is obviously very interesting due to the popular view of IQ testing being connected with Nazi atrocities.Miradre (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So in sum, the NPOV tag should stay. aprock (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Please state your concrete objections so the article can be improved.Miradre (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion above clearly mentions many issues. There is no need to repeat them.  When you're done with your hundreds of edits, let me know and I will review the article and point out the various POV issues. aprock (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the template does not state that it is there to signal that someone may or may not check to see if there are POV issues sometime in the future. If there are reasons for the article being systematically POV, then please state them. If there are problems with a particular sentence or section, then please state them and tag that section or sentence. As stated, I feel that the article has been modified and improved by the above the concrete criticism but if no more concrete, constructive criticisms can be added, then the tag should be removed.Miradre (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They've already been discussed above by other editors. If you really have a problem with me waiting until you're done with all of your edits before investing significant effort into the article, I'm not sure what to tell you.  There is no WP:DEADLINE here, and I have work to do.  Spending significant time going through an ever changing article is not high on my priority list, sorry.  I'm certainly not saying that you can't edit the article after I read it.  I'm just asking you to let me know when you think it's mostly there in terms of what you want to do with the article.  aprock (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the article currently do not have systematic POV issues. The concrete objections above has been answered. If no there are no further concrete objections I will remove the tag. When you get the time to read the article, and if you then find concrete POV issues, then it would be helpful if you added POV tags to the appropriate sections or sentences. But as I said, we do not add a POV tag because someone will review it in the future to see if there are POV issues.Miradre (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One editor has mentioned that the objections have not been addressed. Based on the discussion above, it's clear that you think there are no NPOV issues, and that other editors feel there are.  Again, there is no WP:DEADLINE here.  Once you are done making 20+ edits per day, I will review the content and list the issues in the talk page. aprock (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My editing number has no relevance for if the article is POV or not. I will certainly wait for the current editing of the validity section to resolve and hear the views of other editors regarding whether there are remaining issues. It would be most constructive if you stated concretely what you feel is not NPOV.Miradre (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand how you feel about this. I've said what I have to say for the time being.  You may have whatever last word you feel you need to say.aprock (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope that you will add constructive criticisms if you feel something is not NPOV. Only in that way can the article be improved.Miradre (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * the only way to improve this article is to get rid of primary sources and reverse the undue weight given to fringe views.-- mustihussain (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are essentially no primary sources in the sense of citing IQ surveys or brain size studies or other variables directly. Both hereditarians and non-hereditarians review lots of other studies not done by themselves when they argue.Miradre (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I will summarize what has been claimed to be POV in the past and why this does not apply currently: I think that when concrete suggestions of what is not POV have been made, then the article has improved in response. If there are remaining concrete objections, then please state them. I will otherwise soon remove the tag.Miradre (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead and history section does not go into as much detail as some may desire. -That is not a POV issue. Both are also summaries, the lead of this article, and the history section of the history article, so both are necessarily limited in size. Also note that the history section is not the place for presenting current arguments, that comes later in the article.
 * There are more space for hereditarian publications than non-hereditarians in the history section. -Fixed.
 * Eugenics not mentioned in the history section. -Fixed.
 * That Jensen's 1969 reply was a response to the 1954 Supreme Court case on segration is not mentioned. -The subarticle does not claim that or has a source for that. If a source was presented it could be included. Wikipedia requires material based on reliable sources.
 * Not all the causes of the hereditarian positon being abandoned between the wars were included in the history section. -Fixed, would have been easier if sources had been provided for claims, added now both to this article and the subarticle.
 * The validity section does not mention the AAA statement on race. -Fixed.
 * The validity section make claims about heritability and bias without opposing views. -Fixed, this material now in other sections with opposing views.
 * Ethical section does not mention why some consider research unethical. -Fixed.
 * No opposing views on g-loading and the b-w gap -Fixed, now there is a whole separate section on this.
 * Critique of US and world IQ scores not mentioned. -Fixed, opposing views on this included
 * Policy section does not mention non-hereditarian view. -Fixed.
 * I removed the tag as per above. User Mustihussain reinserted it. I would ask to please state the concrete reason for this as I argue that all concrete objections have been answered. I quote from NPOV dispute: "If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." I will eventually remove the tag again if the concrete reasons for its existence are not explained.Miradre (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE -- mustihussain (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, what part? Explain clearly and exactly why as NPOV dispute states should be done.Miradre (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the tag. The how-to page that Miradre linked to says: "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies […] Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." WP:TAGGING also says "Especially in the case of a tag such as npov, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed." Linking to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, with no explanation of what parts of the article are examples of this or why, is not specific or actionable. It seems to me that some editors just want this tag to stay on the article permanently, but that isn’t what tags are for. The NPOV tag is to point out a specific NPOV issue that's being actively debated on the talk page. If there isn't any specific NPOV issue under active debate, the tag should be removed.Boothello (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

By all means see the extensive discussion above about some of the NPOV issues. aprock (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They has all been resolved as stated with no one giving any concrete remaining objection. What exactly are you still considering POV?Miradre (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only one who's said that the issues have been resolved is you. Until the other editors who raised the concerns speak up, let's not make any assumptions.  It appears that you're generally through with your editing of the article.  If that's the case, I'll take a look at it sometime next week. aprock (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked for remaining concrete issues and no have one given any. Boothello also thinks the tag should be removed. Whether I will edit the article again does affect its current POV status and the tag is not there to indicate that someone may or may not review in the future.Miradre (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a misuse of the tag to add it just because you might find POV issues when you review the article next week. If you find POV issues when you review the article, you can add the tag then, as long as you're specific about what the problems are and what could be done to fix them.Boothello (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Miradre, the editors who raised the specific POV concerns above have not weighed in on whether your edits have adequately addressed those concerns. If you feel that your concerns need to be addressed ASAP, I suggest contacting the editors on their talk page.
 * @Boothello, I did not add the POV tag, I reverted it's removal as the discussion about POV is still open. aprock (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to respectfully disagree with the statement opening this thread that the article has been revised enough for removal of the POV tag. See the source list for several of the many reliable secondary sources that could still be used to improve the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be more constructive. Exactly what do you disagree with? Miradre (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Miradre, you ask for sources that support such claims as race is socially constructed. But you are dissatisfied when sources are thirty or forty or more years old.  I wonder, if we were talking about the claim that in a vacuum objects of diferent weight fall at the same rate, would you reject Galileo and ask for a source from the last few years?  UNESCO, AAA, AAPA and APA statements all make the same, mainstream, points, because they are drawing on well-established science.  There is no accepted research that provides convincing evidence that differences in IQ are genetically determined, for example, and all mainstream research on race and on genetics continue to support the mainstream view.


 * In the meantime, you question that there is a POV dispute here, when you keep disputing WeijBaikeBianji, Aprock, and Maunus (three extremely well-informed, respected editors; if they think the article is biased, I would listen to their reasons why). The fact that you have not changed there minds suggest to me that your arguments are not very persuassive, but even you would have to agree that there is a dispute here that minimally justifies keeping the tag. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding mainstream view, see discussion below. Do you disagree with anything specific in the article?Miradre (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Majority
I cannot provide a citation that a majority of social scientists consider historical and political processes to be the cause of global inequality. And I shouldn't have to. Lynn and Vanhanen's view is so fringe that nobody in the field of global economics or development even take it into account. Books about global inequality and the north south divide do not mention lynn and vanhanen at all. We mention them here because they are related to the topic of the article, but we shouldn't try to fool the reader into thinking that this theory has any currency in the field of international development or political and economic history.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The same goes for the policy relevance section. It is uncontroversially the mainstream view that disparities in educational succes are to be adressed by social means. The hereditarian view has no currency in policymaking at all. I am sure you realize this.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. You will not find claims of what a "majority" thinks in academic publications unless there is a poll regarding this. Instead, words like mainstream is used. L and V's data have been used in numerous peer-reviewed articles by economists. Considering the overall long-term failure of programs attempting to reduce IQ differences in the US, except super-intensive and super-expensive programs, claims of what the majority researchers and policy-makers currently think should be done need to be well-sourced.Miradre (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are not reliable sources that say that Richard Lynn's view is a nonfringe view. He evokes debate, but he has not gained consensus. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly not a consensus, but the hereditarian view is the majority one in the only poll done on IQ experts: The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book)Miradre (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That was 20 years ago as you say. We actually have proof that consensus has moved since then - according to this survey of the literature Race_(classification_of_humans) the belief in race as a valid biological category has steadily declined since then.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Explicit acceptance seems to have increased again somewhat in recent past according to biology textbooks. Not they stated that races did not exist, they simply avoided talking about the concept.Miradre (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which indicates increased acceptance how? To me that looks rather like decreased acceptance to the point where there is no longer a need to mention that it is not considered valid. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reconstructing Race in Science and Society:Biology Textbooks, 1952–2002, Ann Morning, American Journal of Sociology. 2008;114 Suppl:S106-37. The number of textbooks having long discussion of races have increase from 35% to 43% after 1992.Miradre (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And what do those textbooks say? The statistic proves that it is a topic people discuss, it doesn't tell us what the discussion consists of Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Morning argues that that the overall message regarding the existence of race has changed little. Although changed from more direct discussions of surface traits to more indirect discussions of evolutionary history and genetics (like regarding genetic diseases differing between races).Miradre (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Whites" and "Blacks" or "whites" and "blacks"
The APA report as well as the US census prefer the first alternative (see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census). In the literature it seems that hereditarians often prefer the first alternative while all-environmentalists often prefer the second alternative. Are there any WP guidelines? I do not feel strongly about either alternative but the article should be consistent.Miradre (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think both should be lowercase.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia tends to not stick in capitals where they're not needed, Manual of Style (capital letters), (yes there's a whole big page about it!) Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

problems with the current version
Because I am of limited time, I will attempt to go through the article section by section. Many of the problems I'm listing are WP:POV issues, but some of them are not. I will go over the lede today, but I make no claim that I have found all the issues.


 * the debate over r/i has been ongoing for hundreds of years
 * the debate over r/i encompasses more than test scores
 * the lede reads as if the competing viewpoints are the primary meat of the topic
 * the hereditarian position is misstated
 * researchers from minority viewpoint are presented more prominantly than the generally accepted viewpoint
 * the main conclusion of the APA report is misrepresented

As time permits, I will go over more sections. I will be happy to discuss any of the issues above as long the discussion continues to be productive. aprock (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree especially with the fact that the historical context of the topic is still inadequately treated. Miradre inserted an oblique reference to "colonialism and genocide" and stated that that fixed the issue- it doesn't - what is required is contextualization. I also agree that minority viewpoints such as Lynn, Rushton and Jensen are giving much more weight than the prominence of their views in a greater context merits. The article also leaves out all of the social science research that has approached the topic of race disparities in education from other angles than IQ tests. It also leaves out most of the literature written from environmentalist viewpoints except Nisbett and Flynn. Scholars such as Marks, Fishman, Alland Jr., Sternberg, Jencks, Smedley, and several others are hardly included. The focus is much too narrowly on the particular topic that interests hereditarians - while the actual topic is much larger. ·Maunus· ƛ · 02:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * APA is claimed to be misrepresented how. How?
 * The debate is about more than test scores. The article is about more than test scores, is it anything specific you are missing?
 * The hereditarian position is misstated. How?
 * Viewpoints are missing. Which?
 * There is little history. It may already be too much according to MOS considering we have a whole subarticle.
 * Relevant research is claimed to be missing. Impossible to verify unless sources and arguments are given.
 * Claims about what is the minority viewpoint is unsourced. According to the only poll of experts ever done so is the hereditarian viewpoint the majority one (The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book))

So to summarize, generally very unclear and often unsourced claims. Be specific and give sources for claims.Miradre (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in looking at specific sources, I would suggest starting with the APA report to be sure that you are properly summarizing the main points of the report. The description in the lead reads nothing like the introduction or main conclusions of the report.  If you would like to defend the content you've created with specific sources, you are welcome to.  After I've gone through every section, I will invest some time into researching sources for the article. aprock (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is wrong with the summary? Again, be specific. Saying that something is wrong without explaining why is unverifiable and not constructive. Regarding sources so is the article full of sources.Miradre (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please go back and reread the Preface, and section 6, "Summary and Conclusions". What you'll find there looks nothing what is presented in the lede here.  aprock (talk)
 * Obviously we cannot copy word for word due to copyright. Apart from that, exactly are you arguing to be incorrect or pov? Miradre (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The summary of the APA report in the lede does not concord with the summary in the APA report. aprock (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have already stated that you think that the APA report is misrepresented. Claiming something is wrong without explaining how is not constructive. Please state how the report is misrepresented.Miradre (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll state at this moment in time that I have no real desire to spend unbounded energy trying to convince you of things which are obvious. If you read the preface and summary, it should be clear that there is a discord between the APA report and what is in the lede.  The lede represents the conclusions of the report by incorrectly paraphrasing one of seven open questions presented in the conclusion.  I'm not advocating for any specific change to the article at this point in time, I'm just noting problems as I read through sections. aprock (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is the paraphrasing wrong? If you have no concrete objections, then there is no reason for the tag.Miradre (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already listed the concrete objections. At this point I'm going to disengage.  I have no desire to endlessly repeat things.  If you don't find the objections concrete enough for your liking, it appears there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise. aprock (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The list has been answered to. Simply stating that something is wrong without explaining why is not constructive. Furthermore, if you have complaints about a specific sentence or section, then it is that which should be tagged and not the whole article.Miradre (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have dismissed all of the problems I raised. The one specific problem I brought up with respect to the APA summary was also dismissed.  I'm afraid that your dismissal of both general and specific problems does not resolve the problems.  When I have more time, I will go over the next section of the article. aprock (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So how can the claimed problem with the summary of the APA be resolved? There is supposed to be "incorrectly paraphrasing" but what is incorrect has never been explained. That is not constructive.Miradre (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How can it be resolved? By making the content conform to the source.  If you would like to do that be my guest.  As I said above, when I'm done review the article for problems, I will start going through sources.  After I've done some review on sources I'll start making constructive edits to improve the article.  But you are certainly not bound by my time constraints.  If you wish to improve any problems which I discuss, you are free to do so. aprock (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NPOV dispute: "If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Miradre (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for quoting the NPOV policy for me. I am working on doing what the policy suggests.  I apologize if I don't have the time budget to do things as fast as you would like.  But please be patient, and keep in mind that there is no WP:DEADLINE. aprock (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy does not state that you can add a tag and then wait for days before adding an explanation. Miradre (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not the one who added the tag. aprock (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding back a tag is the same as adding back a removed sentence. That someone else once may added material to an article does not mean that any other person may restore that material without explaining why.Miradre (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your asking here. As noted above, I am raising the NPOV concerns.  If you have some sort of policy problem with the way that I am raising concerns, it might be better at this point to bring your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard.  aprock (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are some explanation of where the article is POV and some concrete suggestions on how to improve the article: The entire article is constructed in a way that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint that is clearly in the minority. The proponents of that viepoint themselves acknowledge in all of their writings that they are in the minority - they even claim to be persecuted and denied access to publish because the majority opinion disfavours their view. The article makes it not only seem as if the issue of race and intelligence is mostly a question of answering the question of what causes the racial IQ gap, but it also very consistently privileges arguments for and against a hereditarian viewpoint, but does not explore at all the various mainstream explanations of the cause of the gap. Mainstream viewpoint is that the gap is caused by social and environmental factors. Jensen. Rushton and Lynn acknowledge that this is the mainstream viewpoint, they argue that the mainstream viewpoint is not supported by fact but is politically motivated. Even if this is the case it does not mean that it is not the majority viewpoint. The article should describe the topic with due weight to the majority viewpoint and it doesn't. The article can be improved by restructuring the article so that it describes the controversy not as a debate between equally weighted viewpoints but as a minority viewpoint that is arguing against a majority view. This includes including much better explanations of all of the studies that have documented correlations between social, cultural and economic factors and intelligence. It also includes providing a much better explanation of the reasoning behind the reluctance of a majority (the politically correct majority) to accept the arguments of the minority group - in order to explain this reasoning it is crucial to provide ample political and historical context - not simply a list of publications about the topic since 1960.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That some hereditarians claim to be persecuted by the larger society does not mean that professional scholars on IQ also disagree. As noted, the only poll on IQ experts found that the partial genetic explanation was the majority one. (The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book)) If there are arguments missing, please add them. An unsourced claim that something is missing is not evidence for that this is the case.Miradre (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority of professional scholars of IQ is not the majority perspective that should determine the weight of the article. It is the majority of scholars in all of the fields and of the general public. So yes the fact that the hereditarians claim to be persecuted does strongly suggest that they realize that their ideas are not shared by a majority of their colleagues or by the general public. The Rothman/Snyder study studies only a very small subsection of the professionals working with race and intelligence and it is not even claiming to be representing the general public. You cannot ask for specific criticism and then proceed to dismiss them like this. When several editors agree that there is a fundamental problem here - you simply need to take into account that there might be something about it, and try to see how the problem can be satisfactorily solved and consensus can be generated. Simply dismissing opposing views is not the right way to go about it.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have evidence for what most scholars in all fields think on the issue, or what the general public think, then please include that with sources. That some hereditarians claim to have been persecuted in some cases is not evidence for what the rest of the world think.Miradre (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The claim that the non-hereditarian view is the mainstream one while the hereditarian view is a minority one has been put forth numerous times in R&I discussions at Wikipedia, and I have several times asked for sources to back the claim up, never getting any replies. If you want to make that claim, you need reliable sources to support it. The mere fact that some editors think that some particular viewpoint is mainstream is irrelevant unless they can prove it with reliable sources.


 * My reading suggests that at least publicly, the mainstream scientific position in the R&I debate is that of agnosticism. For example, Earl B. Hunt writes in his new book that "Plausible cases can be made for both genetic and environmental contributions to [group] differences in intelligence. The evidence required to quantify the relative sizes of these contributions to group differences is lacking... Denials or overly precise statements on either the pro-genetic or pro-environmental side do not move the debate forward." (p. 436)


 * The fact that hereditarian scholars have been ostracised and mistreated in the academic community (and this is something even the anti-hereditarian camp admits -- see Williams & Ceci in Nature's 2009 race & intelligence debate) does not mean that the anti-hereditarian view is the mainstream one. It's naive and idealistic to think that scientists get ostracised by their colleagues only for purely scientific reasons, particularly when said scientists are publishing research findings that powerful political interest groups both within and outside of the academy find highly inconvenient.


 * Note also that despite the attacks against them, leading hereditarian researchers all have impressive publishing records in peer-reviewed journals. This suggests that most journal reviewers and editors are not opposed to their research program. The Snyderman & Rothman survey (which certainly did NOT survey "only a very small subsection of the professionals working with race and intelligence", but rather was large and representative -- it's not like there are thousands of people who are experts in the topic) showed that the extreme environmentalist view had relatively few supporters among experts. The fact that the small group of anti-hereditarian IQ scholars has sometimes managed to portray their views as mainstream in the media indicates that they are determined, hardworking, well-connected, and unscrupulous, but it does NOT mean that their views are widely supported among IQ experts. They have of course been aided in their quest by the fact that most hereditarian scholars have been missing in action in the public debate, preferring to keep their politically incorrect views private -- note that even someone like Eysenck was surprised by the results of the Snyderman & Rothman survey. Maunus, where have Jensen, Rushton, and Lynn said that anti-hereditarianism is mainstream in IQ research?--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Snyderman/Rothman study covers only psychologists a small subsection of those who work with the topics of race and intelligence - namely the subsection that has some level of expertise in intelligence, but little expertise in the topic of race, genetics, cultural and social influences on educational outcome. The hereditarian viewpoint is not a fringe viewpoint that is probably true but it is not the one that guides educational policies, it is not a viewpoint that anyone interested in winning a seat in government would be caught holding. This quite obviously suggests that the viewpoint is not held bya majority of the general public. My main point in the above is not to say that the article should weigh the hereditarian side as a fringe viewpoint it is to protest over the fact that it only describes the environementalist, mainstream viewpoint as it responds to hereditarian arguments, but does not at all try to convey the arguments that are particular for the enviromentalist side. Having read the article one would have no way of knowing that the environmentalist side has arguments that it has not produced simply as answers to hereditarians. It does not show the vast amount of research that shows that biases in the educational system severly hampers educational outcomes for socially marginalized groups all over the world, or the degree to which even "culturally unbiased" IQ tests rely on and are influenced by literacy levels. (you may have hereditarian counterpoints to thgese arguments but that is irrelevant the point is that they are not being presented in accordance with their prominence in the social sciences or in the general public - but actually are not considered at all). The article is written totally on the premise of the hereditarian viewpoint. Whether or not that viewpoint is a small or a large minority, that is wrong and not NPOV.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My impression is that in for example Japan is would be political suicide to not consider public opinion on race and intelligence when considering for example immigration issues. What the public and politicians may or may not think likely varies worldwide. Regardless, unless someone has sources, this is not verifiable and reliable for WP purposes. If there are scholarly arguments missing, then please add that to the article with sources. However, an unproven claim that there is something missing is not a good reason for a NPOV tag. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, not unproven claims.Miradre (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but no one has put you in charge of determining what is a good reason for an NPOV tag and what isn't.·Maunus· ƛ · 00:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am following policy. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. Not unverifiable claims. If there are arguments missing, then you should state what with sources. Why did you remove Diamond's famous book which he explicitly wrote in order to disprove claims that innate racial abilities were behind differences in achievement between different parts of the world? Miradre (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you wrote "remove diamond - he is not talking about intelligence and race but of "civilization" achievements". That is incorrect, he talks about the research on IQ and races on page 20 for example.Miradre (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have much respect for the way that you apply policy, you apply the letter a lot but not the spirit. I removed diamond's book because the short section didn't put the books argument into the context of race and intelligence, but instead discussed how geography has influenced historical processes. I do't disagree that it might be an idea to include it, but not in a section that is professing to give environmentalist explanations of the racial iq gap. If Diamond does discuss research in race and intelligence then the section should describe that not why the chinese build a great wall and the zulu only small walls. If you want to include it again I won't remove it again.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I added it back to a more relevant section. Regarding policy, it is there for a reason. Many people have opinions that they may feel strongly about and think are right but have little objective support. Which is why good sources for claims are required in WP. That is also why why editing Wikipedia may be helpful. I have several times realized that my opinions were not based on facts and have then changed them in accordance with what the evidence shows.Miradre (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Am I right in thinking that most of the discussion above is rather like the Global warming one where a lot of the public and politicians and newspapers say what a load of rubbish it is and yet the scientists overwhelmingly say it is true? I guess the questions here are a lot less clearcut but it is pretty clear in WP:WEIGHT that scientific papers should in general be given higher weight, but that public controversies should also be properly discussed. The global warming one sidesteps the problem slightly by having a separate Global warming controversy article. In a single article like this both the science weight and the public policy weight would need to be discussed and I think probably they need to be separated to some extent rather than trying to achieve a combined weight. Dmcq (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really recognize your summary of the global warming issue - and also there isn't a similarity. This is a small clique of scientists espousing a certain hypothesis whith and also small (but still larger) group of other scientists arguing against them, and most scientists ignoring the issue completely for various reasons, one of them being that it is a "politically incorrect topic" and another probably being that many of them don't think the hereditarian position is sufficiently wellsupported to even merit a response. The weight problem here is that the topic is described from the premise of the minority viewpoint (I am not saying fringe because it is obviously a bigger minority than that). To give you a feeling of the weighting you should understand that there are two core fields involved - psychology has expertise on intelligence anthropology on race. The people who argue the hereditarian explanation are psychologists, within psychology only a small group of people do IQ testing, among IQ testers only a small group do racial differences. One study suggests that there is a slight majority of psychologists that secretly believe the hereditarian position to be true, but are afriad to say so. American Psychological Association has published a statement 15 years ago saying that there is not enough evidence to decide. On the other hand within anthropology the anthropological association is very vocal in denouncing the validity of the concept of race, and are very vocal that social inequality is caused by political and historical processes not by inherent differences, and that the IQ gap is a social phenomenon not a biological one - form an anthropological standpoint it doesn't even make sense to investigate it as a possibly biological phenomenon. This is an entire branch that is rejecting the hereditarian view as baseless. Meanwhile we don't see any policy makers making IQ based policies to mend social inequality, and race based policies are quickly going out of fashion. This clearly suggests that other fields also do not subscribe to the hereditarian view (although admittedly they probably have little expertise on the issue).·Maunus· ƛ · 12:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What anthropologists think about the validity of the term race is not relevant, per se, because they are often talking about a specific understanding of the term (e.g. race qua subsspecies). More germane to the issue would be what anthropologists think about the possibility of socially significant genetically mediated differences between socially defined ethnoracial groups. In this regards, we can juxtapose the no genetic difference view of some anthropologists (and sociologists) with the contrary view now dominant in the medical sciences.  The view that there are socially significant genetically mediated differences between ethnoracial groups is in no way a minority view.  The question then is what is the status of the view that there are socially significant behavior differences.  The fields of investigation are sociology, anthropology, psychology, and related fields such as cultural neuroscience. You seem to maintain that the no-differences view is the dominant one across these fields. I can't speak for

sociology and anthropology, but in psychology there is neither consensus nor mainstream opinion one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only poll done of IQ experts, which showed that the hereditarian position was the dominant view, is rather old so what researchers in this area think currently is unclear. The debate is not helped by the fact that a Nobel prize winner and discoverer of DNA was essentially fired and forced to make a public apology for stating that one explanation for poverty in Africa is a low average intelligence (not even stating that this was related to genetic causes). Regarding anthropology so is the rejection of the existence of race a US position, in other nations race is accepted as valid in anthropology. Even in the US fields such as anatomy accept that races exist. Regarding the public and politicians, in for example East Asian nations views that races differ are widespread and affect public policy such as immigration policy.Miradre (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That prominent persons can loose their jobs for making a statement of opinion is usually a good indeicator that the general public does not favour that particular opinion.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Only in the US. In Japan the opposite applies.Miradre (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a source that suggests that Japanese scholars have lost their public supprt for denying the existence of race or the hereditarian explanation of the R&I gap? Wikipedia works by citing sources you know. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will just note that public opinion in Japan is different which affects policy. Here is one example: .Miradre (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thats anecdotal evidence at best (and it doesn't adress R& I at all). I will note that Japan is part of UNESCO and has never expressed any disagreement with UNESCO's statements on race since 1950. (only one member has - South Africa which left UNESCo from 1956 to 1994 ) ·Maunus· ƛ · 23:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My point being that you cannot make assumptions from the US to the rest of the world. This applies anthropologists as well as public opinion.Miradre (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked UNESCO wasn't an local organization of the US. Nor does one exception show that the UNESCO view is not mainstream.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Including that immigrants should return home and help build up their nations?Miradre (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell that link has to do with intelligence or the hereditarian viewpoint on IQ. aprock (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which I did not state. The link support that race is politically different in Japan.Miradre (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. That has nothing to do with this article though.  It seems like you are confusing your dispute at Race with the one here. aprock (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The point being that one cannot generalize from a researcher in the US losing his job to what the public opinion is worldwide.Miradre (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. That's fine.  I'm not sure that's a real point of dispute here.  But sure, I agree with you on this point. aprock (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

problems with History of the debate section
This section clearly has significant pov problems. The biggest problem is that section is not a proper summary of the main article, and does not follow WP:SUMMARY style. This has lead to an agrandizement of the hereditarian viewpoint, and a minimization of the mainstream viewpoint.


 * The dominant viewpoint is smeared by association with political correctness in the second paragraph: "environmental and cultural factors played a dominant role in part due to ... reluctance of psychologists to risk being associated with the Nazi claims".
 * Nearly the entire section focuses on showcasing the viewpoints of hereditarian researchers, using descriptions of their research and conclusions like: "poor educational performance was not primarily the result of lacking education, but reflected an underlying genetic cause", "the main causes for poverty in Africa is a low average intelligence".
 * Much of the historical criticism is described in opaque phrases like: "sparked controversy", "some critical", "his critque", "controversial interview".
 * The presentation of the APA report in that section emphasizes the hereditarian viewpoint that both genetic and environmental causes are equally plausible.
 * The role of the Pioneer Fund and it's historic status as a leader in scientific racism is minimized.

Probably the best way to handle this section is to reduce it's size using proper WP:SUMMARY style. As time permits, I will review more sections. aprock (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you know what the dominant position is? According to the only poll of IQ experts ever done, the hereditarian position is the dominant one: The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book). Both hereditarians and all-environmentalists are mentioned about equally. How does this favor the hereditarian position: "The Bell Curve also led to a 1995 report from the American Psychological Association, "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns", acknowledging a gap between average IQ scores of whites and blacks as well as the absence of any adequate explanation of it, either environmental or genetic?" The Pioneer Fund is mentioned with views from both sides.Miradre (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the poll the viewpoint is dominant in psychology. clearly and demonstratedly isn't in Anthropology, and the 1950 UNESCO statement on race pretty much establishes it as outside of the mainstream of political sciences, where it has been since then. Here is the 1978 update (notice article 1.4) HEre is the revision to the statement by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists of 1996 (notice article 11)·Maunus· ƛ · 18:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is only US anthropology which rejects race. In other nations it is seen as valid in anthropology. As it is even in the US in for example anatomy.Miradre (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you present sources for the notion that other anthropological traditions disagree with the UNESCO statement? And as for "anatomy" that is physical anthropology and the American Association of Physical Anthropology clearly rejects the notion of racial differencs in mental faculties. Wikipedia is works by citing sources you know, please present sources that show that other Anthropological and anatomical associations disagree with UNESCO. Or indeed any reliable and authoritative source that would suggest that the UNESCO statement of 1978 does not still represent the mainstream view. ·Maunus· ƛ · 18:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Science is not determined by political decisions.


 * "In Poland the race concept was rejected by only 25 percent of anthropologists in 2001, although: "Unlike the U.S. anthropologists, Polish anthropologists tend to regard race as a term without taxonomic value, often as a substitute for population." "


 * "Liberman et al. in a 2004 study claimed to "present the currently available information on the status of the concept in the United States, the Spanish language areas, Poland, Europe, Russia, and China. Rejection of race ranges from high to low with the highest rejection occurring among anthropologists in the United States (and Canada). Rejection of race is moderate in Europe, sizeable in Poland and Cuba, and lowest in Russia and China." Methods used in the studies reported included questionnaires and content analysis. "


 * "Kaszycka et al. (2009) in 2002-2003 surveyed European anthropologists' opinions toward the biological race concept. Three factors, country of academic education, discipline, and age, were found to be significant in differentiating the replies. Those educated in Western Europe, physical anthropologists, and middle-aged persons rejected race more frequently than those educated in Eastern Europe, people in other branches of science, and those from both younger and older generations."The survey shows that the views of anthropologists on race are sociopolitically (ideologically) influenced and highly dependent on education." "


 * "A 2010 examination of 18 widely used English anatomy textbooks found that every one relied on the race concept. The study gives examples of how the textbooks claim that anatomical features vary between races. "


 * I am aware of that study - but this does not mean that eastern european anthropological associations do not accept the UNESCO statement, nor that the UNESCO statement is not the closest thing to a mainstream that we have. ·Maunus· ƛ · 19:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Miradre, I believe you are confusing "race" with "race and intelligence" here. Please refer to point 11 on the UNESCO statement that Maunus linked to. aprock (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A political decree does not decide truth in science. Does not matter if it is UNESCO or Stalin.Miradre (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a question about WP:TRUTH in science. You asked about the dominant view.  Regardless, the main problem is that the section does not properly summarize the main article. aprock (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly - this is not about truth it is about which view is and has been the mainstream view since 1950.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to read the view of UNESCO decades ago, read that statement. If you want to read the view of the experts on this subject, read this The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book). Why is it not summarized properly? A dispute about how to summarize is not necessarily a NPOV dispute.Miradre (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The AAPA are experts in race. The group surveyed by Snyderman/Rothman are experts in IQ.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The UNESCO statement is more recent than the Snyderman/Rothman survey. For details on the problems with the summary, please see the initial edit in this section. aprock (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The UNESCO decree is from 1950, updated 1978. The Snyderman/Rothman survey is from 1988. I have answered the initial edit.Miradre (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was referring to the 1996 AAPA statement. If you want people to take you seriously, it would probably help if you avoided labeling sources that you don't agree with as decrees.  I'm not sure what else to say at this point.  If you'd like to continue discussing the issues in a constructive manner, I'd be happy to.  Until then, I shall once again disengage.  When I've got more time I will go over the next section. aprock (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The studies showing what anthropologists think outside the US are more recent than 1996. The AAA does not decree what all the world's anthropologists think. I have replied to your points. Now I wait for you to reply to me. it is your turn. If not, I will remove the tags.Miradre (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you remove the tag after having been represented with such substantial rationales for their continued incluson I will be filing an ArbCom Enforcement request, because that would be plainly disruptive.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied to the concrete objections. Now I wait for you to reply to me. It is your turn now.Miradre (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You have not replied you have dismissed the concerns as invalid based on your problematic interpretation of two problematic studies, and rejected statements by the UNESCO and a professional organizations as specious and not reflective of the mainstream view. I don't see how to argue with that. You have had the opinion of two editors who both believe the article to be biased and have substantiated that opinion with ample evidence and reasoning. You simply disagree with the reasoning. That does not consitute a consensus that the article is not biased and the POV tag can be removed. I think you would do wisely to await more input before removing the tag. ·Maunus· ƛ · 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What was problematic about the studies about what anthropologists think in other nations than the US? How was my interpretation problematic? Why should a political organization like UNESCo decide what is true in science? Do you think science may have changed in this area during the last 33 years since UNESCO updated that decree?Miradre (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not about what is true in science - it is about what is the mainstream view. I don't see how a view can be more mainstream than being endorsed by the UN. If the mainstream shifts I am sure the UNESCO will make a new statement. You are using the study of European anthropologists t argue that the UNESCO view of race is not accepted as mainstream in those countries in eastern Europe and that therefore it is not mainstream on a global scale. Now the study firstly does not say what view of race those scholars accept - or whether that view is compatible with the UNESCO statement. It also doesn't suggest that the the countries as a whole do not accept the statement. And it is also not possible to use the fact that dissent may exist to suggest that the UNESCO view is not representative of the mainstream. Your way of using it to extrapolae to conclusions about what is an isn't mainstream worldwide, and to how other countries view the unesco statement (the UN is a global organization!) is basically OR. You are applying a huge double standard in your argument - we have have presented sources that surely represent what is the view of the most mainstream organization on the planet - and you dismiss it because it is not written within the past decade and because one (1) study suggests that Eastern European anthropologists still practice pre-1950 anthropology. And no the last 33 years in science has not seen a substantial change in the public view about race - otherwise a new statement would have been issued, or a number of professional organizations would have issued dissenting statements. They have not. The AAPA is without a doubt the most representative of the mainstream in physical anthropology worldwide, and their 1996 statement updates the 1978 UNESCO statement on some points but does not differ from it on the point of racial differences in mental faculties. ·Maunus· ƛ · 20:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, a 33 years old political decree does not decide what is dominant view today in a field. Regarding anthropology, it is not only some European anthropologists who accept race, but also many in China and Cuba according to the study I cited. An American organization does not decide what every anthropologist in the world should think. As stated, even in the US, anatomy accept race as valid. Also in the US, biologist have simply stopped talking about race, either for or against, in their textbooks, so what their view is either uncertain or afraid to state something politically incorrect. For sports science many more textbooks accept race than do not: Race_(classification_of_humans). Miradre (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you even reading what I write here? UNESCO is an international organization with worldwide participation. This is the mainstream view'. AAPA is the meanistream of physical anthropologists world wide and you have not presented any evidence that other countries Anthropological Associations do not endorse the AAPA statement or the UNESCO statement. This is not about what people shoudl think it is about how to determine which view is the mainstream. You are presenting to pitiful surveys of individuals in Eastern Europe China and Cuba - I am presenting official statements from official bodies. This is going nowhere fast and this article is going to need some official dispute resolution very soon.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement also states this "Population groups of foreign origin, particularly migrant workers and their families who contribute to the development of the host country, should benefit from appropriate measures designed to afford them security and respect for their dignity and cultural values and to facilitate their adaptation to the host environment and their professional advancement with a view to their subsequent reintegration in their country of origin and their contribution to its development; steps should be taken to make it possible for their children to be taught their mother tongue." So does this mean that the mainstream scientific view is that immigrants and their children should return home after a while? Should Wikipedia state this as the mainstream scientific view? Obviously not, this is a political statement, not a scientific one. What the IQ experts who study the issue think can be seen here: The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book).Miradre (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And here communication officially breaks down. I don't even think there is a name for that logical fallacy you just commited, but I definitely can't continue discussion at this level. I'll be looking for the appropriate venue to get some community involvement in this issue.·Maunus· ƛ · 21:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, community involvement is indeed needed.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If there are NPOV issues, then please give concrete examples so the article can improved. You gave some good concrete criticisms in past which improved the article, so if there are more, then please state them.Miradre (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the passages Maunus points too: UNESCO:  "4. All peoples of the world possess equal faculties for attaining the highest level in intellectual, technical, social, economic, cultural and political development."  This passage is ambiguous.  I can either mean:  1)  all peoples, in the collective sense, possess equal faculties for..., 2)  all individuals of all populations possess equal faculties for ..., or 3) between populations there are the same ratios of individuals with the capacity for ...

Of these 2) is trivially false as is 3) when you think about it. My guess is that 1) is meant. Perhaps Maunus can inform us as to his interpretation.  The interpretation in important since the hereditarian hypothesis says nothing about the collective abilities of peoples.  Jensen (1973) makes this rather clear.  The hereditarian hypothesis concerns itself strictly with between population ratios and says nothing about collective capacity;  the two may be related but they may not be. I would suggest that the UNESCO position, as such, in no way conflicts with the hereditarian hypothesis.  I could be wrong, but we would need more information than can be found in the paper to determine this.  We will have to wait until Maunus locates that information.
 * Sheesh this conversation is laughable. Miadre is of course right that the UNESCO statement has about as much scholarly credibility as the Nuremberg finding on Katyn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.210.13 (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My point was that there isn't a clear contradiction between the UNESCO position and the hereditarian position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lots of new tags...
So are there reasons for the tags? I would be glad to discuss any objections... Miradre (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Common garden"
"He also argues that phrasing the question in terms of heritability is useless since heritability applies only within groups, but cannot be used to compare traits across groups. Templeton argues that the only way to design a study of the genetic contrtibution to intelligence would be to study populations of hybrid individuals in a Mendelian "common garden" design, and he further argues that when this design has been carried out it has shown no significant correlation between any cognitive and the degree of African or European ancestry."
 * That is unclear. What is a "common garden" design? What studies are are Templeton refering to? If it are those mentioned elsewhere then this should be pointed out.Miradre (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mendel raised hybrids in a common garden where they were subject to the same environmental influences. That is what is meant. He refers to studies by Scarr et al. 1977, and Loehlin et al. 1973 and Green 1972. I haven't looked at those yet. IN anycase Templeton is a statistician and a genticist and a very reliable source about this.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are actually arguing that someone has done this with humans? Should be removed as absurd, especially if you have not looked at the studies itself. Please give the full references for the studies and I will look at them.Miradre (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You do not get to remove "absurdities" by well respected authorities while inserting worse absurdities by fringe scientists. Sorry.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguing that someone has actually been allowed to breed and raise humans in an experiment in such a way is simply absurd. What are the full references?Miradre (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course no one has "bred humans" in a common garden design. But some studies have used a similar research design comparing heritability in individuals with different degrees of ancestry in similar environments. Scarr's studies were apparently from Brazil - where it would be more plausible to have mixed ancestry people grow up in similar social environments.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Scarr, Katz & Barker. 1977. Absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestry and intellectual skills within a black population. HUman Genetics 39: 69-89.
 * Loehlin, Vandenber & Osborne. 1973. Blood group genes and Negro-white ability differences. Behavior genetics 3 263-270.
 * Green, R. F. 1972. on the correlation between IQ and amount of "white" blood. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. 7. 285-86.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Very old blood group studies. They are discussed elsewhere, at least two of them. I will check what the third one is.Miradre (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Green source was not peer-reviewed but just a presentation at a conference. This topic is already covered in blood group discussions. Seems like Templeton is just rehashing some very old arguments.Miradre (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, why cannot heritability be compared across groups? Is it just Lewontin's argument regarding heritability not measuring all environmental factors that can differ between groups again? Miradre (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it is only statistically valid within a group: "the first step in calculating variance is to subtract off the mean. This means that a heritability is insensitive to the mean value of a trait within a population. You can shift the trait value up or down due to environmental factors without it affecting the heritability. It also means that mean differences among populations are uninformative about underlying genetic differences". (Templeton p. 49)·Maunus· ƛ · 02:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is just Lewontin's argument again, even if Templeton does not acknowledge this.Miradre (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In short, there is nothing new in this section. His arguments are: 1. Race does not exist. Discussed in the "The validity of "race" and "IQ"" section. 2. Repeating Leowontin's argument. Discussed in the "Heritability within and between groups" section. 3. Ancient blood group studies. Discussed in the "Degree of geographic ancestry" section. In short, there is nothing here that is not already covered elsewhere so I see no need for this section.Miradre (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maunus seems to misunderstand the within-group between groups argument. Here is a link to a paper about it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.236.49 (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)   I'm going to alter the following comment:

(This argument is important because it has been commonly employed by Hereditarians and critiqued by environmentalists . Jensen made it in 1973, 1982, 1998.  Murray and Herrnstein made it in the Bell Curve.  Sesardic made it on 2000 and 2005.  Nelson points to it in 2010.)

Here is a balanced coherent rewrite of the argument: "Hereditarians have argued that the high within group heritability of IQ in conjunction with the magnitude of the gap makes it likely that the Black-White gap has a partial genetic basis [1]. James Flynn has outlined the argument [2]:

Originally, Jensen argued: (1) the heritability of IQ within whites and probably within blacks was 0.80 and between family factors accounted for only 0.12 of IQ variance — with only the latter relevant to group differences; (2) the square root of the percentage of variance explained gives the correlation between between-family environment and IQ, a correlation of about 0.33 (square root of 0.12=0.34); (3) if there is no genetic difference, blacks can be treated as a sample of the white population selected out by environmental inferiority; (4) enter regression to the mean — for blacks to be one SD below whites for IQ, they would have to be 3 Sds (3 ×.33 =1) below the white mean for quality of environment; (5) no sane person can believe that — it means the average black cognitive environment is below the bottom 0.2% of white environments; (6) evading this dilemma entails positing a fantastic “factor X”, something that blights the environment of every black to the same degree (and thus does not reduce within-black heritability estimates), while being totally absent among whites (thus having no effect onwithin-white heritability estimates).

This argument has been criticized for a number of reasons. Richard Nisbett has argued that the heritability of IQ is significantly less that .8 for both Blacks and Whites; he has also argued that the Black-White gap could be caused by numerous environmental effects which add up to explain the difference  [3]. Dickens and Flynn have argued that the secular increase in IQ (i.e the Flynn effect) demonstrates that the conventional interpretation of heritability is flawed; they maintain that the conventional interpretation ignores the role of feedback between factors, such as those with a small initial IQ advantage, genetic or environmental, seeking out more stimulating environments which will gradually greatly increase their advantage, which, as one consequence in their alternative model, would mean that the "heritability" figure is only in part due to direct effects of genotype on IQ [2].

Hereditarians have replied in turn that the heritability of IQ peeks in adulthood and is consistently shown to be above .70 [5]; They also maintain that the Black-White difference represents a difference in general intelligence, while the Flynn effect does not;  as such, they argue that the nature of the Flynn effect is different from that of the Black-White gap [5]. Additionally, Jensen has argued that a non-conventional interpretation of heritability (a la Flynn and Dickens)implies between group genetic differences [6].

[1] Sesardic, 2000. Philosophy of Science that Ignores Science: Race, IQ and Heritability [2] Flynn, 2010. The spectacles through which I see the race and IQ debate [3] Nielson, 2010. Intelligence of Culture. [4] Rushton and Jensen, 2010. The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black-White IQ gap [5] Rushton and Jensen, 2010. Race and IQ: A theory-based review of the research in Richard Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It [6] Jensen, 1973. Educatability and group differences.
 * I think something like this looks fine. But it refers to the "Heritability within and between groups" section. I was discussing the "Race and genetics section".Miradre (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated above there is nothing the "Race and genetics" section not covered elsewhere. So I think it should be removed. Any objections with explanations? Miradre (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

History of controversy
The IQ Controversy, the Media, and Public Policy - the two sentences for this book do not support each other. The first says the author accused the press of liberal bias. The second reports on a survey they did (but does not describe how the survey was conducted). There is nothing that tells how the book was related to public policy, either. These ideas do not seem to be connected and the paragraph needs expansion to make the point, whatever it is.Parkwells (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can read more on in the article on the study.Miradre (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

APA and race and intelligence
"Both the American Psychological Association[dubious – discuss] and the American Anthropological Association have issued statements that there is little evidence of a connection between race and intelligence, and whatever small link might exist, is not genetic in nature"
 * That is simply false regarding APA. That there are average IQ differences are not disputed by the APAP. See Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns.Miradre (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this badly misrepresents the APA. Did he not think to actually read the APA report? What the article now says about it is not a matter of interpretation, it's an outright dishonesty. The report discusses the possibility of a genetic contribution to the gap, and although they say there is no direct evidence for it, its final conclusion is one of agnosticism. To say that the APA has stated "whatever small link exists is definitely not genetic in origin" is extremely disingenuous. Marek should read it if he is uncertain.


 * It also somewhat misrepresents the AAA. In the AAA statement, the AAA only rejects the idea "that intelligence is biologically determined by race." They don't discuss the idea that intelligence could correlate with race, as Earl Hunt says in his 2011 book - they only reject the idea of absolute racial biological determinism (the idea that racial IQ gaps could be 100% genetic). The AAA statement doesn't reject the idea of a racial IQ gap that's caused by something other than 100% racial biological determinism - they don't discuss other possible causes at all. Volunteer Marek should not have added this paragraph to the lead without discussing it here first. I'm going to remove it until he can build a consensus for inclusion.


 * Marek also blanked the Segerstråle content with a fairly nonsensical edit summary (are we supposed to just assume that Ullica Segerstråle belongs to the "crazy part" of the ideological spectrum, with no evidence?). It is not a good idea to blank sourced content without discussion, especially on an article that's this controversial. Marek should not continue to do this.Boothello (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You are engaging in OR interpretation of primary sources. I've provided a reliable secondary source for the text I added. What YOU think AAA or APA said doesn't matter. What matters is what sources say they said.
 * Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my statement. I didn't say Ullica Segerstrale was part of the "crazy part" of the ideological spectrum. What I said is that all kinds of non-crazy people - not just those associated with Marxism - have criticized this racist research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not original research. The APA report is itself a secondary source, and I think every editor except you who's involved in this article has read it and knows what it says. Summarizing what it says in the article is just a matter of doing what we do with any other source. This is what the APA report says:


 * "African-American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally based explanations of the Black/ White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available."


 * The content that you added says "Both the American Psychological Association and the American Anthropological Association have issued statements that there is little evidence of a connection between race and intelligence, and whatever small link might exist, is not genetic in nature." This is the exact opposite of what the APA report says. The paragraph that I quoted says that there is definitely a difference between the average IQ of races, the report says elsewhere that IQ tests are a valid measure of mental ability, and this paragraph also says that nobody knows the cause of this difference.


 * It looks like you may have found a source that itself is misrepresenting the APA report. If that's so, there are two ways of dealing with this. One is to just apply common sense: to look at the source that this book is claiming to summarize, and see if the book is summarizing that accurately. If it isn't, we should know better than to perpetuate that misrepresentation. If that requires too much critical thinking for your tastes, the other way to handle this is by using whichever source is the more prominent of the two. The American Psychological Association is the largest body of psychologists in the United States, and Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns represents its official position on race and intelligence. The source that you cited is a popular book published by the American Management Association. So we have two sources that disagree with each other: one is the APA report itself, and the other is Amacom's account of what the APA report says, which the APA report itself contradicts. If we have to decide which of these sources is the more prominent of the two, it's not Amacom.Boothello (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Look right below. Clearly, when talking about the APA report, the APA report itself is a primary source.
 * I can't see how supposedly what I put in the article - straight from a reliable source - is "exact opposite of what the APA report says". In fact, to me it looks like both the source I used and the report itself agree.


 * You are apparently confusing things based on your own preset ideas: what the source says is that the APA report says is that "There's no link between intelligence and race" . The quote you give above says that there's an IQ difference (which has been narrowing) between races and that there's almost no support for a genetic basis. It is entirely possible for both these things to be true - there's an IQ-test racial gap but there's no connection between intelligence and race (one obvious reason for this could be simply that IQ tests are total crap, but there are also a lot of subtle reasons). So your contentions that the source somehow got this wrong or contradicts the report is just your own original research . I see no such contradition.


 * "If we have to decide which of these sources is the more prominent of the two, it's not Amacom." - per Wikipedia's policy we use reliable secondary sources, not our own idiosyncratic interpretation of primary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The APA is a primary source regarding it own conclusions. It is a secondary source when it summarises studies made in previous studies. Commonsense is not applicable. What is applicable is finding a source that is more reliable and that summarises the APA report differently.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Better, but I think that the new version of the second paragraph in the lead is slightly misrepresenting the UNESCO statement. Here's that part of the UNESCO report:

"According to present knowledge there is no proof that the groups of mankind differ in their innate mental characteristics, whether in respect of intelligence or temperament. The scientific evidence indicates that the range of mental capacities in all ethnic groups is much the same."

According to the paragraph in the article, the UNESCO report says that "there is no evidence for innate differences in mental capacity between races." Saying that there is no proof is not exactly the same as saying that there is no evidence, and I think the article should make it clearer what UNESCO actually says.

I'm also not sure this should go in the lead section. The lead is supposed to be summarizing the rest of the article, and this isn't summarizing any other part of the article. It's also somewhat redundant with the summary of the APA report in the last paragraph of the lead. Could this paragraph be moved to another section of the article?Boothello (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are reading a distinction into the UNESCO statement that is not actually there. I think it is quite clear that they mean proof not in the sense of "conclusive evidence", but in the sense of overall convincing arguments. I think we can remove the other summary of the APA report frm the lead, since there is no reason to privilege its conclusions over those of the UNESCO, AAA, or AAPA in the lead. ·Maunus· ƛ · 21:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think our own interpretation of the UNESCO statement should matter. Our job is to report what the source says. So if "proof" is the word used by UNESCO, then it should be the word used in the article.


 * Responding to your other point, the UNESCO statement is sixty years old. I think it's fine that the article mentions it, but I don't think it deserves equal time with a statement from 1996. Psychology has advanced a lot since 1950, and even if there was no proof (or no evidence) about something sixty years ago, that does not demonstrate very much about the state of knowledge today.


 * The AAA and AAPA reports are more recent, but they don't address the debate over race and intelligence as directly as the APA report does. As I said above, what the AAA report rejects is the idea of absolute biological determinism, but there are very few researchers who believe that racial IQ gaps are 100% genetic. The AAPA report rejects the idea of inherent biological superiority or inferiority, and says that race has no effect on language or the ability to assimilate into a culture, but it does not directly address the topic of race and IQ at all. The lead section of this article has been based on the APA report for a long time, since before me or Midrare were here, and I don't think there's a good reason to change that.


 * If you think it's important for the views of UNESCO and the AAA to be included, I would suggest creating a new section for this called "group statements". We could also consider including the AAPA statement there, but as I said it does not address the topic of race and IQ at all, so I don't know whether it's relevant.Boothello (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You are repeating Miradre's irrelevant and ridiculous criticism of the date of the UNESCO source. It has been ratified three times since it was first published, and it is still the basis for all UN policies regarding human rights. I am not buying it and I don't think anyone else does either. Your interpretation of the AAPA report is a complete misrepresentation. Miradre is in the defensive and now you are taking over his role. It is not going to work. ·Maunus· ƛ · 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't really been closely watching all your discussions with him, so I don't know if he used the same arguments. I'm only telling you what I think is sensible. It's completely standard practice for Wikipedia articles to give more prominence to more recent sources. I don't think the UNESCO statement should be disregarded or excluded from the article. I'm just saying that it's less current than the APA report, because its most recent version (from 1978) is still more than twice the age of the APA report. If you disagree with that, please provide a reason rather than just lumping me together with Miradre and saying you explained this already.


 * Also, please quote the part of the AAPA statement that you think addresses the cause of racial IQ gaps. The only part of it I can see that comes close to it is this:


 * "Physical, cultural and social environments influence the behavioral differences among individuals in society. Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations."


 * This says two different things - it says that genetic capacity for mental ability varies between individuals, and it says that all populations have the same ability to assimilate any human culture, so that there's no basis for doctrines such as racial segregation that assume otherwise. Where does this statement say anything about whether or why there are differences in mental ability between races (rather than between individuals)? It looks to me like the AAPA statement is deliberately silent about it.Boothello (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not going to have this discussion at this point. I have been dealing with Miradre's nonsense twisting of compltely obvious statements for the past couple of months. I am not going to replay it with you. I am sorry but I don't have the patience to play that game any more. The source could hardly be any more clear in saying that there is no biological basis for positing differences in behavior or mental capacity among groups. I cannot continue to assume good faith with this magnitude of distortion of sources. I think you should read it again, and if after having done that once more you still want to go down that road then it will be through some kind of administrative venue.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're running out of patience here. It's a very demanding topic area and in that respect I can't really blame you. I am disappointed, though, that your attitude toward Miradre is being directed at me - it's not my fault if he hasn't been reasonable. If you explained this to him already, then presumably it is his own fault that he doesn't understand it. But it's not reasonable that you won't discuss it with me for this reason, and it means there's no way for me to know what you think is wrong with my suggestions. Wikipedia depends on discussion and consensus-building. If you no longer have the patience to engage in discussion, and are finding yourself unable to assume good faith about the editors who disagree with you, then it might be prudent to take a break from this topic for a while. I can see from your edits and your talk posts that you've been frustrated, and while I understand your frustration, I don't think it's conducive to the project.
 * I also think that your exclusive focus on opposing me and Miradre isn't helpful, both for you and the articles. Last night was the second time that Volunteer Marek added the same content that was reverted the first time he added it - saying that the position of the APA report is that there's probably no relationship between race and mental ability, even though it's been completely clear that there's no consensus for this change. From your edit summary here I think you know that this misrepresents the APA report, since changing the description to fit the data would not be necessary if it were an accurate summary to begin with. Surely this kind of misrepresentation is something that you can recognize, rather than turning a blind eye to it while you focus on arguing with no one except me and Miradre?Boothello (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This topic has been and is plagued by Single Purpose editors and puppets of the meat and sock varieties. This long term pattern does mean that assumptions of good faith have a shorter lifespan here than elsewhere. The way you are twisting well known sources and seeing things in them noone but Miradre has ever seen is disconcerting. Marek is not misrepresenting the APA report, the quote he is giving is completely faithful to the source he gives, namely Paige & Witty's book. We may not agree with how Paige and Witty interprets the APA report, but at least their interpretation of it is a reliably published secondary source. In fact we should not be making interpretations of the reports ourselves as they are primary sources in that sense, we should be discovering how reliable secondary sources have summarised them. ·Maunus· ƛ · 14:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If I need to find secondary sources that summarize the APA report differently from Paige & Witty's book, I will. Here is how the report is summarized in Lovler, Miller, and McIntire's book Foundations of Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach:
 * "In response to the publication of The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association (APA) convened a task force of psychologists representing the prevalent attitudes, values, and practices of the psychology profession. Based on the work of this task force, the APA published a report, Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (Neisser et al., 1995). The report did not disagree with the data presented in The Bell Curve; however, it interpreted the data differently and concluded that although no one knows why the difference exists, there is no support for the notion that the 15-point IQ difference between Black and White Americans is due to genetics."
 * That's fairly accurate to the source. Unlike Marek's source, this book makes it clear that APA report acknowledges the existence of the IQ gap, although the APA report is a little more qualified in their rejection of a genetic explanation - the report says that a genetic interpretation has no direct evidence, not no support at all. Here is how the APA report is summarized in Shaun Gabbidon's Criminological Perspectives on Race and Crime:
 * "Following the publication of The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Assocation (APA), felt a need to form a task force to examine the state of knowledge on IQ. (Neisser et al., 1996). The final report from the task force noted several key findings including the consensus that IQ tests '... do in fact predict school achievement fairly well ... They also predict scores on school achievement tests, designed to measure knowledge of the curriculum' (Neisser et al., 1996, p.81). The report also acknowledges that there are differences in IQ by [racial] group (see pp. 92-95). However, after reviewing the empirical evidence, the task force concluded '[there is] no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites' (p. 97)."
 * That is also a more accurate summary of the APA report than Paige & Witty's book. But just to give an example of how easily the APA report can be misrepresented in secondary sources, here is one more example, from Cornelius Troost's book Apes Or Angels?:
 * "Jensen’s position on racial IQ differences is largely endorsed by the American Psychological Association. A task force of 11 members of APA published a report called Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (1996). The authors agreed that differences in intelligence exist, can be measured fairly, are partly genetic, an influence life outcomes. These basic facts should not hide the reality that the left among psychologists disagreed strongly with Jensen and tried to demonize him."
 * This is a secondary source reporting that the APA report concluded that racial IQ differences have a partly genetic basis. This goes to show that there are secondary sources misrepresenting the APA report in either direction. But the majority of secondary sources summarizing the APA report seem to be doing it mostly accurately, as in my first two examples above.
 * There's no reason for the article to repeat Paige and Witty's claim while ignoring Troost's claim, as well as all of the sources that summarize the APA report accurately. One option is to include all of the accounts of that the APA report says, including both the accurate ones and the accounts that misrepresent it in either direction. But when secondary sources about the APA report disagree this much, both with one another and with the APA report itself, I think the most reasonable thing is to just cite the APA report itself and report what it says accurately. Do you have a better suggestion how to handle it, that doesn't involve cherry-picking the secondary sources we agree with and ignoring those that we don't?Boothello (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Boothello, "consensus" cannot be held hostage by a couple intransigent editors and you can't remove sourced content based only on a IDON'TLIKEIT reason. In fact removing sourced content can be seen as disruptive. A particular misrepresentation of WP:CONSENSUS does NOT trump WP:NPOV and WP:V. So yes, I added the content. It is sourced. The only objections to it appear to be that a particular editor or two disagrees with what the source says - but the threshold for inclusion is "verifiability" (from reliable secondary sources) not "truth". In this case I think both are met but only WP:V is necessary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason for the article to repeat Paige and Witty's claim while ignoring Troost's claim - actually there is. Paige and Witty are a reliable secondary source. Troost is a self published vanity press unreliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the Lovler, Miller and McIntire summary is better than the Paige and Witty one. Here is another from Schacter, Wegner & Gilbert's "Psychology": "When the American Psychological Association appointed a special task force to summarize what is known about the cause of the difference between the intelligence test scores of Black and White Americans, they concluded: “Culturally based explanations of the Black/White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available” (Neisser et al., 1996, p. 97). Such is the state of the art."·Maunus· ƛ · 12:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

blanket revert
This blanket revert of my edits
 * 1) Removed sourced text as well as the sources themselves.
 * 2) Restored undue information
 * 3) Restored misrepresentation of a source used
 * 4) Resulted in edit conflicts as I was still trying to tweak the article.
 * 5) Removed pertinent information about Binet, which was also sourced.

Quite simply, that was a blind, blanket battleground edit - it doesn't even look like SightWatcher bothered to actually read the edits. He certainly did not give a reason for #s 2-5 and gave a specious and false reason for 1 ("I'm reverting you because one of my buddies reverted you". It's also false that there has been no discussion - did you bother actually looking at the talk page?).

SW, you've removed two pieces of sourced text. Both were inlined cited to reliable sources and are very pertinent to the topic of this article. I would appreciate it if you self reverted as there's just no justification for this kind of disruptive behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

...and I most certainly don't see SightWatcher participating in discussion anywhere on this page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Marek, you are not being helpful. There are three people commenting who clearly disagree with your edits- Miradre, Boothello, and me- and the only other person commenting on them, Maunus, doesn't seem to have a strong opinion for or against them. There is clearly no consensus for the change you are trying to make, which is why it was reverted the first time. Yet instead of engaging in discussion here and trying to build a consensus for it, you left a brief comment disagreeing with the other people who commented, and then reinstated your changes exactly verbatim without waiting for reply. Reverting a major change that's opposed by several editors, and expecting it to not be added back until consensus supports it, is not holding an article hostage. This is normal WP:BRD process, and you have been abusing that process by repeatedly adding the same material with barely any discussion.


 * Boothello explained above about what's wrong with the content you keep adding- you picked out one secondary source that gives a biased summary of the APA report, when most secondary summaries of it are more balanced and accurate, and a few are biased on the opposite direction. With this in mind I'm going to again remove your changes from the article, until you can build consensus here for them to be included. A consensus is more than just you leaving a few comments saying that you disagree with everyone else. If you can build consensus for this content, then it can be added back. But discretionary sanctions are authorized on this article, so I don't think you should try to force it into the article by edit warring.-SightWatcher (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You've just done an excellent job of completely misrepresenting, to put it politely, the situation. Let's see:
 * There are three people commenting who clearly disagree with your edits- Miradre, Boothello, and me - Yes, the usual three involved editors, all with accounts which all became operational in October or November 2010, shortly after the Race and Intelligent ArbCom case closed, tag teaming on this and other articles.
 * Maunus, doesn't seem to have a strong opinion for or against them - let's let Maunus speak for himself, don't put words in his mouth.
 * The information is sourced to a reliable source and the best that Boothello can offer for its exclusion is IDON'TLIKEIT and some strange original research based on his reading of primary sources. It seems you are just blindly supporting him and this is the first instance of you actually taking part in this discussion.
 * Yet instead of engaging in discussion here and trying to build a consensus for it - false - i have been participating in the discussion - and this is quite hypocritical coming from someone who has just made his first comments on this talk page.
 * you have been abusing that process by repeatedly adding - I added the content, it was removed under a flimsy pretext, I re-added it, it was removed again by you under another flimsy pretext. That's not "repeatedly adding" by me, don't try to pretend the situation is different than it really is. If there's is abuse of the BRD process, it ain't on my side.
 * explained above about what's wrong with the content you keep adding - yes, he concocted some strange original research as a justification for removing well sourced text from the article. That's not a good reason to violate wikipedia policy.
 * you picked out one secondary source - on Wikipedia we use reliable secondary sources. Please read WP:V.
 * that gives a biased summary of the APA report - that's nonsense original research that Boothello and yourself are conducting. Your opinion that a particular reliable, secondary source is "biased", simply because it disagrees with your beliefs is completely irrelevant and useless as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. If you have a problem with the source I provided, take it to WP:RSN.
 * when most secondary summaries of it are more balanced and accurate, and a few are biased on the opposite direction. - complete nonsense. All the additional secondary sources that Boothello listed above are more or less in agreement with the reliable secondary source I provided, or at least don't contradict it. The fact that you and Boothello insist on reading into those sources things which are not there is just a reflection on you and him/her. Not a single reliable source has been provided that contradicts the source I've used, all we've had here so far is a few editors just making stuff up out of thin air in a desperate attempt to keep reliably sourced text they don't like out of the article.
 * I don't think you should try to force it into the article by edit warring - I haven't edit warred, so please don't make accusations you can't substantiate as that can be seen as a violation of WP:NPA.
 * With this in mind I'm going to again remove your changes from the article - what changes? What the hey are you talking about? The ones you've already removed? Are you going to re-insert my changes just so you can revert them again or something?
 * I'm perfectly willing to ask for outside opinion on this. It'll probably go the same way that the disagreement over at Pioneer Fund went, and perhaps it will shine a light on some of the behavior by some of these accounts that has been going on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

it's quite obvious that this article has been hijacked by single purpose accounts. the copious amount of unreliable sources. the undue weight given to fringe views, and miadre's hundred-edits-a-day makes it impossible for other wikipedians to check the massive pov-pushing that is going on. the article has degraded long enough. an administrative measure is needed.-- mustihussain (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)