Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 92

WP:BURDEN
Sorry for taking so long to notice the discussion here. I'm the same individual who has commented at Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel. I know my IP address keeps changing, but I can't control that.

I have a question about the way WP:BURDEN is being applied to this article. As I understand from the comments by The Devil's Advocate and BlackHades, the material that recently was removed was already supported by consensus in an earlier discussion. Per this edit, the reason the material cannot be added back yet is because a new consensus must form for it before it can be restored.

Is that correct? I hadn't realised this was the case, that any editor can remove from an article material supported by existing consensus, and WP:BURDEN requires editors who wish to restore the material to form a new consensus to restore it each time someone removes it. 101.0.71.30 (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If the material is not supported by the supplied sources, or there is a reasonable concern that it is not, then consensus is moot. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No. The full quote is At issue here isn't forming a new consensus over any material that was previously removed. In essence, you can't expect someone to prove a negative. If you add something, and someone says that it doesn't belong in the article, you can't say "prove it doesn't belong". Rather, if you want to add something to onus is on you to prove that it does belong. This is important because without it, anyone could add anything to an article. While you still can do that in theory, when someone questions your addition (or when someone questions existing content) you need to show it belongs there. There's a much higher standard for inclusion than there is for exclusion. Guettarda (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You tell me "no", but from the rest of your post it sounds like the answer is really yes. If the onus is always on the editors who want to restore content to get consensus for that, then all it would take for one person to remove some content that was added by consensus is to say is "prove it belongs", then prevent a new consensus from forming to restore it. 101.0.71.31 (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you actually look at the reason KC gave for altering and removing the paragraph? It was referring to some isolated comment in one of the sources, presented out of context, that clearly had nothing to do with the material in the lede. WP:BURDEN doesn't mean we have to indulge every objection with a re-hashing of the discussion no matter how baseless. That is just a pathway to letting any random passerby disrupt the work on this article.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to Guettarda's statement, "At issue here isn't forming a new consensus over any material that was previously removed". I wish that was the case. KillerChihuahua has removed massive amounts of text that meets WP:Verifiability that had previously gained consensus and is asking to get consensus all over again. Even after WP:Verifiability has been established. BlackHades (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

On writing encyclopaedia articles
I'm a little taken aback by this article. Despite being the subject of an arbcomm case, despite quotes from the case at the top of this page which say "In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles"...this article is a morass of primary source quotes juxtaposed together. The fourth paragraph of the history section introduces Jensen (1969) by citing...Jensen (1969). Two paragraphs later, Snyderman and Rothman (1988) is referenced to...Snyderman and Rothman (1987). Third party sources? The Ethics of research section section is worse - not only does it rely on primary sources, it doesn't even say what they say, just that they say something. Er, yeah. We don't need a Wikipedia article to tell us The 1996 report of the APA had comments on the ethics of research on race and intelligence without a single word on what it has to say about the topic.

Instead of fighting over what words should be included where, can we do something to (a) improve the article, and (b) try to get it to conform with the standards imposed upon these articles by the arbcomm case? Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What you cite is describing the policy on original research, which does permit the use of primary sources and the case page actually supports this as well. It is interpretation and analysis of those sources that is not permitted. Describing what a primary source states is well within the bounds of policy. Now, I do think the ethics section would do well with some fleshing out on some of the details, but the sources used are quite appropriate.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about whether the sources are "appropriate" or not, it's about how they are used. Most sources can be used as either primary sources or secondary sources. As the case says "primary sources are permitted if used carefully". The problem here is that they are not being used carefully. Juxtaposing a series of primary source statements from opposing sides amounts to WP:SYNTH. "X says this, Y says that" is OK in unproblematic areas, but in a page like this it can create problems. When working from primary sources, you always need to make the decision to include some sources and leave out others. When there are conflicting sources, that selection gives more weight to some ideas and less to others. Which is why we need to leave that decision to reliable scholarly secondary sources in articles like these. And that's NOT what's happened in this one. Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring in lead
It is not a good idea to edit war, particularly when WP:ARBR&I is in force. The edit by BlackHades at 08:55, 12 February 2013 has edit summary "Discussion is complete. Restoring per WP:LEAD, Per WP:V". That's despite the discussion obviously not being complete, and there being no consensus for the change. Further, it was explicitly explained above that "a lot more than "verifiable" is required to justify material—see WP:NPOV". The edit (diff) inserted this as the second paragraph of the lead:

It is not acceptable to use Wikipedia's voice (and particularly not in the lead) to state that there is a demonstrable difference between certain groups, without a lot of qualification concerning that "finding". While accurate as far as certain kinds of tests is concerned, the finding is not accepted by mainstream experts as a valid assessment of the topic of this article, namely race and intelligence. I don't have time to find a ref at the moment, but the essential issue concerns what differences are being detected by the tests—it is likely that the result is due to the very different circumstances under which the groups are raised rather than some inherent general intelligence.

Another problem with the above paragraph is that it is a mishmash of ideas, presumably assembled by an editor who cherry picked thoughts from various sources. This article must be based on secondary sources which review the field, such as IQ and Human Intelligence by Nicholas Mackintosh. Johnuniq (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit warring would be repeatedly trying to remove text that clearly meets WP:V and has already previously achieved consensus and is in full accordance with WP:LEAD. There's been more than enough sources provided by The Devil's Advocate and by me. With not a single counter source by anyone. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not a valid argument. Continuing asking The Devil's Advocate to repeat himself over and over again while not responding to his statements is disruptive. There were plenty of secondary sources provided. If there is a countering WP:reliable source then provide one. No one has. BlackHades (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "African Americans, The relatively low mean of the distribution of African-American intelligence test scores has been discussed for many years. Although studies using different tests and samples yield a range of results, the Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites."


 * American Psychological Association. Task Force Report. 1994. Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns


 * "The relationship between IQ scores and elementary cognitive task (ECT) performance is well established, with variance on each largely reflecting the general factor of intelligence. Also ubiquitous are Black–White mean differences on IQ and measures of academic success, like grade point average (GPA)"


 * Pesta, Bryan. (2008) Black–White differences on IQ and grades Intelligence 36. pg 323-329.


 * "The 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between Blacks and Whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute"


 * Rushton, J Philippe. (2005) Thirty Years of Research on race..


 * "It is widely accepted that race differences in intelligence exist.”


 * Lynn, Richard. (2006) Race Differences in Intelligence


 * "The bell  curve  for  whites  is  centered roughly  around  IQ  100;  the  bell  curve  for American  blacks  roughly  around  85"


 * Mainstream Science on Intelligence


 * "The existence of sometimes large group differences in intelligence is as well-established as any fact in the social sciences".


 * Gottfredson, Linda. 1994. Egalitarian Fiction and Collective Fraud Society 31(3) pg 53-59. BlackHades (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to "While accurate as far as certain kinds of tests is concerned". I'm assuming you mean IQ tests here. Which the text clearly specifies. In regards to all your concerns following this statement, the text never states what the cause or meaning of the well established IQ differences are. It clearly states "While the existence of racial IQ gaps is well-documented and not subject to much dispute, there is no consensus among researchers as to their cause." This is also very accurate, reliably sourced, and NPOV. The text is a summary of statements and sources that is already in the body per WP:LEAD. BlackHades (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * New approach: I've restored the Sep 2010 lead, as that was stable for a long time and had wide consensus; the lead has not been very stable since. We can work forward from that very stable lead.
 * Part of the problem is that the lead is supposed to summarize the article, yet edits have been made to the lead without any changes to the article, it has moved away from the purpose. Part of the problem is SYNTH and just plain mis-use of sources. I intend to work through the article from the beginning, checking the sources to ensure they are RS and actually support what is in the article. I note a lot of the sources are primary, where better secondary sources exist, and we should replace those where we can. And finally, what BH calls "cherry picking" to disqualify a source, above, was not even close - the article was about a study, and how racists had misused it. The author of the study made it clear the study had no bearing, IOW no relevance, to race and intelligence. Now BH seems to want to use the source the same way the racists mis-used it, and that's not a good idea. It is not "cherry picking" it is core, that study had nothing to do with race and intelligence. Killer Chihuahua 14:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * None of what you just said is an accurate summary of the source. It is demonstrably wrong on every account. Good lord, all one has to do is actually read the article to understand that none of what you are saying is correct. The source only talks about mainstream academics being concerned that Lahn's study would be mis-used by racists and those academics seeking to debunk his study. Lahn states that the study itself "offered no view", but makes it clear that he thinks it could indicate a genetic component to group differences in intelligence. None of that is actually relevant, however, as the source was being used to back up a statement that "Research into potential genetic causes for intellectual differences between races is controversial and has generated heated debate." Do you dispute, in any fashion, whether the source substantiates that statement?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate: The source only talks about mainstream academics being concerned that Lahn's study would be mis-used by racists and those academics seeking to debunk his study. This is what the Wall Street Journal article says:
 * source: Web sites and magazines promoting white "racialism" quickly seized on Dr. Lahn's suggestive scientific snapshot. One magazine that blames black and Hispanic people for social ills hailed his discovery as "the moment the antiracists and egalitarians have dreaded."
 * This directly contradicts The Devil's Advocate's statement.

The Devil's Advocate: Lahn states that the study itself "offered no view", but makes it clear that he thinks it could indicate a genetic component to group differences in intelligence.
 * source: What Dr. Lahn told his audience was that genetic changes over the past several thousand years might be linked to brain size and intelligence.
 * source: The 37-year-old Dr. Lahn says his research papers, published in Science last September, offered no view on race and intelligence.
 * source: What the data didn't say was how the mutations were advantageous. Perhaps the genes play a role outside of the brain or affect a brain function that has nothing to do with intelligence.
 * source: While acknowledging that the evidence doesn't permit a firm conclusion, Dr. Lahn favors the idea that the advantage conferred by the mutations was a bigger and smarter brain.
 * There appears to be nothing in the article which supports "... could indicate a genetic component to group differences ...". This appears to be a clear case of editor synthesis.  It's worth noting that even if that claim were explicitly supported, including the content violates WP:SPECULATION.

The Devil's Advocate: None of that is actually relevant, however, as the source was being used to back up a statement that "Research into potential genetic causes for intellectual differences between races is controversial and has generated heated debate." It appears that The Devil's Advocate is simply defending content that he introduced into the lead, regardless of the degree to which it misuses sources. aprock (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Full statement: Research into potential genetic causes for intellectual differences between races is controversial and has generated heated debate. Some researchers fear that the findings could be misused to perpetuate racial stereotypes, while others contend that the politicization of the field threatens to stifle important avenues of research.
 * source: Yet today, Dr. Lahn says he is moving away from the research. "It's getting too controversial," he says. Dr. Lahn had touched a raw nerve in science: race and intelligence.
 * The first sentence is supported by the Wall Street Journal article, however the second sentence is not. Both sentences were introduced into the article by The Devil's Advocate in this edit: .  In this case we have single sentence sourced to an editorial (Ceci/Williams) being promoted to the lead without attribution to authors, contrary to WP:NEWSORG and WP:LEAD.  We also have a primary source (Knerr, Ramos, et al) being inserted into the lead contrary to WP:LEAD.  This is a clear misuse of sources contrary to WP:PSTS.
 * I erred in saying it didn't mention racists actually using it, since it seems I overlooked the one sentence where this was actually stated. As far as I can tell that is the only time it is mentioned. I could point out the numerous omissions you are making with regards to Lahn, but I already stated that his study was itself irrelevant to the use of the source. You yourself concede that the only statement the source was being used to support was supported by the source, so I see no reason for your line of argumentation regarding my comments about Lahn.


 * As to your claims about the second sentence, you are mistaken on several points. WP:LEDE says nothing about primary sources, even if your description of that source as a primary source had any legitimacy. Read the relevant policy, which states "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." That describes this use of the BMC source to a tee. As to the Ceci/Williams source, one has to consider this part from the policy you cite: "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Is there any doubt that Ceci and Williams are experts in the relevant field who can be taken as providing a significant viewpoint in said field? I mean, a major scientific journal explicitly chose them to represent the viewpoint for allowing such research so I would say that is ipso facto evidence that this is the case.


 * BTW, I previously inserted the material into the lede as the result of a consensus decision involving a wide array of views so the idea that I am solely responsible for its contents is quite absurd. I have just been trying to defend that consensus position.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Devil's Advocate: As to your claims about the second sentence, you are mistaken on several points. WP:LEDE says nothing about primary sources, even if your description of that source as a primary source had any legitimacy.
 * You seem to be operating under significant misunderstanding here. The portion of WP:LEAD that is relevant is this: Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.  Sources (primary or otherwise) which exist only in the lead cannot be considered trivial/basic facts.  I realize that wikipedia policy is not always straightforward, but your approach and understanding of policy does not appear to be sufficiently developed.  Please do invest some more time in understanding policy.  The content sourced to (Ceci/Williams) is clearly under dispute.  Without a secondary source to establish the weight of that content inserting it into the article is a misuse of primary sources.  Inserting editorial content into the lead without author attribution, as if it were fact, is a gross misuse of sources.  Disruptive editing like this only hurts the project. aprock (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Devil's Advocate': I previously inserted the material into the lede as the result of a consensus decision involving a wide array of views so the idea that I am solely responsible for its contents is quite absurd.
 * Again, it appears your understanding of policy is weak. Reviewing the talk page discussion surrounding that edit, it's clear that you are referring to a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among editors who never objected to the content in the first place.  Representing agreement among three like minded editors as community WP:CONSENSUS is disruptive. aprock (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A source that exists only in the lede is not the same thing as information that appears only in the lede. The sources in the relevant section in the article body supported the statement, I just included a source that directly supported the summary statement. No relevant policies or guidelines support your argument that the source was inappropriate to use in the lede. The Ceci/Williams source is plainly legitimate to use per the policy statements I noted and your demand for additional sources to back up its use is without merit and only impedes discussion. Two credentialed mainstream academics in the relevant field who were chosen by a major scientific journal to present a competing position on the dispute are obviously reliable for the purpose of noting significant academic viewpoints on the issue and this being a significant viewpoint is supported by material in the article body noting James R. Flynn's position on such research, which is also noted by Ceci and Williams in the source. As to the consensus, you are mistaken in your evaluation as Artifex actually signaled support for another editor's formulation, which contained the sources I used, that was essentially the same as the one ultimately added to the article. It is also mistaken to refer to the other editors involved as "like-minded" since there was plenty of disagreement.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably the best secondary source to start with is the Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, there are two chapters directly relevant to this article in the handbook, chapter 14, Racial and Ethnic Group Differences in Intelligence in the United States; and chapter 15, Race and Intelligence. Published in 2011, these major handbooks seem to be updated every decade or so, and while handbooks no longer serve their historical purpose as being the core reading for doctoral students across various sub-disciplines of psychology, they are still a good resource for understanding the consensus view in the field. JonathanE 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanE (talk • contribs)
 * You don't blindly revert 2 years of work. There are major problems with the old lead that was fixed through 2 years of work and talk and consensus among multiple editors. (see below). It appears the only main point of contention is the text "Research into potential genetic causes for intellectual differences between races is controversial and has generated heated debate. Some researchers fear that the findings could be misused to perpetuate racial stereotypes, while others contend that the politicization of the field threatens to stifle important avenues of research." Even though the sources appear to support this text, I will temporarily remove this text while we thoroughly investigate it. But the rest of the lead is being restored. Blind revert to 2 years ago is WP:Disruptive editing. BlackHades (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

New lead
At a quick glance this seems a much better lead. Please don't revert this - let's discuss it. It makes some important points about race and intelligence missing in the old lead. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverting to a version from over two years ago without any discussion is monumentally disruptive and should not be endorsed by anyone. I have several issues with this new lede, or shall we say older lede, and my objections about the previous changes have not really been impacted by this change. The part listing "several psychologists" in the current lede is inappropriate. It suggests that this is a view held by this small group and is held only in a specific field, when we all know this is not the case. More importantly, despite all the crowing about sources in the lede, this lede has exactly one citation, a citation that was already included in the recent version of the lede and would have easily addressed the only meaningful complaints raised above about the paragraph being repeatedly removed.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's a major improvement over what was there. It seems to be a much closer relationship to the content of the article than did the previous lead. Guettarda (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And more accurate. Of course, the real nightmare fun will be verifying source usage. If you like that sorta thing. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said in the section above, "Part of the problem is that the lead is supposed to summarize the article, yet edits have been made to the lead without any changes to the article, it has moved away from the purpose. Part of the problem is SYNTH and just plain mis-use of sources. I intend to work through the article from the beginning, checking the sources to ensure they are RS and actually support what is in the article. I note a lot of the sources are primary, where better secondary sources exist, and we should replace those where we can." - and after we've combed through the article and ensured the sources are all RS and the best sources we can find, and the content reflects what is in the sources, then we can revisit the lead and check to ensure it still summarizes the article. Killer Chihuahua 19:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead having only one citation shouldn't be a problem. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead having only one citation shouldn't be a problem. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would generally agree, but seeing as this whole dispute arose because of arguments about needing more or better citations in the lede, this outcome seems inconsistent with the whole nature of the whole dispute.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This lead has so many issues and inaccuracies which was why it was previously changed through consensus talk. We're not going to re-hash these exact same issues again. This is WP:Disruptive editing. If there's a specific objection from the modern lead that you have, then raise it. But we're not reverting back to a lead from 2 years ago, that has so many problems, which was addressed and changed through consensus talk. We're not going to re-hash here. BlackHades (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the statements in the old lead is not supported by any text or sources in the article. There are major problems and inaccuracies with the old lead that was fixed through consensus with the modern lead. You don't just revert back 2 years of work without any talk or discussion.


 * 1. The claim that Asians have higher IQ than Whites is not completely accurate. East Asians have higher IQ than White Americans. Non-East Asians have lower IQ than White Americans. The modern lead fixed this issue by specifically stating East Asians.


 * 2. The claim that Asian IQ is significantly higher than White Americans is wrong. East Asian IQ is estimated to be 3-6 points higher than Whites. The modern lead fixed this issue by removing the word "significantly".


 * 3. "It is generally agreed that environmental and/or cultural factors affect individual IQ scores". This quote completely violates NPOV, It completely omits the fact that there's a consensus that genetic factors affects individual IQ score and is often viewed as the more dominant factor. Particularly for post-adolescence IQ where the heritability is .80. Snyderman and Rothman poll also confirmed that the overwhelming majority in the field consider genetics to be a major role in individual IQ.


 * 4. "it is widely assumed that most or all of the racial IQ gap is attributable to such factors". This is absolutely 100% false. The only survey done on the field, the Snyderman and Rothman poll showed that the all environmental viewpoint is a heavy minority in the field at only 15%. Modern lead fixed this problem by stating "While the existence of racial IQ gaps is well-documented and not subject to much dispute, there is no consensus among researchers as to their cause.". This is far more accurate and much more NPOV.


 * 5. "Far more controversial is the claim put forward by several psychologists, including Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, that a significant portion of the racial IQ gap has an ultimately genetic origin. This claim has not been accepted by the wider academic community and has been met with widespread disapproval in the popular media." This statement is completely not NPOV and is also undue weight and doesn't meet WP:V. There's no reason to name specific scientists here. It completely omits the fact that the view is much more controversial in the public and much less controversial in the scientific field. "An overwhelming majority also believe that individual genetic inheritance contributes to variations in IQ within the white community, and a smaller majority express the same view about the black-white and SES differences in IQ. While the private consensus among IQ experts has shifted to meet Jensen's “controversial” views, the public impression of their views has not moved at all.” Gottfredson, Linda. (1994) Egalitarian Fiction and Collective Fraud Society 31(3). pg 53-59.


 * 6. The APA quote in the older lead is far less presentable than the modern lead. The modern lead much more clearly illustrates their position.


 * Note that I'm just giving examples why the older lead was replaced and changed through consensus to the modern lead. Please do not respond to these points or try to re-engage them. Such attempts will be ignored. We will NOT be re-hashing the exact same debates over and over again that had already previously achieved consensus and been settled. BlackHades (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Consensus can change. And, indeed, it has. If you're unwilling to discuss things, then you are free to move on to other articles. Guettarda (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are specific issues you have with the modern lead, then raise it. I've been more than willing to discuss. The only major point of contention appears to be the line "Research into potential genetic causes for intellectual differences between races is controversial and has generated heated debate. Some researchers fear that the findings could be misused to perpetuate racial stereotypes, while others contend that the politicization of the field threatens to stifle important avenues of research." We can discuss and investigate this. But what we will not do is a blind revert to 2 years ago which is very clear WP:Disruptive editing. BlackHades (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest you self-revert. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And please stop holding up Gottfredson's unsupported opinions and political writings as if they have any bearing on the actual science of this topic. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is an actual consensus for one version of the lede or another. Until KC did the revert the concerns about the lede focused mostly on one paragraph. Now we're stuck discussing the entire lede. This keeps us from discussing how to address the section on brain size and other material that KC has deleted.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ArtifexMayhem, we go from discussing two lines in the lead, to a blind revert of the entire lead to 2 years ago. Please no more WP:Disruptive editing. I removed the 2 disputed lines. Please focus on discussing whether to include, omit, or alter those 2 lines in question. BlackHades (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No thanks. Aligning the article, as a whole, with policy and the ArbCom case, as suggested above, is the ultimate requirement. Once done the lead will write itself. Moving right along. Bear left. Frog right. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Article WP:OWNership issues
We have a serious problem here, no matter what you feel about the article. Not only is BlackHades continuing to edit-war over the article's lead, s/he is also making statements like this one: "Please do not respond to these points or try to re-engage them. Such attempts will be ignored. We will NOT be re-hashing the exact same debates over and over again that had already previously achieved consensus and been settled."

BlackHades, are you willing to either edit in a collegial and civil manner? If not, will you please take a break from this article? Guettarda (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Take this to the user talkpage please. Arkon (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree, Arkon. This is not general user conduct; this is conduct on this article, which is under ArbCom sanctions. It is best to keep this discussion here, where all participants may see and discuss. Killer Chihuahua 22:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's see, first KillerChihuahua removes huge chunks of this article without any discussion or talk despite disputes by others. here, here, here, here, here, here.


 * Then talks about a source in the lead that relates to two lines of text in the lead yet for some reason removes the entire section. Is thoroughly explained to her the validity of the text per WP:V per WP:LEAD. Never disputes the text in question or provides any counter-evidence or sources. Never talks about it. With no one else questioning the validity of it. Then attempts to do a blind revert of the lead to 2 years ago without any discussion here. I even finally give in to her even though the 2 lines in question appear to be supported by the text, I relented and removed the 2 lines in question and yet she still again continues to remove the entire section. A very clear pattern of continued disruptive editing. She's violated so many rules and policies. WP:Verifiability, WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:I just don't like it, WP:TRUTH, WP:OWN in a relentless POV push. Frankly, her administration abilites need to come under review as she seems completely unaware of and repeatedly breaks wikipedia policies. As was fully acknowledged by The Devil's Advocate as well. "My suggestion is that you restore the well-sourced and accurate wording that emerged out of talk page consensus as it was before you made any changes to it. Your claim that the material was not well-sourced is mistaken and was addressed thoroughly during that earlier discussion. Also, consider that I would not feel a need to remind you of the relevant guideline if I thought your edits were like those expected of someone who had knowledge of it"--The Devil's Advocate.


 * Sorry. But no amount of WP:Meat puppetry can counter following policies. Policy comes first. BlackHades (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, you completely took my quote out of context. This was very specifically referenced to KillerChihuahua's WP:Disruptive editing blind lead revert to a lead 2 years ago. BlackHades (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1, who are you accusing of meatpuppetry? That is a serious charge.
 * 2, the restoration of the long-held consensus lead from Sep 2010 had strong support from two other editors, both very experienced, and while Guettarda commented in the article talk page about that edit, he did not object, so it seems he was neutral or close to it. The only two who objected were you and The Devil's Advocate, and that is either 3:2 or 4:2 in favor of that lead as opposed to the one you reverted to. While this is not consensus, it is majority, and I fail to see how your characterization of my edit holds up. I suggest to you that as a newer editor, you may not understand policy and editing as well as you would like. My edit was BOLD and cut through all the policy issues (primarily V but also NPOV and LEAD) which the lead you keep reverting to has. I said at the time, and I say now, it is better to work forward from a lead with no such issues, than try to work forward from one which has multiple issues. It would have been more productive for you to make suggested edits to the Sep2010 lead, rather than blind revert to your preferred lead. Killer Chihuahua
 * Don't patronize me. I've edited for nearly 4 years and am more than aware of policies. Which either you don't or choose to ignore. Your assertion that the old lead has "no issues" is fallacious. I clearly outlined very severe problems with the old lead. All of which is resolved by the modern lead. The old lead had severe issues with WP:V with the requirement of WP:BURDEN never met which was why it was changed through consensus over time. We should not have to re-hash these exact same problems over again. We're moving forward. If you have issues with the modern lead, then raise it. Don't just revert back over 2 years without any discussion. BlackHades (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it had "no issues". Killer Chihuahua 02:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The evidence for meatpuppetry is mounting up more and more as this continues. There's been a massive amount of editors that just simply appeared out of nowhere as soon as KillerChihuahua started her mass deletions. That continued to back her at every single turn and every single edit, even in cases when it would be blatantly obvious to anyone that she was wrong. (e.g. Claiming that Korean adoption studies is not related to race or the article. Despite being mentioned in several secondary sources that very specifically are linking race, intelligence, and adoption.) This is just one example of many. BlackHades (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Who, exactly, are you accusing of being my meatpuppet? Killer Chihuahua 23:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Come on guys, there are more appropriate places for this. I don't know how this section can be turned into something positive for this article, but I am leaning heavily to hatting this if no edit proposals to improve this article are made. Arkon (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is what might be a more appropriate place for this, and it is WP:AE. However, it is better to try to work things out on the article talk page first, and then hopefully AE won't be necessary. As multiple editors are involved, there is no one user talk page which would be an appropriate venue. While I sympathize with your desire to focus entirely on the article, sometimes policy violations and combative behavior, or other issues, must be addressed before meaningful progress can be made. Killer Chihuahua 22:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is true, however the addressing does not need to occur here. So far this section can be summed up as baiting and sniping by and at multiple users.  Still waiting for suggested edit proposals. Arkon (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC
 * Firstly, you need not participate in this section if you do not wish. Secondly, where else would you suggest? I have considerable experience here, as does Guettarda, who started this section, and I cannot think of a better venue, and apparently he thought this was the best place too. I am open to suggestions. Killer Chihuahua 23:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggested the proper place in my first comment. Your experience makes your defense of this section regarding user behavior even more curious. Arkon (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I support Guettarda's attempt to discuss this, and while I agreed that an article talk page is not generally the best place for such a discussion, when the issues involve several editors it is sometimes best to have it there. I did see you say to take it elsewhere, I did not see you offer to deal with this, which is apparently how Guettarda read your comments, based on his post of 23:15, 13 February 2013 below, hence my confusion. Are you "offering to deal with this" as G seems to think, or has he misunderstood? Killer Chihuahua 02:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine how Guettarda could assume such a thing. I've been clear that this section doesn't belong here. Now I'm going to let this fade off into the archive sunset. Arkon (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You said it should be dealt with on the user talk page. Obviously I wouldn't have brought it here if I thought that I could productively engage with the editor on their talk page. I assumed that since you wanted to hat this discussion, you were willing to take care of the problem in what you saw as the proper venue. I'm sorry to see that I was mistaken. Guettarda (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Arkon, I very much appreciate you offering to deal with this on BH's talk page. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Did he? I must have missed it. Blind puppy. Killer Chihuahua 23:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hilarious, yet unproductive. Got an actual suggested edit?  Arkon (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, we could revert the lead to this version. It did have at least some modicum of support. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Both versions had support.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 01:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The old lead doesn't meet WP:V and never passed the requirement of WP:BURDEN. It was changed and fixed over time for a reason. BlackHades (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary theories
Reviewing the removed section Evolutionary theories: Without high quality secondary sources which put forward the topic as one of serious scientific consideration, it's difficult to see how including this mishmash of speculative he said/she said advances the project in any way. aprock (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is entirely unsourced, and is followed by technical language which immediately refutes it.
 * The Nisbett quote is taken from a section titled Not in the Genes, where Nisbett makes the case against the genetic argument. This is a clear example of cherry picking (introduced here).
 * We then have a paragraph of idle speculation by Jensen and Rushton, neither of whom have any training in environmental biology.
 * The final paragraph only serves to highlight their WP:SPECULATION.
 * That's more or less the short version of what my response was going to be. Thanks Aprock. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is clearly a noteworthy aspect of the debate as it is essentially the whole crux of the hereditarian view. How about you actually look for some sources, or make better use of the ones that are already there, and actually improve the section rather than taking the slash-and-burn approach? Nisbett talks a lot about environmental pressures on development of intelligence, albeit in opposing the hereditarian view as you are saying, and would be of great use for such a section. That source is not a primary source, mind you, it is a classic secondary source. All these deletions are doing is keeping us from discussing any particular bit of deleted material for very long as some other editor comes along and deletes some more material. It is tiresome.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * How about you actually look for some sources Indeed. I have explicitly named several high quality secondary/tertiary sources, including Hunt/Carlson (2007) and Mackintosh (1998).  Others include:  The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, Hunt (2010), and Deary (2001).  As for Nisbett, he uses the word "evolution" only one time in the body of his 235 page book. aprock (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've begun to doubt it's possible to resolve this on the article talk page. Content is being removed more rapidly than improvements to it can be discussed, and the editors who are doing the most removing are making the least effort to improve it. ArtifexMayhem's edit summary "We can add this back if any proposed 'evolutionary theories' ever get any scientific traction" implies that he's not even interested in writing an improved version of this section as a replacement.


 * A few people have suggested making an AE request, and I support that now. (Not about Aprock, about the two editors making rapid removals while having little involvement in the discussion.) With the editors doing most of the removals making little effort to justify them, and the removals happening so rapidly that improving and restoring the content isn't possible, I don't see any other way forward. 101.0.71.23 (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with 101. ArtifixMayhem, this is now two entire sections that you've removed from the "Genetic Arguments" portion of the article. "Brain size" and now "evolutionary theories", two highly relevant sections of the article that is discussed frequently in WP:reliable sources, while making very little suggestions on actually improving them. I wonder if you're attempting to make a permanent deletion of these sections. It's in the best interest of everyone to try to work this out and avoid AE but this constant slash and burn approach with little to no discussion is now making AE an inevitability. I respectfully request that you self revert this deletion and make an effort toward suggestion toward proposed changes. Otherwise, as 101 have also stated, I don't believe there is really any other option but AE at this point. BlackHades (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seven days ago I provided this explanation for my removal of the "Brain size" section. My motivation for removing the "evolutionary theories" section is well summarized by Aprock's review (above). Discussions concerning content are always welcome. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't just go and remove ENTIRE complete sections from the article because you feel there might be technical issues that are easily resolvable through discussion. Both these sections are relevant to the article and discussed thoroughly in WP:reliable sources from all different perspectives. This appear to be attempts to permanently remove sections from "Genetic Arguments" that clearly is relevant and heavily discussed in WP:reliable sources. You wrote reasons that were vague, didn't make any possible suggestions for change, and then never responded back to any criticism of your mass deletion or suggestions from others. BlackHades (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He removed those sections because they were violations of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and the statements in the sections either had nothing at all to do with R&I, or they did but not because any source did, merely because they were written that way. This article suffers badly from poor sourcing and misuse of sourcing, and however you protest, the only way to salvage any content you don't like seeing removed is finding an actual source for it. Complaining on the talk page won't do it. We're an encyclopedia, not a blog, and we can't keep your favorite phrases and paragraphs without some sourcing. I'm sure you've read WP:V; no one should have to be explaining this to you. Killer Chihuahua  14:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ArtifixMayhem's claim of WP:SYNTH was completely erroneous. The source listed, such as Rushton and Jensen, very clearly explores the possible relationship of individual brain size to intelligence and the difference of brain sizes among races. There are also other secondary sources that explore the same as well including Lynn, Templer, Hunt, etc. Wicherts criticism of Rushton was also properly sourced. Which Aprock also stated as such before this mass deletion spree began. Note that neither ArtifixMayhem nor you have offered a single suggestion to improve that section. There's been mass deletion with vague reasoning and failure to respond back to criticism or suggestions. It seems you two simple prefer to not have it in the article at all despite the fact that it is highly relevant to this article with numerous WP:reliable sources that explore the issue. BlackHades (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to clarify that what I wrote directly above this line was in reference to the removal of "brain size" and not to "evolutionary theories". In case there was some confusion. BlackHades (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding possible WP:SYNTH: First sentence: Second sentence: Third sentence
 * One explanation for racial IQ gaps advanced by some researchers is that they are partly the result of evolutionary pressures that varied between geographic regions
 * C. Loring Brace has argued that such a clinal distribution in the trait is highly improbable, because the evolution of human intelligence is founded on the development of human linguistic behavior, and intelligence is therefore of equal survival value to all human groups
 * On the other hand, cultural psychologist Richard Nisbett has argued that "(t)here are a hundred ways that a genetic difference in intelligence could have arisen – either in favor of whites or in favor of blacks."

The first sentence is credited to Brace (whether intentionally or not), but it doesn't quite match what Brace says: Despite the declarations of several generations of outspoken bigots such as Ellsworth Huntington (1924), Arthur Jensen (1980), the authors of The Bell Curve (Herrnstein and Murray 1994), J. Philippe Rushton (1995) and widespread commonly held assumptions to that effect... He doesn't talk about "gaps" (which, as MathSci pointed out recently, are an awfully inaccurate way to characterise differences in means) and he doesn't say "some researchers"...he clearly says "outspoken bigots". Bowdlerising it to "some researchers" misrepresents what Brace is saying. The second sentence asserts that Brace draws the conclusion he does "because the evolution of human intelligence is founded on the development of human linguistic behavior". Brace does not, in fact, say that.

The third sentence though is where the problem gets bigger. Having presented Brace's view (or rather, a caricature thereof) the article then juxtaposes Nisbett's, and draws an explicit comparison between them. As Aprock pointed out, the Nisbett quote is taken out of context - Nisbett's intent is not, in fact, to draw a contrast with Brace's. But even if it were, unless Nisbett explicitly made the contrast, we can't make the contrast. That is the essence of WP:SYNTH.

The second paragraph has problems of its own. "Jensen explains...how...", cited to Jensen. That's about as useless a statement as one can put in an article. It tells the reader nothing beyond "go read Jensen's book". "Rushton carries this idea a step further..." What idea? The previous sentence refers to how Jensen explains, not what he explains. So how can Rushton carry "this idea" further? The reader has no idea what Jensen explained. More importantly, does Rushton develop upon Jensen's ideas explicitly? That seems dubious, given that Jensen's book was published three years after Rushton's. So again, the article is drawing connections that cannot exist in the sources. (IOW, WP:SYNTH.)

The third paragraph is just poorly written. The second part could reasonably be connected to the statement about Rushton's (mis)use of r/K selection, but the first sentence, citing Brace, just seems out of place. Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of focusing so much on what may be wrong with it, can we start putting more focus on suggestions on fixing it? Given that ArtifixMayhem and KillerChihuahua are responsible for the complete removal of "brain size" and "evolutionary theories", they should be taking the lead on giving specific suggestions, text, sources, for improvement. I think that's more than fair. BlackHades (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Third paragraph in lead removed
(Edit conflict) I think KillerChihuaha's editing is at least as much a concern as BlackHades'. AFAICT, this is the second time he has removed the description of racial IQ gaps from the lede, and he is not attempting to get support for this removal on the talk page. If the lede is to summarise the article, it must include this information, and the next sentence of the lede (Four contemporary classifications of position regarding study of differences in IQ based on race/ethnicity are seen) makes no sense if the paragraph describing those differences is removed. I would assume the arbitration rules don't allow this behaviour, and I am surprised nobody besides BlackHades is raising the issues with it. 101.0.71.8 (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On the content issue, I agree with 101 regarding the paragraph's deletion. This was something I was planning to bring up here myself. Saying there is a consistently observed racial IQ gap is important to any introduction of the subject as it's the main reason there is an ongoing dispute in the first place. KC's objection about the paragraph being U.S.-centric is a reasonable concern, but it reflects the fact that the article as whole is currently very U.S.-centric. That is not a problem that can or should be addressed by deleting a paragraph that is integral to the lede. I have had difficulty locating reliable and independent sources on IQ tests outside the U.S., but perhaps someone here can offer some to satisfy KC's objection. There is a source in the article, but it does not appear to be explicitly about race and intelligence.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with that paragraph is UNDUE, specifically WP:BIAS. It starts out with US. This is not the Race and intelligence in the United States article, it is the Race and intelligence article. The other points are already covered in the last paragraph in the lead, the one which starts with the AMA. Killer Chihuahua 23:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the exact same average racial IQ differences in the US are found worldwide as well. Which you can review at Nations and intelligence. Though the same average racial IQ differences are found worldwide, there have been concerns and some criticism raised about it due to it being difficult to do cross country comparisons while neutralizing environmental effects and how well the sampling is. Nonetheless, the IQ gaps between groups isn't just US centric, it is worldwide. BlackHades (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As it stands the article mostly focuses on the controversy in the U.S. There are two possible reasons for that:
 * This is systemic bias as most editors contributing to the topic are Americans.
 * It is a dispute centered mostly in the U.S.
 * This article does not exclusively concern the American sphere of the controversy, but it does put a heavy emphasis on it. I do not believe this is exclusively an American controversy, but until the article body better reflects the global nature of the controversy the lede should serve as a summary of the article contents. Your issue with the lede is really an issue with the article and should be addressed by globalizing the overall article's content, not by deleting integral material from the lede.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are much more of these studies done in the US because the US is the most racially diverse country. It's difficult or even impossible to do such studies in homogeneous countries. BlackHades (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We can expand the "International comparisons" section of the article using the secondary source of Lynn, which is the most comprehensive collection of worldwide IQ, and add this line to the lead following the US scores, "Similar racial IQ gaps have been found worldwide but some have questioned its validity and reliability." BlackHades (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * TDA: I have no objection to rewriting the paragraph so it reflects a world wide view. But as it is currently written, it sounds like any IQ difference only happens in the United States. There are also European studies in the article. Keeping that US-centric paragraph in the article lead is UNDUE and unbalanced. I agree with BlackHades that the non-US content needs to be expanded, but suggest that we either combine US test scores with International comparisons, or list other countries as the US is listed. It will be a bit unbalanced at first with the second approach, but eventually we can fill in other countries. I prefer the first approach; studies which involved people from several countries will not be an issue then, and it will avoid the appearance that this is limited to only a few countries, and primarily to the US. Killer Chihuahua 02:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the slash-and-burn approach as it will more likely end with no consensus for what to put in its place and then leaves us with incomplete content. As it stands it is an accurate summary of the article's contents and should only be altered to better reflect the current contents or to incorporate summary material of additional content.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 02:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, slash and burn? I'm talking about rewriting a paragraph so it isn't all about the US, or even primarily focused on the US, and merging - not removing - two sections. Killer Chihuahua 02:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that you now support leaving it in and discussing how to resolves your concerns then I apologize.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 03:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it was clear when I said to you I have no objection to rewriting the paragraph so it reflects a world wide view. that I had no objections to rewriting the para to reflect a world wide view. I have very strong objections, which I have repeated but apparently not clearly enough, that the paragraph as it stands now is UNDUE and BIAS, because it focuses on the US only; giving the false impression that there are IQ differences only in the US. Please let me know if I am still not being clear enough, or if you wish clarification. Killer Chihuahua 03:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua, keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of these studies are done in the US. Due to the fact that because the US is the most racially diverse country in the world, it is the easiest place to conduct such studies. So it wouldn't necessarily be UNDUE if the article was somewhat more focused on the US as that is simply the reflection of the material that exists in WP:reliable sources. That being said, I do agree of broadening it up more and expanding the "international comparisons" section. Probably likely using Lynn as a source as this would be the largest and most comprehensive collection of global IQ. BlackHades (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Before attempting to resolve longstanding issues with the article's scope, I would prefer to resolve the issues resulting from KillerChihuahua's removal of material. Above Aprock quoted a discussion about brain size with respect to race and intelligence in the Hunt and Carlson paper, which is a high-quality secondary source upon which much of the article is based. If brain size with respect to race and intelligence is discussed in the Hunt and Carlson paper, it should be discussed in this article. As it stands, the article does not discuss this aspect of the debate. I understand many people feel the removed section was poorly sourced, but excluding the topic entirely is not a solution.

Is there an earlier, stable version of the brain size section which has been supported by consensus? Consensus seems to not support KillerChihuaha's suggestion to revert the lede to an earlier version, but following that suggestion for the brain size section would be preferable over eliminating the section. 101.0.71.20 (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is better to discuss that in the talk page section concerning it so we don't derail this discussion.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Hunt/Carlson treatment of brain size is highlighted by the following excerpts:
 * Thus, whether or not the link between genetic constitution, brain size, and IQ test scores has any substantial inter-racial or, for that matter, intra-racial, dimension is at present unknown. However it is something that is both feasible and reasonable to study at the molecular level.
 * Furtherstudies, using modern imaging techniques, may provide a more sensitive test of the [Rushton's] hypothesis.
 * To the extent that there is anything to discuss here, it is Rushton's hypothesis, the fact that brain size is a directly measurable quantity as opposed to synthetic IQ, and that we don't have a mechanism for understanding or explaining the relationship between brain size and intelligence. aprock (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead and IQ tests
BlackHades restored the following text to the lead at 21:51, 13 February 2013 :

That text is very misleading for readers. This article is about race and intelligence, so almost all readers will interpret "IQ tests" as "intelligence". The only possible reading of the second paragraph of the lead for a general reader is "it is a proven fact that, on average, African Americans are less intelligent than European Americans, who are less intelligent than East Asians". There is a qualification, namely that researchers are not sure why African Americans are less intelligent than Europeans—but the fact is "well-documented and not subject to much dispute".

That reading is totally incorrect. A correct statement would indicate that different groups get different average scores for the same test—whether that indicates a difference in intelligence is highly disputed. Different scores might be due to genetics, environment, or test bias. It is impossible to test the genetic hypothesis directly since Americans with an African ancestry are subject to lifelong environmental differences compared with those of European ancestry. Various studies have attempted to explain the cause of the score differences, with no conclusive results. It is not known whether the tests indicate anything about race and intelligence.

In general, rather than warring over the lead, the correct procedure would be to write balanced material in the article, based on independent secondary sources that review the field. When that is complete, the lead will write itself. Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's misleading. The preceding text is very clear and states "There is no widely accepted formal definition of either race or intelligence in academia". That however does not change the fact that IQ is by far the most widely used method to measure intelligence. And a tremendous portion of this article is devoted to try to explain these IQ gaps from both an environmental perspective and genetic. This text is a summary of what is already in the body of the article per WP:LEAD. And the following paragraph does address all the concerns you raised. Which goes into depth regarding "Four contemporary classifications of position" that includes different possible explanations regarding genetics, environmental, test bias, etc. BlackHades (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that an independent secondary source that reviews the field (such as IQ and Human Intelligence by Nicholas Mackintosh) would justify my concern expressed above that "It is not known whether the tests indicate anything about race and intelligence"? Or is there verifiable evidence to the contrary? Of course there is such evidence, but that evidence is dismissed by other qualified researchers with different interpretations. What I'm asking is whether an independent review of the field would conclude that there was significant evidence to claim that the IQ test scores provide meaningful information about race and intelligence. This article is not Race and IQ scores. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this concern already be addressed in the following paragraph with the "Four contemporary classifications of position regarding study of differences in IQ based on race/ethnicity are seen." with the following line "a fourth position is that either or both of the concepts of race and general intelligence are poorly constructed and therefore any comparisons between races are meaningless."  It appears that your concern is already being addressed. Are you asking to add another section to the lead to elaborate further on this 4th position? To do so will likely be giving undue weight to 1 of the 4 possible classifications of position." BlackHades (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hunt's classifications are not the only "possible classifications of position" nor are they of equal weight. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hunt's source was used through earlier consensus as editors from all range of perspectives, came all together and agreed on its reliability. An absolute incredible feat and extreme rarity considering the topic. BlackHades (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea that there are only four possible classifications of position on this topic and that those positions are of equal weight cannot be supported simply because Hunt & Carlson (2007) is a generally reliable source. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @BlackHades, you appear to be using support for inclusion of Hunt to exclude other high quality sources. In fact, the most valuable content for the encyclopedia is the content that most, or all, high quality secondary sources agree on.  If Hunt's deliniation doesn't accord with other authors, that indicates that it deserves less weight, not that his is the only compartmentalization worth including. aprock (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not stating to exclude other high quality sources. What I'm concerned is giving undue weight to one specific viewpoint while omitting others. This is a situation where the field currently has no consensus as to the cause of average racial IQ gaps. I think we can all at least agree on that. Now trying to appropriately distribute what weight each viewpoint should be getting is exceptionally difficult here and a very slippery slope. The Snyderman and Rothman poll would be the only survey of the field done. Which showed 45% in the field support the view that the Black-White IQ gap is a combination of genetics and environment. 15% in support of the all environmental viewpoint. And 24% that replied there is insufficient evidence to support any viewpoint. Based on this survey, Hunt's 1st contemporary classification of position should be given the most weight. That states "The first is that these gaps reflect a real difference in average group intelligence, which is caused by a combination of environmental factors and heritable differences in brain function.", followed by APA's position that "the cause of the gap is currently unknown", and then followed by the all environmental position of Hunt's 2nd contemporary classification which states "A second position is that differences in average cognitive ability between races exist and are caused entirely by social and/or environmental factors." BlackHades (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A single question from a 25 year old non-scientific survey is not a high quality secondary source. Using it to establish weight is precisely the sort of misuse of sources that we need to steer clear from. aprock (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the only survey of the field done. To attempt to assess the field on anything else would simply be pure speculation. And I'm not even advocating its use here. My point was that we should avoid giving undue weight to specific viewpoints on mere speculation. BlackHades (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq is correct when he says "The only possible reading of the second paragraph of the lead for a general reader is "it is a proven fact that, on average, African Americans are less intelligent than European Americans, who are less intelligent than East Asians"." The lead should not launch into this debate without a better version of paragraph 3 (which should become the 2nd paragraph). Not everyone is going to read past the lead. Whatever other problems there may be with para 3, it needs a simpler first sentence or two. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. And this line "There is no widely accepted formal definition of either race or intelligence in academia" already precedes the text regarding US IQ differences. Moving the 3rd paragraph to the 2nd paragraph position would only serve to confuse the reader as now the article is giving explanations why there are gaps and what the cause of the gap may be, even before the acknowledge that gaps exist. Acknowledge of gaps need to take place before attempting to explain the gaps. BlackHades (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the "a better version of paragraph 3". But I wasn't clear enough. What we need to do is avoid anything that suggests that there is an obvious and agreed link between IQ and intelligence before we start talking about IQ gaps. And replacing words like 'these' with 'any' should help with your concerns. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an over-emphasis on IQ in the lede, when it is not the only type of testing discussed in the article. The article also discusses group differences in other types of ability and intelligence test results, such SAT scores and mental chronometry, but the lede implies group differences exist only on IQ tests. I suggest replacing "IQ" with a more inclusive term such as "intelligence test". This would remove the problem of equating IQ with intelligence in general, and also make the lede cover the other types of test results discussed in the article. 101.0.71.23 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

But an SAT, to use your example, is largely a test of knowledge and not iq. I haven't gotten to checking the sources on any mention of SAT in the article, but that may be SYNTH and not even appropriate for the article, let alone the lead. Killer Chihuahua 19:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that it sounds like the trends are less clear if you look at other measures of intelligence. Guettarda (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it should matter what you personally think about the other testing methods used. The fact is that the literature on race and intelligence includes more types of testing than IQ. By making the lede IQ-exclusive, it no longer reflects either the body of the article or the source material. The justifications you've given for making the lede IQ-exclusive appear founded in WP:TRUTH, not policy or verifiability. 101.0.71.24 (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your response bears no apparent relationship with what I wrote. Try replying to what I said. Guettarda (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try once more. Reading the discussion about race and intelligence in a secondary source such as Earl Hunt's book, you find a discussion about group differences in the results of tests such as NAEP, WPT, AFQT, SAT and mental chronometry as well as IQ. Some of these testing methods are discussed in the article body. You're suggesting the lede should be limited to IQ because "it sounds like the trends are less clear if you look at other measures of intelligence." That should not matter, because what matters is that group differences in these other measures are discussed both in the source material about race and intelligence, and in the article body. The article is supposed to summarise what secondary sources say, and the lede is supposed to summarise the article body, right?


 * If you still don't understand how it's a problem for the lede to be IQ-exclusive, I don't know how else to explain it. By arguing about this, I'm likely contributing to the distraction from restoring any of the content that was removed. I reiterate what I said above, this situation probably should be at AE, and making any meaningful improvements to the article might not be possible before that. 101.0.71.6 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand how you come away with that reading from my (brief) comment. I neither said nor meant the things you're angrily arguing with. Guettarda (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow me to again suggest that you sign up for an account. If you have a specific change you'd like to make, or specific content that you disagree with, please make a note of it. aprock (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In regards to SAT, in order for the lead to mention it, it would likely need to be in the body of the article. I believe at some point in the past it was where average SAT scores by ethnicity was listed. Does anyone recall the reasoning for its removal? But there would be a need for it to be back in the body of the article before it becomes part of the lead. BlackHades (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And in regards to the addition of Native American IQ and Hispanic IQ to the lead. Data and studies relating to these IQs is extremely limited and wouldn't meet the requirement of "well-documented" stated in the first line of the paragraph. BlackHades (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've never seen the need to register an account. Most articles allow unregistered users to edit, and for those that don't allow it I can make suggestions on the talk pages. There shouldn't be a danger of your confusing my comments with anyone else's, as I'm the only person commenting on these pages from my IP range.


 * My suggestion would be to remove the specific references to IQ in the lede, and replace them with the more inclusive term "intelligence test". That would better reflect sources such as Hunt's book, in which the discussion about race and intelligence includes group differences on many more types of intelligence test than IQ, and would resolve the problem of IQ being equated with intelligence. But I also feel this emphasis on the lede is making it more difficult to address the pressing issues. A large amount of important content has just been removed, purportedly with the reason that it can be added back to the article after being improved, but neither the editors making the removals nor the editors objecting them are making a serious effort at rewriting or restoring it. All the discussions about possibly restoring this content have died and been buried earlier in the page, and if it remains that way the removals will be permanent.


 * This question is for everyone, but especially for those who objected to the removals: do you intend to let the removals be permanent, or will you attempt to resolve this somehow? 101.0.71.30 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In regards to the removal of "Brain Size", given that both KillerChihuahua's reason for removal "not relevant" and ArtifexMayhem's reason for removal "WP:SYNTH" were both incorrect, and neither has made any suggestions or attempts to improve the section, that section should be restored while addressing specific problems and concerns in talk. It seems some simply want to remove it permanently. Which we simply cannot do as there is too many WP:reliable sources that goes into great depths on this issue. BlackHades (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please convert this edit into grammatical English, or self-revert. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should fix your grammatical error here before saying anything. Please fix this grammatical error or self revert. Thank you. BlackHades (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Typo happily fixed. I'm more than a little taken aback though, that you'd refuse to fix your mangled sentence just because I made a mistake myself. Guettarda (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you notice a grammatical error, it would have been more helpful to fix it rather than try to make a snide comment. BlackHades (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, and then you'd accuse me of edit warring. By the way, you do realise that "white" and "black" are not proper nouns, right? After I went through and fixed the whole article, you reverted my fix in just that one line? Why, ffs? Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't see your edit on that until after I made my edit. After I saw it, I did a review of WP:reliable sources to see whether they capitalize it or not and it seemed to be a very heavy mix of both capitalizing and not capitalizing. There was no consistency from paper to paper. The White Americans page also seemed to have no consistency and is a mix of both. BlackHades (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Proportionality in the lead
There are seven section in the article, of varying lengths. As best I can determine, only five of them show up in the lead. If they belong in the article, they belong in the lead. Relative to their length in the article, two sections ("potential environmental" causes and "genetic arguments") are badly under-represented in the lead. The big problem though is that almost half the lead - 44% in terms of word count - cannot be directly tied to the body of the article. Guettarda (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph three
Per my analysis above, I can't figure out how paragraph three fits into the lead, since it doesn't appear to summarse the content of the article.

It seems like it would fit best in "Group differences", so I'm moving it there. Guettarda (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem's Templeton Restore
He states that the current version was POV and OR when the previous version was actually the one that was terribly POV and OR. The current version very accurately describes why he believes there's no such thing as race, and that even though he believes there's no such thing as race, he states group populations can still have evolutionary and genetic significance. Please show me where the POV and OR is?

The 2 versions should be merged together in some form but with POV and OR removed. For example, he never describes heritability as "useless" or that it can't be used between groups. This sentence here is POV and OR. This needs to be changed. BlackHades (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The removed quotes might be of benefit. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did. Still POV and still OR. He states that the definition of heritability is that it is to be used within populations. He goes into depths the problems there are with between group comparisons. He however doesn't state it as "useless" or that it simply can't be done. Please fix this. BlackHades (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's not within my power to change the definition of heritability. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright then removing this line until someone else fixes this WP:OR line. BlackHades (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * While thinking of ways to improve this section, I don't know why the entire issue of whether race exists or not is based entirely on Templeton in this article. This seems terribly WP:UNDUE. This section needs a summary from Race and genetics with more than one person's viewpoint given. BlackHades (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of material on race, malnutrition, and intelligence
Winick, Meyer, and Harris (1975) studied Korean infants adopted by American families and the effects of malnourishment on IQ. They found an average IQ of 102 for Korean children that were severely malnourished as infants, IQ of 106 for those that were poorly nourished as infants, and IQ of 112 for those that were well nourished as infants.

KillerChihuahua claims this statement is not related to this article and has removed it. Despite the fact that the study talks about race, intelligence, and nutrition (a possible environmental cause of IQ gaps). Despite the fact that this article has a section called "health and nutrition" that explores the role malnourishment may be causing IQ gaps. This study has been heavily cited by secondary sources by both hereditarians and environmentalists. Including here and here. Hereditarians have cited it as evidence that malnourished Korean children still have average to above average IQ. Environmentalists have cited it as clear evidence that malnutrition causes IQ gaps.

This is another very clear example of KillerChihuahua POV pushing and removing sections of relevant, cited, WP:verifiability information from this article. He has remained hostile and uncooperative. Has so far ignored any suggestions and explanations given. A continued "my way or the highway" attitude. This article needs to be restored back before KillerChihuahua started edit warring and POV pushing. With specific issues being raised and discussed before removing relevant cited WP:verifiability information. BlackHades (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Reviewing the first supporting source you present, the Winick cite occurs in Section 7: Mean Race–IQ Differences and Transracial Adoption Studies. Reviewing the wikipedia article as it currently reads, that specific section data is summarized in the article as: "Studies on Korean infants adopted by European families have consistently shown a higher IQ than the European average," along with six other sentences and a table.  It's not clear how much more data you want here, but you seem to be trying to expand raw data.  That approach is not supported by policy and guidelines, and has been symptomatic of past editors pursuing a preferred POV.  Instead of trying to insert raw data from primary sources, allow me to suggest you look for the highest quality secondary sources, and summarize them. aprock (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This study is different than the others. As it combines race, intelligence, and nutrition which none of the other studies does. So it would be unique in that sense. It expands the "nutrition" issue brought up earlier in "health and nutrition". Also none of the reasons you stated was the reason KillerChihuahua gave for removal. His reason was not it was not even related to this article. This was invalid for removal. BlackHades (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, the way to approach content is summarize high quality reliable secondary sources. Advocating for primary sources is going to get you no where. aprock (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Did I ever give the impression I wanted otherwise? This is in secondary sources. It was being summarized. This is different than simply stating "Studies on Korean infants adopted by European families have consistently shown a higher IQ than the European average", per the reasons I stated above. BlackHades (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two problems here. First, Ruston and Jensen is not a high quality secondary source.  They are two of the most controversial authors in this domain.  Second, what appears to be happening here is that large sections of their paper have been quoted verbatim in this wiki article.  There is a distinction between quoting verbatim and summarizing.  Likewise a distinction between using high quality secondary sources, and using sources embroiled in controversy.  I suggest that if you turn away from those at the center of the controversy any use sources outside that central clique of researchers (on both sides).  The Hunt/Carlson (2007) source is an excellent example of a high quality secondary source.  Ruston/Jensen (2005), not so much. aprock (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The summary was more based from the secondary source of Lynn. Lynn seems to be currently underrepresented in this article. With the source I added seemingly being the only one that uses Lynn. In regards to using high quality secondary sources. I certainly agree with that. And I would approve the use of more Hunt/Carlson in this article.


 * But I'm not sure that's what the issue is here. The issue here being, was KillerChihuahua's reason for removal a valid reason? His reason being that this line had nothing to do with the article. You've yet to defend his reasoning so would it be correct to assume you find his reason invalid? If I'm misjudging here, I apologize. I'm just trying to figure out where we are. Now if his reason was invalid, are we exploring other reasons why this line shouldn't be in the article? Would this be the current point of contention? Which we can certainly open for discussion. I just want to make sure we're on the same page here. BlackHades (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Lynn is another highly controversial active researcher in the domain, and can hardly be considered a high quality secondary source. Per WP:BURDEN, it's up to the person who wishes to add the content to build consensus for it.  Personally, I don't see how laundry lists of test scores improves the article. aprock (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt you would consider any secondary hereditarian source as high quality as this isn't the view you subscribe you. Whether Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, or Gottfredson. Per WP:Burden, it would be my responsibility to show that it meets WP:Verifiability when I add the text. Which I've done. After this is done, any editor that wishes to remove the material is obligated to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion. KillerChihuahua has not met this obligation. BlackHades (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:V is not the only policy that wikipedia operates under. Rushton/Jensen (2005) is a highly cited source in the article, and I think most of the citations are proper.  I would go as far as saying that with respect to summarizing hereditarian research, it is a one of the best sources available.  That this cadre of researchers are not mainstream is not something that I, or any other editor determines.  This is determined by the scientific community at large.  I understand that you feel strongly about promoting the hereditarian viewpoint.  I honestly think you'll have better luck winning consensus if you move away from such controversial sources and turn to less involved authors like Hunt, Dreary, Mackintosh, etc.  These authors are not entrenched in the decades old debate, and offer a high level, fairly neutral perspectives on much of what has come out of the last century of research.  I think you'd be hard pressed to label any of those authors as in one camp or the other. aprock (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're completely misjudging me. I don't feel strongly about promoting the hereditarian viewpoint. I care about balance and NPOV in this and any article. There are repeated attempts by some to do POV pushing through omission. This is what I strongly object it. Whether it's removing relevant reliable sources that supports either the hereditarian or environmental viewpoint. There is certainly a strong effort by some editors currently to systematically remove relevant hereditarian sources and text from this article one by one. This is what I'm against. And I would be against it if the opposite were true as well to remove relevant environmental sources.


 * But we're starting to stray from the issue now. Do you agree or disagree with KillerChihuahua's stated reason that the text in question is not related to this article? You seem to avoid this question each time I ask. And to your statements that there's enough other Korean adoption studies listed that this doesn't need to be there, I don't think this is a valid reason. There were 4 Black adoption studies listed and being summarized and 4 Korean adoption studies listed and summarized. Since 1 Korean adoption study is now removed, is it now okay to remove one of the Black adoption studies? This removal made no sense and KillerChihuahua's reason for removal was invalid. He doesn't appear to be defending it either as he's yet to join the debate here and no one else has defended his reasoning for removal. BlackHades (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We're dealing with an article that is almost 100% a he said, she said with respect to the hereditarian hypothesis, and your ideas of WP:NPOV appear to involve turning to the most controversial researchers in the field to support content. You can call it whatever you like.  My advice still stands; you'll find much better consensus for using sources outside of that small clique. aprock (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your advice is irrelevant in this particular situation. WP:NPOV states "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." You've yet to lay down a specific reason why this particular 1 out of 4 studies should be removed. What separates this study from the other 4 as grounds for removal? BlackHades (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a fine balance between enthusiasm for a topic and excessive zeal. Frequent and combative talk page posting is not helpful since articles are constructed with no deadline, and this article has swung between extremes over the last couple of years, so what is the urgency now? Given how recent discussions have played out, it's likely that behavior surrounding this page will be raised at WP:AE which, if only for tactical reasons, would suggest that "best practice" should be employed here (see WP:TPG). The first paragraph in the comment above needs more attention to previous discussion concerning the removed text, with collaborative comments to show how that text complies with policy and why points favoring its removal are invalid. The second paragraph is totally off topic for this page. Please stop making personal comments. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua's reason given was "Trim yet more which is about nourishment and not race. If you starve kids, they don't get to be as intelligent, but that has nothing to do with race". Given that the text is question is about race, intelligence, and nutrition. Would his specific reason be valid or invalid reasoning for removal? BlackHades (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given his reasoning, I'm curious as to why he didn't remove the sections in the article that was specifically devoted to nutrition and intelligence only without race. Such as  "Environmental factors including lead exposure,[66] breast feeding,[68] and nutrition[69][70] can significantly affect cognitive development and functioning. For example, iodine deficiency causes a fall, on average, of 12 IQ points.[71] Such impairments may sometimes be permanent, sometimes be partially or wholly compensated for by later growth. The first two years of life is the critical time for malnutrition, the consequences of which are often irreversible and include poor cognitive development, educability, and future economic productivity." If we're going to use his line of reasoning for removal, how would this line be relevant to the article? BlackHades (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * From what I can see of the study it does not directly mention race and intelligence, though such studies have been mentioned in secondary sources on this topic, though I have only found new articles and studies by hereditarians. Race and IQ, a collection of works by Ashley Montagu, offers a substantial amount of material regarding malnutrition's connection with this subject and he was a well-respected authority on the subject of race. That source would be of better use in this article.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The comment above starting "I highly doubt you would consider any secondary hereditarian source as high quality" misses a vital point—an independent and secondary source by definition cannot be described as "hereditarian". A source which has an identifiable POV is not suitable for the purpose envisaged. The remainder of the comment is also off the mark: a lot more than "verifiable" is required to justify material—see WP:NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're mischaracterizing WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV is "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It doesn't mean "only provide sources that has a middle position on the topic." The hereditarian view IS a significant view in the field and therefore should be fairly and proportionately represented. As well as the environmental view. Aprock specifically brought up WP:Burden. This is a subsection of WP:Verifiability. Which this statement meets the requirement of. After the text that meets this requirement is added, if an editor now decides to remove it, like KillerChihuahua has done, he now has the obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia as stated in WP:Verifiability which writes "any editor who then removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia." KillerChihuahua never stated NPOV, or undue weight, NOR, or other reasons. His stated reason for removal was that it has nothing to do with the article. So the question is, was KillerChihuahua's reason for removal valid or not? Neither you, nor aprock, nor anyone else seem to be defending KillerChihuahua's reason for removal. You haven't uttered a word about KillerChihuahua's stated reason for removal and neither has aprock. It's getting quite clear that KillerChihuahua's stated reason for removal was invalid and hence failed to meet his obligation for removal. BlackHades (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Go away for a year or so, the editors change, the arguments remain. We're still arguing over/mixing heredity and hereditarian and standardized IQ testing (which reflects societal norms) as a method attempting to quantify intelligence, and intelligence. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

BlackHades, you must have missed in WP:BURDEN where is stated:The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material..." (emphasis in original) which means you, as the one desiring to add or restore, need to find a source. Then you need to gain consensus that the source is reliable, and that it supports your desired content. Killer Chihuahua 02:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't mischaracterize WP:Burden. You must have missed this "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." (emphasis mine) My burden that it meets the requirement of reliable published source is met. Note that no one here has agreed with your reasoning for removal. Not one person has supported your reasoning that it has nothing to do with the article. You completely ignored YOUR obligation for removal which states "any editor who then removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia." You have failed this obligation. This was an invalid removal. BlackHades (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion appears to have reached an impasse. It's been explained to you several times that there are multiple policies that are relevant.  As discussed above, the content in the reliable source is already adequately summarized in the article.  If you want to change the content please feel free to make the edit, or propose an edit on the talk page.  If your only goal is to gather support against KC's edit, I think at this point that would fall into the realm of disruptive editing.  Until you come up with some constructive changes according to policy and principles laid out by WP:ARBR&I, there is little reason to discuss this further. aprock (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes there are multiple policies. You bring up WP:BURDEN which I already met the requirement of. Has KillerChihuahua met his requirement for removal? No. As already explained. You've yet to defend KillerChihuahua's reason for removal and simply ignore it each time I've asked. Then you bounce around with other possible reasoning which really just appear to amount to WP:I just don't like it. You don't address what makes this 1 particular study different from the others. Why should this study be omitted but not the others? What specifically makes this study different? There were previously 4 Black adoption studies listed and summarized and 4 Korean adoption studies listed and summarized. KillerChihuahua has removed 1 Korean adoption study with the improper reason that it's not related to this article. You haven't defended his reasoning, and gave no reasons why this particular study out of all the studies listed, is different and should be excluded. If anything, this would violate due/undue weight as now there's 4 Black adoption studies listed and now 3 Korean adoption studies listed. Why would this be preferable? The reason there's an impasse is that you continually avoid directly responding to my questions and concerns. And instead, respond back unrelated to anything I asked or address any of the concerns I've raised. Please respond to my questions and concerns raised so I don't have to repeat them over and over. BlackHades (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Has KillerChihuahua met his requirement for removal? 1. It's her, not his. 2. At the very start of this section you wrote KillerChihuahua claims this statement is not related... So yes, she has "met [her] requirement". Now you need to do your part. Guettarda (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize I didn't know it was her. As far as my part, my part has already been met as I've cited sources here and here. Which invalidates KillerChihuahua's reason that the text in question "has nothing to do with race" as it very clearly has to do with race. And no one yet has argued otherwise. BlackHades (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Citing sources isn't the same as addressing concerns. So no, you need to address the specific concerns expressed. And, um, your links point to Rushton and Lynn...you do realise that their work is widely dismissed as racist, right? Guettarda (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua claimed that the text in question has nothing to do with race. I provided reliable sources that meets WP:Verifiability that states otherwise. So I already specifically addressed the concerns raised by KillerChihuahua. Neither KillerChihuahua, nor anyone else, has yet made a single attempt to defend the stated reason for deletion. If anyone wants to defend KillerChihuahua's reason for deletion, please do. But so far no one has, including KillerChihuahua herself. The WP:I don't like it and WP:I didn't hear that is starting to get old.


 * In regards to Rushton and Lynn, their position is a significant view in the field. That some people might want to dismiss it as "racist" is irrelevant. Per WP:NPOV, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources must be represented fairly and proportionally. Might I note that the only survey done to assess the position of the field, the Snyderman & Rothman poll, shows the all environmental viewpoint to be a heavy minority at 15%. Some people are trying to act like this is the mainstream view when there is absolutely no evidence that it is. In fact there is evidence to the contrary. That Jensen's position IS the mainstream view. "An overwhelming majority also believe that individual genetic inheritance contributes to variations in IQ within the white community, and a smaller majority express the same view about the black-white and SES differences in IQ. While the private consensus among IQ experts has shifted to meet Jensen's “controversial” views, the public impression of their views has not moved at all.” Gottfredson, Linda. (1994) Egalitarian Fiction and Collective Fraud Society 31(3). pg 53-59. BlackHades (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't justify them by citing their close collaborators. Even if these were independent sources, it doesn't invalidate my point - whether they're right or wrong, Rushton's and Lynn's views are outside the mainstream. We write mainstream articles. We can't do that if we treat mainstream and non-mainstream sources equally. Guettarda (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Another secondary source.


 * "The three studies of Asian adoptees found that, despite often adverse preadoption experiences, these groups did relatively well on IQ tests in childhood. The largest study (Winick, Meyer, & Harris, 1975) was based on 141 Korean girls who had been adopted as infants or toddlers into US homes and were currently of elementary school age. For 111 of these children, IQ tests were available from school records. The average IQ was 107."


 * Loehlin, John. (2000) Group Differences in Intelligence "Handbook of Intelligence" pg 176-193. BlackHades (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a secondary source. But it doesn't appear to address the intersection of race and IQ. It (seems to) address IQ within a specific ethnic group. The source itself needs to clearly show the connection. And it says nothing about malnutrition, which is the point discussed in the text you highlighted at the start of the article. Guettarda (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Did you review the source? The entire section of pgs 176-193 has to with group differences and IQ. First between men and women. Then IQ differences between racial groups which this quote is from. It goes into great depth into racial IQ differences. And to your statement "it says nothing about malnutrition". What do you think "adverse preadoption experiences" is suppose to mean? BlackHades (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is precisely the problem I'm talking about. If I need to review the source to get the point, you haven't met your obligation per WP:BURDEN. You need to work from sources to explain how the content you want to restore is relevant to the article. This is not about whether you're right or wrong, it's about what you need to do in order to move forward. Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I provided you the source and clearly explained it to you. You claimed it had nothing to do with race when you're clearly wrong. The quote was taken from the section of the book titled "Racial and Ethnic Differences: Genetic or Environmental?". You're still going to claim it has nothing to do with race? BlackHades (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The last bit of the quote is as important as the first bit (all emphasis mine) ...

 For 111 of these children, IQ tests were available from school records. The average IQ was 107 — '''presumably somewhat inflated by norm shifts. Given the varying and unspecified IQ tests involved, a precise adjustment cannot be made, but if we assume that the typical test norms were 10-to-15 years old, this figure should be adjusted downward about 4 IQ points.'''
 * The preceding paragraph is also illuminating...

 A second adoption study, which obtained rather different results, compared 26 Black—Black and 20 Black—White children adopted into Black or White adoptive homes (Moore. 1986). All children were placed in their adoptive home by the age of 2 years and were given a standard IQ test (WISC) at ages 7 to 10. The Black—Black and Black—White children adopted into White homes can be compared with the corresponding groups in the Minnesota transracial study. After mean IQs are adjusted for age of norms, the mean was 108.7 for 9 Black—Black children adopted into White homes and 107.2 for 14 Black—White children similarly adopted compared with the corresponding 91.4 and 105.4 obtained at the original testing In Minnesota. The samples in the Moore study are quite small, of course, but as the data stand, the Black—Black group is substantially higher in average IQ than the corresponding Minnesota group, and there is no evidence of a difference in IQ between the Black—Black and the Black—White children.
 * I fail to see the point behind choosing to quote partially quote from the source if the inflated Asian scores are below the normalized Black-Black and Black-White scores from a study discussed on the exact same page. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Black studies you speak of is ALREADY in this article. Why are you bringing this up? Can you please try to stay on point. Given that you are strongly advocating omitting relevant Korean adoption studies that meets WP:Verifiability, I assume you'll feel it's justified that we remove these Black adoption studies from the article as well? Otherwise, it's just very hypocritical. These arguments to omit this study is just all over the map, with obscure and ever changing reasoning, which amounts to nothing more than WP:I just don't like it. BlackHades (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)\
 * The fact that you just brought up the Black studies from the same chapter now further bolsters my argument. That the text in question IS related to race and KillerChihuahua's stated reason for removal was completely wrong. BlackHades (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This does appear to be related to race. Other adoption studies seem to be listed on the page. I don't see how this one is any different than the others. Why include the others but not this one? GTZing (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * BlackHades, it appears when you added this content to the article you cited it to the primary source, and also to Jensen, Rushton and Lynn. It would be best to cite it to a secondary source that gives a neutral overview of the debate, such as the Loehlin source you quoted above. The Loehlin source discusses this adoption study in the broader context of race and intelligence, and is already cited elsewhere in the article. 101.0.71.30 (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We can cite the Loehlin source as well. But the Loehlin source mentions just 2 of the Korean adoption studies. This one and one other one. Lynn's source actually has the most comprehensive list of Korean studies. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with using Lynn as a source. This litmus test by some editors on whether to allow a source appears to be "is this source pro environmental or not?" Rather than "does this source meet WP:Verifiability. It's blatant WP:Truth that needs to stop. It's okay to have your own POV but please respect WP:NPOV when it comes to editing. Are we finally in agreement that the text in question is related to race? I can't believe it took a hundred replies to finally get to this point. BlackHades (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears there's agreement now that this text is related to race. Restoring this text now. I'll remove Rushton ref and add in Loehlin and King refs. BlackHades (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss to see how a concluding conversation between yourself, and IP, and a banned sock can be construed as consensus for inclusion. I've gone ahead and removed the content.  If you want to discuss how to improve that entire section to conform to policy standard, that would be a welcome conversation. aprock (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's hard to make sense of all this, since most of it is arguing about things other than the content. The text that BlackHades restored simply says and is sourced to Lynn (2006). As I understand it, the argument in favour of retaining this info comes from the fact that it is used as evidence (by both sides). The problem, as I see it, is that this isn't apparent from that bit of text. As I see it, if this information belongs in the article, it needs to be used in context (along the lines of "Lynn used [this stuff] to argue for higher Asian IQs" and elsewhere "[Whomever] used [this] to argue that diet affects IQ". Does this make sense? (The issue of whether these particular arguments belong in the article is another issue, and should be discussed in the context of well-written blocks of text, something this article has sore need for, at this point in time.) Guettarda (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Reviewing the section, it is dominated by raw data without significant synthesis from high quality secondary sources. In fact, it appears to be just a data dump of primary sources, which is a violation of WP:SYNTH.  Rewriting the section from a higher level is what is required.  The current approach amounts to the "present the data, let readers decide" style of editing championed by various editors, against core policy.  I would be happy to review the literature on adoption studies, but the current section is just a mess.  To you specific suggestion, I suggest avoiding the "he said, she said" style of presentation, and instead use high quality secondary sources for establishing tone and presentation. aprock (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course, I wasn't thinking of using it as "he said/she said" - I meant that in a discussion of the genetic view, Lynn's use of this example might be used, and separately, in a discussion of health, this example might be used. Both, of course, based on secondary sources (i.e., sources that discuss Lynn's use, and sources that discuss the other use). Guettarda (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll change the text to "Winick, Meyer, and Harris (1975) studied Korean infants adopted by American families and the effects of malnourishment on IQ. The Korean infants were divided into 3 categories. Malnourished, severely nourished, and well nourished. All 3 groups scored above average in IQ". This would be the summary by the source King. BlackHades (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Biology of Race. James King. pg 76. BlackHades (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That still does nothing to indicate to the reader why this study is in any way significant to the topic at hand. If you're going to add it to a section on genetics, you need to show that a notable source made a correlation involving genetics (which seems rather dubious in 1973) or at the very least that some source claimed that this has some sort of meaning related to genetics (though, of course, it does raise the question why we would consider such a source to be reliable, given the obvious error in attributing something like that to genetics.) Guettarda (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "it does raise the question why we would consider such a source to be reliable, given the obvious error in attributing something like that to genetics"<--Blatant POV push here. Obvious WP:I just don't like it. This is getting ridiculous now. It's significant because it's mentioned repeatedly in sources on the issue of race, intelligence, and adoption. Lynn, Rushton, Jensen, Loehlin, King. If it's mentioned repeatedly in WP:reliable sources on this topic, then it belongs in the article. Sorry but WP:I just don't like it is not a defense for exclusion. You're just jumping from one ridiculous excuse to another. First it's because you said it's not related to race. So I show several secondary sources that clearly link it to the race and intelligence discussion. Then it's because it wasn't a summary from a secondary source. So then I make it into one. And now you want to conjure up a new illusory objection?
 * Alright I'll go by your rules then. I'm removing the Tizard study on the same grounds. As the author very clearly states the study had absolutely nothing to do with race. "These studies were not undertaken with the aim of comparing the scores of different racial groups, but rather to examine the effects of different environments on development."--Tizard BlackHades (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm...interesting response. Not sure how it relates to what I said. Not sure how it's POV-pushing to say that a source that draws genetic conclusions (population genetic conclusions at that) from studies which don't address genetics might be one we'd want to take with a grain of salt. Guettarda (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

data tables
Per the discussion above, WP:RAWDATA, WP:PSTS, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:ARBR&I, I removed the data dump of tables which do not exist in any of the sources. As discussed above, this is a case of presenting the data and letting the user decide, promoting raw unsynthesized data above secondary sourced discussion. That this data was restored without opening a discussion on the talk is at the least disappointing. I have gone ahead and removed the data again. If there is a case to be made for restoring it, that case should be made here on the talk page per WP:BURDEN. aprock (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I was trying to figure out what the point of those tables was. I thought about removing them, but I hadn't had time to look through them thoroughly enough. Guettarda (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A comment on 'consensus' for edits
Not all editors will be aware of the history here concerning sockpuppets and banned editors. We've had a number of sockpuppets of. Mikemikev was originally banned for a year from this page, then banned from all of Wikipedia. He returns frequently - Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive lists some of his socks but not all of them. Just this year we've had, , , , besides several editing only at Race (human classification). Last month was blocked by ArbCom (and he was a sock of someone).

Last year we had numerous socks of Mikemikev, mainly IPs. In November we had a sock of banned Ferahgo the Assassin -.

made a major change in the lede in May 2011 and was topic banned from this article in January last year.

Everyone should be aware of these issues when discussing what consensus is or was - and note that sockpuppet edits are not valid edits and can be removed by anyone. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Poisoning the wells are we? Implying that any previous consensus may have been the result of "ebil" editors is not exactly the way towards constructive discussion. We can and should consider every contribution to an article as though it were made by an editor in good-standing. Even opinions provided in talk page discussions should be considered in this manner. Many changes are being made now that are not constructive and we are having difficulty discussing them because people keep making more such edits. The idea that we should also try to make arguments based on who made a previous contribution is quite nonsensical to me. For instance, Boothello purported to be acting based on positions raised by two editors on opposing sides of the debate who are not sanctioned in this topic area. That Boot was topic-banned months later should not take away from the fact that other editors were involved in discussion towards those changes.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 14:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there any policy which supports this position? aprock (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems to conflict with Banning_policy. Edits by ban-evading editors are normally reverted on sight. Guettarda (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I credited (blamed?) Mathsci in this edit summary when I meant Hans. Obviously I'm stereotyping mathematicians :) Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what conflicts? As far as poisoning the well, I think that people should know a bit about the history of how this article was edited, that they should be aware that sock puppets frequent it, and that they should be clear about the ArbCom sanctions. And no, we should not "consider every contribution to an article as though it were made by an editor in good-standing." or that "Even opinions provided in talk page discussions should be considered in this manner." Sockpuppets have no right to edit, full stop. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that editors have been blocked for proxy editing on behalf of banned editors, specifically . I'm not accusing anyone here of doing any of this, it's just in my opinion a useful reminder since most of this is buried in the archives. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyone who reads the policy with clear eyes would understand that this is the spirit of the policy. Banned editors don't have a "right to edit", but none of us have such a right. What is and is not allowed into an article should be based first and foremost on whether it complies with all our relevant content policies, not on who made the edit. Something should not be removed just because it may have been added by a banned editor or received the support of a banned editor. Certainly we shouldn't act as if any edit made by someone who was later banned should then be considered tainted, as you imply with your statements about Boothello. I don't see reason for creating a section such as this on the talk page unless you are trying to poison the wells.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I 100% absolutely agree. Silver  seren C 22:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed that you think I'm poisoning the well. However, TDA's clarification is correct. I'm not suggesting that something be removed because just because it was added by an editor who was later banned. You'd need other reasons. With no specific examples in mind, if an editor was banned for misrepresenting or fabricating sources, then you'd want to investigate their edits, right? So, as usual, it depends upon circumstances. Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * On the subject of evasion, the editor operating out of 101.0.71.0/24 appears to be using PureVPN to hide their IP address. Note that PureVPN's Australian hostname resolves to 101.0.71.2. --92.4.162.209 (talk)23:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See . Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This bit: Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This anon (92.4.162.209) is talking about the other IP, 101.0... not 111.161... Guettarda (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

US-centric or not
Is this really a US-centric topic or not? While there's a little bit of international flavour around the edges, it looks like a US topic - from eugenics, to the Bell Curve. Not always carried out by Americans, but deeply nested within American race stratification. So does we "internationalise" the article (re-write it from top to bottom) or do we rename it? Guettarda (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There used to be substantial material about international comparisons, but it all got excised by Aprock some time ago. It may be focused in the U.S. but it is international in scope.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You appear to be repeatedly running headlong into WP:ARBR&I. Lynn's books hardly can be considered as international views of the topic.  They are primary sources, not peer reviewed, and are only representative Lynn and his coauthors views. aprock (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have actually looked over the sources of that section and it is clear that views from many different academics of differing views outside the U.S. were included in that section. Lynn himself is a British academic. That section clearly established that it was not a U.S.-centric debate. Please stop throwing out these baseless and misplaced accusations about use of sources.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what baseless accusations you're referring to here, but most of the content is sourced to primary sources without significant secondary sourcing to establish context and weight. The majority of the sources are from Lynn, people who used his data for further extrapolation, or academic critiques of his work.  As noted in the diff you supplied, the "excised" content is entirely mirrored in Nations and intelligence, and the current section links directly there.  If you'd like to apply a WP:SUMMARY style which is more verbose, you're certainly welcome to improve that section according to guidelines. aprock (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think there should be a longer summary, but the point I was making is simply that there is an international dispute and it is not just an American dispute.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're calling it "international comparisons" we're working from a US-centric model. We wouldn't call it "international comparisons" if it's a properly internationalised article. And looking at the literature, it seems to be very heavily US-focussed. Which is interesting, since the key players are Brits (albeit based in the US and Canada). A properly internationalised article would seek to give similar coverage to all areas of the world. Now, granted, that creates problems since the research wasn't done in that way. One way to deal with that would be to spin off "R&I in the US" as a daughter article, though that creates problems of its own. There probably are other ways to move forward on this, I'm just not sure what they are. Guettarda (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that IQ/personality/employment/etc tests are more culturally accepted in the US. This sort of research occurs on US data precisely because there is just a wealth of it.  Referring back to Lynn, the lack of data prompted him to offer up curious methodologies like "averaging IQ from nearby countries" and other questionable techniques in synthesizing data. aprock (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course, Lynn's work was, um, interesting. Apart from the circularity of interpolating data as the basis for extrapolation, there's the issue of comparing IQ scores among, rather than within countries. But the fact that there's (much, much) more data from the US doesn't change the fact that we can't write from a US perspective on a general article. Especially when there's no reason to assume that US data would be typical of the world as a whole. Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the question of whether the article is US-centric or not should only affect style (spelling). Content should be kept if it referenced to reliable sources.  If content is on topic, and represented in reliable sources, it is ipso facto valuable content.  If the article needs more non-US coverage of the topic, the solution is not to remove US coverage—that just removes valuable content without adding anything—the solution is to add non-US coverage.  If the article becomes too large for technical reasons, then it should be split up. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is the 4th time now KillerChihuahua has removed this from the lead. This time she's even removed the work that Guettarda just put in to balance the lead from other parts of the body. Unless someone can give a valid reason why the lead shouldn't have a summary of the body per WP:LEAD, I'm moving to restore this. BlackHades (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Restoring now. There doesn't appear to be any objection. The lead should have a summary of the body per WP:LEAD. KillerChihuahua's reason of WP:IMPERFECT is not valid for removal and is being restored per WP:PRESERVE. BlackHades (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So (to pick something specific) are you saying we should have a section on "US scores" and one on "international comparisons" or that we should have one on "scores" with subsections on the US and other countries? Guettarda (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think either way would matter that much. This article will always be somewhat US centric as that's simply the reflection of the material that exists in WP:reliable sources on this topic. There's far more research done in the US due to the racial diversity of the US. BlackHades (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There may be some style issues here, on which I would defer to others in my opinion. However, I would think material should be kept together as much as possible, and only split when it becomes too large to keep in one place reasonably. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To those that keeps trying to remove summary of "group differences" from the lead. Should the lead have a summary of the body per WP:LEAD or not? I don't understand the constant attempt by some to remove the summary of "group differences" that's in the body from the lead. Why not just remove the entire section of "group differences" in the body while you're removing the lead then? But as long as it's a major part of the body, it belongs in the lead per WP:LEAD. BlackHades (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a case, please do. But don't revert an edit that has stood for over a week as soon as KC is in hospital. Guettarda (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know KC was in the hospital. And I certainly wish her well. But I don't believe that means discussion stops. No one responded back to Atethnekos that the solution is not to remove US coverage but to add non-US coverage. No one has responded back to the points I've made either. The case has already been made. Does anyone have a response to points made by Atethnekos? KC's reasoning for her 4th's removal attempt was because it wasn't international enough. But this would fall under WP:IMPERFECT which wouldn't be a valid reason for removal. Per WP:PRESERVE, the lead should be restored and we should be working on adding relevant international content to the body and to the lead and not removing relevant content which is counter productive as previously stated. The lead is suppose to have a summary of the body per WP:LEAD. If you have reasons to believe otherwise, please state them. BlackHades (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You claimed that you restored the text "per talk". What talk? Certain not this section, which has discussed nothing of substance. Guettarda (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The responses thus far (please let me know if you think my summary doesn't accurately reflect someone's point): That's where we got to. Not one person seemed to recognise my question as one of systemic bias. If I slapped on the article, would people even know what I'm talking about? Rather than resolve the problem, we had a conversation that's a classic example of the problem. Guettarda (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) TDA saying: "There used to be substantial material about international comparisons"
 * 2) Aprock saying: the material removed was problematic (Lynn, etc.)
 * 3) TDA saying: sources had many views from people outside the US
 * 4) Aprock: majority of sources from Lynn
 * 5) TDA: not simply an American dispute.
 * Conclusion? I don't know if there was one.
 * 1) Me again: If we call non-US data "international comparisons" doesn't the presume a US topic?
 * 2) Aprock: more culturally accepted in the US; Lynn's data had problems
 * Me: Yep, Lynn's data is interesting (IOW, nonsense)
 * 1) Atethnekos: Content should be referenced to reliable sources, if it needs more non-US coverage, the solution isn't to remove US coverage. Split if too long for technical reasons
 * 2) BlackHades: KC removed the material from the lead four times
 * 3) BlackHades: Restoring now
 * Me: again, should we have "US scores" and "international comparisons" in an international article
 * 1) BlackHades: Doesn't matter much, more research in the US
 * 2) Atethnekos: Style issues; keep material together
 * 3) Black Hades: Should the lead have a summary per WP:LEAD?
 * I guess I misunderstood your original question. When you asked whether it was a US-centric topic, I thought you meant to ask whether the actual topic of race and intelligence is US-centric. Now it seems to me you were asking whether this article is supposed to be US-centric.  My answer to the latter question is no, I don't believe so.  The article is supposed to cover aspects of the topic of race and intelligence, whether those aspects are with regards to the US or with regards to any other country. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This should cover all aspects of relevant material that exists on the topic of race and intelligence which would make this article international. But as already stated by others, doing so would give somewhat more weight to the US as that's simply a reflection of the material that exists in reliable sources. This wouldn't be due to systematic bias of editors and wouldn't qualify as undue. We can only work with the material that exists. But this is besides the point in regards to the lead. Atethnekos stated if the topic needs more non-US coverage, the solution is to add more non-US coverage not remove relevant US coverage. WP:PRESERVE would also affirm what he stated. WP:LEAD also affirms the content in question should be in the lead as it is a major component of the body. We will certainly adjust the lead once more content is added to the body but as of now, the lead should be a reflection of what is currently in the body. So I ask again, is there a valid reason why the lead shouldn't be restored? Per WP:LEAD and per WP:PRESERVE? BlackHades (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Have any of those claiming this article is not US-centric actually tried to stand back and have a look at it and imagine how it looks to a non-American. Try the second paragraph for starters. Seriously. See those three Wikilinks? Note the first word in each one. I'm not accusing, or criticising. Just observing. It simply IS US-centric. What we do about it should really be the issue now. HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If the overwhelming material in WP:reliable sources is from the US in regards to this topic, then this article itself will in turn have more material from the US. We can only work with what exists. This doesn't necessarily imply there is systematic bias from editors. We should certainly add international material whenever it is possible but this doesn't mean we should be removing relevant US material. BlackHades (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: as I see it, EITHER this is a US-centric topic, in which case the article's structure is OK (but we should move it to "Race and intelligence in the United States", or it isn't a US-centric topic. In which case, we need to structure it in such a way that we do something about the systemic bias the pervades the article. Guettarda (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the American Anthropological Association and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists should not feature in this article. Other than that all international (psychology) sources are used. If most of them are based in the US or use US data, so what? It is not a problem. Go argue to change Light gas gun to Light gas gun research in United States, which is a far more striking case. PsychKitten (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe I will, but whether I do or not has nothing to do with whether we fix this now. And race is a far more sensitive topic than anything in Light gas gun. The text is blatantly US-centric. It gives the impression that it's really a US topic. And maybe it is. The US is far more concerned with race these days than a lot of other countries. Given its history (black slavery in particular), that's not surprising, so we shouldn't pretend otherwise. There's nothing wrong with it being primarily a US topic. Let's just make it clear that it is in the title. HiLo48 (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to fix. The article includes a significant quantity of non-US research and the article is about the broader topic. The only case of US centrism I can see is including the opinion of the AAPA. PsychKitten (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So, after several people carefully point out some specific issues, you blithely sit there and type "There is nothing to fix" without addressing the other editors' concerns. That's poor manners, at an absolute minimum, and will obviously fail to convince those others of anything. This is a page for discussion, not for making unilateral, POV statements. HiLo48 (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is an issue with international scope and of international interest. That it is geared more towards the U.S. is a result of systemic editorial bias and due to the reality that the United States is basically the center for academic research in the modern era. Sources do cover this debate in international contexts, with note of international comparisons. Look over the sources in the diff of the original international comparisons section I linked to above at the beginning of this discussion to see examples.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Primary source double standard
Why is Rushton a primary source but Eppig, Fincher & Thornhill are not? PsychKitten (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is so much content in this article in support of the environmental view based on primary sources. But apparently they're not allowed to be touched. BlackHades (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

which studies? seems dubious
According to several studies, Ashkenazi Jews score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average.

which ones? citation needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.20.36 (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Internal disagreement
Why does the introduction to this article say "There is no widely accepted formal definition of either race or intelligence in academia, nor is there agreement on IQ's validity as a gauge of intelligence"

While the WP article on intelligence says "Intelligence tests are widely used in educational,[15] business, and military settings due to their efficacy in predicting behavior. IQ and g (discussed in the next section) are correlated with many important social outcomes—individuals with low IQs are more likely to be divorced, have a child out of marriage, be incarcerated, and need long-term welfare support, while individuals with high IQs are associated with more years of education, higher status jobs and higher income.[16] Intelligence is significantly correlated with successful training and performance outcomes, and IQ/g is the single best predictor of successful job performance.[1][17]"

From what I have read (here on wikipedia!), it sounds like criticism of IQ as a valid measure of intelligence is a minority opinion. Isn't this article's introduction a bit misleading?

173.71.196.164 (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. aprock (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That article might better be titled psychometric intelligence. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the title is going to change. This conversation has occurred, and the difficulty is that the phrase "race and intelligence" is the predominant term used in the literature. aprock (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Restoring "Brain Size"
KillerChihuahua and ArtifexMayhem have removed this section from the article and is putting absolutely no effort or suggestions to help restore it. I would assume because they don't want it in the article. But there's too many WP:reliable sources regarding this topic to be omitting it from the article. So let's start putting some effort to restore this section.

The new "Brain Size" should include 3 sections. WP:reliable sources that argue brain size differences is a contributing factor in racial IQ differences (Lynn, Templer), WP:reliable sources that argue brain size differences is not a contributing factor in racial IQ differences (Wicherts, Cernovsky), and WP:reliable sources that states there is not enough evidence at this point for either conclusion. (Hunt).

I did a cursory review on primary and secondary sources for all 3 sections and I must note that Rushton is very heavily mentioned and cited in all 3. Most likely due to the fact that he's done by far the most amount of research on this topic. So this section will likely mention Rushton a lot. This would not be WP:UNDUE as this is simply a reflection of the material that exists in WP:reliable sources on this topic. The argument whether Rushton is UNDUE on other sections of the article or not, should have absolutely no bearing on this specific section. So let's start working on this. BlackHades (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you intend to work on rewriting this section, but first I want to make a suggestion. You say that Rushton is heavily mentioned in secondary sources about race, brain size and intelligence. In some of your earlier edits you often cited Rushton and Lynn directly, but where Rushton is discussed in secondary sources it might be best to cite the secondary source instead of citing Rushton. That would make it easier to determine that Rushton is not being given more weight than secondary sources give him. 101.0.71.20 (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He's done by far the most research on this topic. That should mean at least a little weight. And despite ArtifexMayhem's previous claim of WP:SYNTH, numerous WP:reliable sources link the individual brain size to IQ correlation to the possible explanation of brain size differences in races being a factor in IQ differences. His claim of WP:SYNTH here was wrong so this part will be restored in the new "Brain Size". BlackHades (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as you're using high quality secondary sources for content and weight, you should be fine. If you start expanding the content based on primary sources I suspect that you'll have difficulty getting consensus support for including the section.  Recall that Rushton is a primary source for his own research. aprock (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is acceptable to cite Rushton occasionally, but it's better to use secondary sources. The arbitration rules allow primary sources as long as they're used carefully so that original research is avoided. My point was that ArtifexMayhem appears to believe even the smallest reference to Rushton is undue weight, but it will be harder to argue that if the summary of Rushton is cited to a secondary source such as Hunt. 101.0.71.29 (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A meta-analysis of studies concluded differences in brain size are associated with intelligence in individuals. Many scientists have acknowledged that races differ in average brain size that descends in the order from East Asians to Whites to Blacks. Some scientists have concluded that these differences are the cause of average differences in intelligence between races and are genetically rooted. Other scientists have criticized these results. Wicherts stated that although average brain size differences between races exists, the hypothesis that this is the cause of average IQ differences between races is flawed. Wicherts further stated that even if average brain size differences between races were entirely genetic in origin, it leaves unexplained 91-95% of the black-white IQ gap. Cernovsky stated that average brain sizes are based on climate zones rather than by race and that using brain/body size ratio as a valid indicator of intelligence is misleading.  Hunt and Carlson (2007) wrote that differences in individual brain size are associated with intelligence and that Rushton's hypothesis might explain the disparity in black-white IQ scores. But that Rushton's measurements on average brain sizes differences between races were based on exterior skull measurements and further studies using modern MRI techniques may give this hypothesis a better test and concluded it would not be appropriate to enter into a detailed discussion at this point.
 * Here is the draft for restoring "Brain Size". I tried to make it as neutral and accurate as possible. It seems both hereditarians and environmentalists today seem to agree that there is average brain size differences that exists that descends from East Asians to Whites to Blacks although differ on the reasons and implications of it. For example, Wicherts and Neisser are both environmentalists and both acknowledge the existence of average brain size differences between races but argue there are environmental reasons for it. The assertion that the measurements are wrong of itself, such as previously argued by Gould, appear to have been debunked. Study Debunks Stephen Gould BlackHades (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please supply supporting sources. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated with refs. BlackHades (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That text isn't even kind of OK. At first glance it is replete with weasel words, it contains inappropriate synthesis, it misuses sources...but even before we get to that, it fails in terms of basic English grammar and sentence construction. There's a consistent lack of subject-verb agreement and failure at basic sentence construction. Guettarda (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Vague statements will get you nowhere. BlackHades (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As with the previous version, the sources are being misused...and rather egregiously. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Might be useful to point out how. Not to mention your previous WP:SYNTH argument was completely wrong. You never replied back to criticism of your analysis either. BlackHades (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Last warning. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Warning for what? You never replied back. I've repeatedly requested for you to. BlackHades (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Vague statements? OK, how about this: your proposal is so badly written that it's an insult to your readers. You can't expect people to waste their time commenting on content when you can't be bothered with things as basic as grammar and sentence construction. Guettarda (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Grammar and sentence construction are perfectly fine. Your inability to point out specifics is clear evidence of it. BlackHades (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be absurd. •A meta-analysis of studies have concluded [subject/verb agreement] •Wicherts have stated [subject-verb agreement again] that although the average brain size differences between races exists, [mangled English] the hypothesis is flawed [what hypothesis? Sentence lacks an object] •And even if average brain size differences between races were entirely genetic in origin, it leaves unexplained 91-95% of the black-white IQ gap [sentence fragment, or at the very least unacceptable sentence construction] •Cernovsky have stated... [subject-verb agreement again] •But that Rushton's measurements [of what? sentence lacks object again] were based on exterior skull measurements and further studies using modern MRI techniques may give this hypothesis a better test and concluded it would not be appropriate to enter into a detailed discussion at this point And that's just the grammatical errors, not the weasel wording, not the misuse of sources. Are you really unaware that singular nouns take singular verbs, and plural nouns take plural verbs? Guettarda (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * None of those are actual grammatical errors. Such phrasing are consistently used in journalism. From New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, etc. If you want, I'll send you examples. But I'll change them anyways in hopes you'll let it go. Instead of nitpicking, I'd recommend staying on the core subject matter. BlackHades (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Subject-verb agreement isn't a grammatical error? You're seriously claiming that subject-verb agreement isn't required in English? OK, that settles it - you seriously lack the skill set required to write a encyclopaedia articles. Guettarda (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This from someone that originally picked on my grammar without noticing grammar mistakes of his own. I would say you lack the temperament required for talk. You become hostile to anyone that doesn't share your viewpoint rather than try to work together. For example, you create a new section on talk simply to accuse me of edit warring when I restore relevant content per WP:LEAD for a 2nd time but don't utter a peep about KillerChihuahua's 4th removal of the lead. Your actions toward editors, and the level of hostility, are more based on what viewpoint they have rather than by rules or integrity they present. BlackHades (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Specific issues: With respect to actual copy, I'll discuss this sentence: "Many scientists have acknowledged that races differ in average brain size that descends in the order from East Asians to Whites to Blacks." While the sources included may actually support that, this appears to be an inversion of the editing process, with content being written first, and then sources being used to support that content. What should be happening is that high quality sources be found first, summaries written, and where the summary refers to content originally developed in primary sources, citations included. aprock (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The section starts out by summarizing a primary source instead of using a secondary source as a basis for laying out the topic.
 * The Rushton/Jensen source is promoted above the more mainstream Hunt/Carlson source.
 * Several of the sources are cherry picked.
 * How about one of you provide the version you would like to see in the article?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When I have the time to do so, I'll be happy to. Developing new content articles like this neutrally requires a large block of time to research, read, and summarize source.  Most of the problematic edits have approached content without that kind of care.  You're certainly welcome to contribute as well.  If you think there are any key independent secondary sources which merit review, please note them. aprock (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The first section would be the summary of the hereditarian argument. Which consistently is that individual brain size is related to intelligence, there are differences in brain size between races, these differences are the cause of average differences in IQ and are based on genetics. This isn't content being written first. This is actual summary from every hereditarian in the field from Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Templer, Gottfredson, etc. If anyone else wants to summarize the hereditarian position then be my guest. But statements like "it's bad" without specifics like Guettarda keeps doing is absolutely worthless. BlackHades (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see just above: for specific issues. aprock (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I was addressing that. The first section is meant to be a summary of the hereditarian position as stated above. Rushton/Jensen isn't being promoted above Hunt & Carlson. Hunt & Carlson is given an entire section to themselves. On the issue of citations, we can remove some of the citations if you feel they're not appropriate. Do you feel the hereditarian position isn't being accurately summarized? From what I gathered, this appeared to be the summary of the hereditarian position from Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Templer, Gottfredson, etc. BlackHades (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And that's just the first paragraph... Guettarda (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First sentence says A meta-analysis of studies have concluded differences in brain size are associated with intelligence in individuals; references Hunt & Carlson.
 * While Hunt & Carlson reference McDaniels (2006) they say nothing about metaanalysis; they're also not a the best source for this anyway when there's a wealth of recent literature (including reviews) from neuroscience.
 * Second sentence: Many scientists have acknowledged that races differ in average brain size that descends in the order from East Asians to Whites to Blacks; references Wicherts et al. 2010, Neisser 1997, Rushton & Jensen 2005 and Gottfredson 2012.
 * To begin with, "many scientists" is problematic. All of the sources here are psychologists; while some psychologists come from backgrounds that usually meet the definition of "scientist", psychology is a social science, and social scientists aren't normally considered "scientists".
 * Second problem: "many" is synthesis. It can be deduced from the sources that seven authors here cited feel that way, but deducing many from an array of sources violates WP:SYNTH
 * Third problem: "acknowledged" - this suggests that they "acknowledged a truth", which is inappropriate editorialisation.
 * Fourth problem: using Rushton & Jensen as a primary source; Rushton on brain size has been very controversial, and using him as a primary source for this is inappropriate
 * Fifth problem: the Gottfredson article is a lengthy discussion of Rushton's use of r/K theory in humans, despite the fact that it has been long demonstrated that Rushton misused r/K theory and that, contrary to Rushton's and Gottfredson's presentation of it, it's an outdated concept in life history evolution. So again, it's inappropriate to use this as if it were an uncontroversial source
 * Sixth problem: Wickerts et al. call the differences in brain size "virtually meaningless"; using them as a source here is quote mining
 * Seventh problem: Neisser is "acknowledging" Lynn and Rushton's claims about brain size; again, quote mining
 * Eighth problem: As presented, it looks like all the authors discuss the range of variation. Wicherts et al., however, only mention black-white differences, while (as I mentioned) Neisser is only discussing Rushton and Lynn's views. And Gottfredson is basically discussion Rushton as well.
 * Third sentence: Some scientists have concluded that these differences are the cause of average differences in intelligence between races and are genetically rooted; references Rushton & Lynn, Gottfredson, and Templer.
 * "Some say" is problematic; what we have here is Rushton, Lynn, Gottfredson (discussing Rushton's ideas) and Templer's defence of Rushton...
 * Including Templer is odd, since he neither uses the words gene nor genetic in his article, nor does he use "inherit*" or "heredit*"
 * First sentence: We can remove the Hunt & Carlson ref. This issue would be irrelevant as the following refs in the following sentences lists more than enough studies relating to brain size to individual IQ and the possible relationship it has on average brain size differences between races. We can change meta-analysis to "several".
 * Second sentence: What would you suggest changing "many scientists" into? Acknowledged means they recognize that it exists which they do. Much of Rushton/Jensen would be secondary and not based on their own research. Gottfredson's cite is used to support the statement "Some scientists have concluded that these differences are the cause of average differences in intelligence between races and are genetically rooted.". Whether r/K theory is accurately used or not is absolutely irrelevant here. But if it really bothers you, we can find another Gottfredson ref to replace it. Wicherts does acknowledge the existence of brain size order between races. But if this bothers you, we can remove this ref. And of course Gottfredson would be discussing Rushton. Why wouldn't she? All of the sources here discuss Rushton as he's published far more work on this subject matter than anyone else.
 * Third sentence: I don't understand the problem of the word "some". Do you want to use "many"? How about "a number of". Would you prefer this term? BlackHades (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Some independent secondary source should be used. Your suggestion that Hunt/Carlson be removed, and instead we use controversial sources to set the tenor of the section goes against policy and WP:ARBR&I findings.  It's not clear to me that your grasp of relevant policy and editing practices in a controversial area are sufficient for the task.  Using Rushton's work as template for the section isn't going to result in content which can be used for the article.  Allow me to suggest that you put aside all the sources that you currently have and instead take a stab at summarizing Hunt's Human Intelligence (2012), pp 434-446.  It may not be the most bestest source, but it's a recent high quality secondary source, and certainly a better starting point than Rushton/Jensen (2004). aprock (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The hereditarian view, such as Rushton, is a significant view in the field. Are you disagreeing with this? And his work isn't being used as a template. The first section would be a summary of all hereditarians in the field, not just Rushton. I don't understand the attempt to completely remove WP:reliable sources simply on the basis that they don't agree with it or think it's "controversial". If it's a significant view in the field, per WP:NPOV it belongs in the article. This means the hereditarian view, the environmental view, as well as viewpoints from Hunt & Carlson. Nitpicking what views of the field should or shouldn't be in the article would violate WP:NPOV. I hope you understand that. BlackHades (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow me to suggest that you go ahead and actually read Human Intelligence, pages 434-446, the greater part of which discusses the work of Rushton et. al. When it comes to determining how the article should go about "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias" controversial topics, it is precisely independent secondary sources like Hunt 2012 that we turn to.  You should be able to borrow a copy from the local library. aprock (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We seem to be avoiding the bigger question here. Should the hereditarian position be given or not? I find it highly ironic that we actually have to have a debate on this for a section of the article titled "Genetic Arguments". Are genetic arguments actually allowed under genetic arguments? BlackHades (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't using Hunt & Carlson; the problem is attributing things to a source that the source doesn't say. And no, changing "metaanalysis" to "several" doesn't solve the problem - you'd have to find a source that said as much. The point is that McDaniels looks like a good source - it's widely cited. Find a good source (preferably a review like Deary et al.), and report what the source says. Again, in the second sentence, we can't say "many scientists" based on a survey of sources. None of those sources say anything like that - it's an inference, based on the source. And that violates WP:SYNTH. Based on those sources we really can't say anything, because they're primary sources. And we can't say "acknowledges" for the same reason that we can't "recognise" that something exists. According to Wicherts et al., the difference is 0.6 s.d. (and note that they are comparing the differences to the overall standard deviation in brain sizes; a smaller sample is likely to have a larger standard deviation, so 0.6 is a generous estimate). That's not an unequivocal difference. The standard level of significance is 0.05, or about 2 s.d. If someone says "these means are different", they aren't "acknowledging" a difference that's real, they're saying that they believe that there's a real difference, despite the lack of a significant difference. Even if a difference is statistically significant, that doesn't mean that it's real. Statistical significance is an agreed-upon convention. And if you're working at a p < 0.05 level, you still should expect to be wrong 5% of the time. Guettarda (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that Godfredson is presenting something that's known to be incorrect means she's not a credible source. Like Rushton, we shouldn't use her as a primary source at all. The main point is that the sentence "many scientists have concluded" boils down to "Rushton says". If that's what we mean, that's what we should say. If we want to say something more, we need sources that say something more. Guettarda (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's review all the sources that you consider not credible. Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Gottfredson...so essentially anybody that doesn't share your viewpoint correct? Regardless of being published repeatedly in peer reviewed journals including the APA. If it's peer reviewed and published by the APA, it probably overrides your personal opinion of whether it meets WP:Verifiability. Attempts at omission here would be WP:Truth. BlackHades (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Credibility is not something that is assigned by wikipedia editors. If you believe that these are highly credible sources, you need to provide high quality independent secondary sources that establish that view, and which can be used as a guide for content and weight.  There have been several such sources mentioned above and below, Hunt/Carlson, Hunt's Human Intelligence, The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, etc.  All of these sources characterize the work of Rushton/Jensen et. al. as problematic and inconclusive.  By all means, more high quality secondary sources which take more nuanced or laudatory views would be welcome.  If you have any, please do present them.  Note that when it comes to characterizing research in this domain, Rushton is in fact a primary source, and is generally only a reliable source for details about his own theories. aprock (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Gottfredson and Templer reviewing Rushton's work isn't secondary? Or would it have to be heavily critical of Rushton in order to meet the definition of "high quality independent secondary sources"? BlackHades (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In the third sentence, again, you can't say "some" when your sources don't say "some". And even then, you should be specific. In this case, it isn't "some", it's Rushton, as reported by Rushton, Gottfredson and Templer. Guettarda (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources don't have to say "some". As an editor you should know that. If we were to go by your rule, we would have to rewrite every article on wikipedia. And no it's not just Rushton. As Jensen, Lynn, Gottfredson, and Templer have all reached the same conclusions. There are others as well. You want to just add every name to the section? BlackHades (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to come late to this discussion, but is Rushton not an extremist source? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A more neutral adjective might be "controversial", but yes he's not regarded as representative of the mainstream views on the issue. aprock (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he'd beg to differ. And Arthur Jensen would be considered as mainstream as they come. His book "The g Factor" is considered absolutely central in the field of psychology and is one of the most heavily cited reference in the field of psychology. He's been listed by several sources as one of the most prominent psychologists of all time. Many academics have considered the Snyderman & Rothman poll as vindication for his position. You don't get to where he is without being mainstream. BlackHades (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Independent secondary sources don't agree with you when it comes to their work on race and intelligence. aprock (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends what source it is. There are certainly examples of sources that claim the hereditarian position is mainstream. BlackHades (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it may go beyond that. Extremist sources are not to be used in WP, except in very limited circumstances. I'm looking at things like Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer being a founder of Mankind Quarterly. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the number of prominent mainstream academics who consider his views worthy of academic exploration, your suggestion that we make some political decision about inclusion of his views is inappropriate and has no basis in policy. Eugenics had a prominent role in the shaping of various fields in the study of human behavior. A past association with eugenics should not be used to condemn a source in the present day.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Concurr. The fact that there are many prominent academics that considers Rushton's viewpoints worthy of exploration, including Hunt & Carlson, makes it a valid source. Being controversial is irrelevant on the topic of inclusion. His work is published repeatedly in peer reviewed journals and cited heavily by secondary sources. Omission here is absolutely inappropriate. BlackHades (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hunt & Carlson? Have you read their article? It's a brutal critique of much of Rushton & Jensen's work. Not the most brutal, by a long shot, but it's about as bad as anything I have read in an academic journal, by someone who could be considered a colleague. Hunt is also very critical of Rushton here; especially after reading the latter article I'd say that Hunt's view of Rushton and Lynn's claims are worthy of refutation, rather than worthy of exploration...important to refute because they are presented so misleadingly. Guettarda (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not the past association with eugenics that I'm talking about. It's the association with Nazism. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What relevance does that have? Animal welfare legislation and the jet engine were also associated with Nazism. Do you want to go to these articles and point this out? PsychKitten (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring specifically to Hunt/Carlson's statement regarding Rushton's hypothesis on brain size differences between races. Hunt/Carlson makes a lot of criticism of environmental positions as well. Note that there is no consensus in the field on this topic so there is a very wide variation of positions held in WP:reliable sources. Per WP:NPOV all significant views must be represented. That includes the position held by Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Templer, Gottfredson, etc. You seem to argue for the complete omission of one side of the debate. But neither you, nor anyone else, gets to pick and choose which views belong in the article. That would be WP:Truth. All significant views must be represented including ones that you don't agree with. BlackHades (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please cut out your bullshit accusations. I'm sick of your crap already, and you've only been back from your block for what - 2 days? and you're engaging full bore in the sort of nonsense that earned you the block in the first place. I am not "argu[ing] for the complete omission of one side of the debate"...that's utterly false, and you damn well know it's false. I'm arguing against your insistence on using your own interpretation of primary sources. I'm arguing against your insistence on building an article around the primary sources of a group that's viewed by the mainstream as fringe. Now please cut out the bullshit. Guettarda (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please demonstrate that the "no genetic differences in intelligence" position is mainstream. This is asserted ad nauseam but I have yet to see it demonstrated. PsychKitten (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes this is asserted ad nauseam but I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence of it. The only survey of the field done would show the "no genetic differences in intelligence" to be a heavy minority in the field. If they feel the hereditarian view isn't mainstream, I am interested to know what their explanation would be of how such content gets repeatedly peer reviewed and published in major mainstream journals such as the APA. Non-mainstream views cannot do this. (e.g. creationism never passes peer review, e.g. moon landing hoax). BlackHades (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which part is my interpretation of primary sources? Gottfredson and Templer's review of Rushton is a primary source? If you truly are not arguing for the omission of one side, then you agree the hereditarian positions held and published such as those by Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Gottfredson, Templer, etc should be represented in this section correct? If yes, then I apologize. If no, then my assertion was 100% correct in that you're advocating complete omission of a significant view in the field. BlackHades (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, the problem is that you and several other editors appear to only be concerned about raising issues with the content you see as favorable to the hereditarian view, and even then are only interested in deleting it, tagging it, or finding fault with it rather than improving it. The issues with sourcing and interpretation exist in a large amount of content pertaining to both positions, yet you seem to be focusing entirely on one side. You don't like the hereditarian view, that much is clear, but we have to be even-handed in examining issues in the article or else the content becomes slanted too much towards one position.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "You don't like the hereditarian view". No TDA, our characterisation of my likes and dislikes is actually false and more than a little offensive. But hey, when policy isn't on your side, just accuse anyone who disagrees with your POV of bias. Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes this is a MAJOR problem. Relevant content on the hereditarian view has been consistently removed on the flimsiest of reasons with zero effort by those that remove them to fix or restore them. With tenacious efforts to impede or block any and all attempts to add or restore any relevant content of the hereditarian view. Yet somehow they find absolutely zero fault with any environmental content in the article. Work toward adding even more environmental content and will enrage if anyone tries to touch this sacred content. BlackHades (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Views are accorded weight based on the support they find in reliable secondary sources. The "hereditarian view" (e.g., IQ == intelligence, race == subspecies and heritability == genetic) is accorded little weight because it has little support outside of a small circle of social-scientists. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have to support this assertion? Note that several editors have claimed this over the years, none have actually provided any evidence to support such a claim when asked. The Snyderman & Rothman survey is the only research done on the position of the field, and according to that survey, the "all environment" viewpoint would be a heavy minority. A very heavy minority in fact at just 15%. Yet this is the viewpoint most heavily dominated in this article. The article as it stands right now is terribly out of NPOV. BlackHades (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "the "all environment" viewpoint would be a heavy minority"" Strawman. No one is arguing for an "all environment" view. They're arguing against the "race = subspecies" view, or Rushton's "80%" view. These are fringe views. That IQ has a moderate heritability isn't something anyone is arguing against. The problem lies in a narrow, in-group definition of "the field", a walled garden of people who think the same. It's like the whole argument about brain size, which is totally resistant to the work going on in neuroscience, or the whole argument about life history strategies, which ignores the reality of the field of research of life history strategies, or the whole "genetic" argument that ignores genomics, or... Guettarda (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The article currently is heavily biased toward the view that between race IQ differences is either all or nearly all environmental when there is no evidence that this is the consensus viewpoint in the field. Several editors here also appear to heavily tilt the article toward this view. This violates WP:NPOV. The Snyderman & Rothman strongly points to evidence to the contrary that such viewpoint is a minority in the field. No one here is advocating for the removal of environmental content yet there is a strong push by some to eradicate this article from hereditarian content which certainly is a significant view in the field.


 * The "fringe" view argument holds no weight. Again as previously stated, fringe viewpoints don't get repeatedly peer reviewed and published in mainstream journals like the APA. If such viewpoints are "fringe" as you say, please give your explanation to how they consistently pass peer review in such major mainstream journals over and over again. The fact they consistently do so is unequivocal evidence that it is a significant view of the field. Whether the position is right or wrong is irrelevant. WP:NPOV clearly states that all significant viewpoints must be represented. BlackHades (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

@BlackHades, suggesting that the Snyderman/Rothman study as a high quality secondary source which should be used as a basis for determining due weight is ludicrous. There is no way that a single non-scientific survey question from over 20 years ago can be considered relevant in this article. The repeated suggestion that this is how content should be crafted is absurd, and greatly undermines your credibility as a neutral editor. Whether you call the views of Rushton et. al. fringe or not is immaterial. Their conclusions are in no way representative of the mainstream views on the topic. aprock (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I never argued for weight on the basis of Snyderman/Rothman. It was only brought up as a clear example that the hereditarian position is definitely not fringe and that it is a significant position per WP:NPOV that should not be omitted the way it currently is. What exactly is the basis of the current overweight of material given to the all environmental position while simultaneously omitting hereditarian positions? Other than because this aligns with certain editors viewpoint. Whether hereditarian positions such as Rushton is representative of the majority of the field or not is irrelevant. The point is that it is a significant view in the field. These viewpoints are published repeatedly over and over again in major peer reviewed journals such as the APA. Fringe cannot do this. That makes it a significant viewpoint in the field. It seems my text is being misinterpreted. I was only arguing against the omission and removal of relevant hereditarian positions that some editors here display.


 * When I first started this section, I outlined my draft as followed. That it should have 3 sections. One section that summarizes the hereditarian position, one section that summarizes the environmental position, and one that is either neutral or believes it's inconclusive. There was no controversy at the time I made this outline but now it just seems some are arguing for the removal of the hereditarian summary and just have the other 2 sections. This is what I'm arguing against. Do you support my original outline of 3 sections? If not, what is your suggestion? BlackHades (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You appear to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you say that Snyderman/Rothman can be uses to clearly illustrate something, then that is saying that they are a secondary source of sufficient quality to make that inference.  Given this approach to sourcing, it's fairly clear that you need to spend more time working to understand what policy is, and what policy means.  Your current approach is not going to be effective at convincing people that your able to avoid misuse of sources in a controversial topic area.  aprock (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Does Snyderman/Rothman have some relevance? Yes as this is the only survey of the field done. How can it not be relevant when it is heavily cited in WP:reliable sources on the topic of Race and Intelligence. But am I asking to base weight of the article on it? No. I cited it simply as an example that the hereditarian viewpoint is not fringe. You say that the survey is from 20 years ago. The assertion that the field went from half supporting the hereditarian position to fringe in 20 years would be absurd. There is no evidence this has occurred. Hereditarian positions continue to pass peer review and published in major journals to this very day.


 * But we're starting to really get sidetracked here. What are you thoughts on my original outline? That it should have 3 sections. One section that summarizes the hereditarian position, one section that summarizes the environmental position, and one that is either neutral or believes it's inconclusive. There is certainly WP:reliable sources for all 3 and this seemed like the best approach. If you or others feel differently, please say so and state why. Because right now we appear to be going in circles. BlackHades (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, Snyderman/Rothman does not have any relevance. You're not going to find any independent academic source which takes that single survey question serious.  Your continued misuse of sources only reduces your credibility.  As for thoughts on what you posted, more than adequate feedback has been provided by multiple editors, myself included.  Your refusal to turn to high quality independent secondary sources as a basis for developing content speaks for itself. aprock (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In regards to Snyderman/Rothman, see independent academic sources below. Actually feedback has been slim and none. It's mostly amounted to "don't use Rushton as a source or any secondary source that agrees with Rushton". When I point out that WP:NPOV requires that all significant views must be represented, I get ignored. And you never responded to important relevant questions I posed to you such as "Gottfredson and Templer reviewing Rushton's work isn't secondary? Or would it have to be heavily critical of Rushton in order to meet the definition of "high quality independent secondary sources" BlackHades (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually Snyderman and Rothman (1987) says that the hereditarian position had 1% support, while the "all environment" had 15% support. Both were minority positions, but the "all environment" position had 15x the support. So...46% thought that there was some genetic effect, while 60% believed that there was some environmental affect. Guettarda (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The hereditarian position is the genetic/environmental combination position. No one in the field is arguing that the difference is 100% genetic. No one I know of and certainly not any of the well known hereditarians in the field like Rushton or Jensen who estimated it at 50-80%. Hunt & Carlson also made it very clear that it would be impossible for average racial IQ differences to be 100% environmental. The mainstream viewpoint in the field would be that racial IQ differences is a mix of genetic/environment. BlackHades (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The primary claims of the "hereditarian view" are that IQ == intelligence, race == subspecies, heritability == genetic and that genetics == causality. This is not the mainstream view. Attempting to position the views of Jensen, Rushton, Gottfredson, et al. as simply the "genetic/environmental combination position" and representative of the mainstream science is beyond the pale. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your assertions that those viewpoints aren't mainstream is completely wrong. IQ = intelligence is very widely accepted. Overwhelming so. There is certainly debates as to whether it measures all your intelligence or just a specific form of intelligence but there is very little controversy that it, at the least, measures some form of intelligence. In regards to race = subspecies, there is heavy controversy in the scientific field on this issue. While the majority of anthropologists do not accept that human races are biological, this is in stark contrast and conflicts with the positions of other scientific fields. Other scientific fields are far more accepting of the biological validity of human races including the fields of biology and psychology as clearly shown by the Lieberman survey. Only 16% of biologists and 36% of psychologists disagreed that human races are biological races. As far as the genetics of IQ, I would refer to the Hereditarian Position is Mainstream below. BlackHades (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To answer the question the experts polled must have considered intelligence testing and race classification to be valid. They would also understand heritability, which is the proportion of genetic causality. 112.160.35.80 (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Heritability is not the proportion of geneic causality. Mike, you really need to read some grade school biology texts or spend some time on a farm. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, so when you say "hereditarian" you mean people who believe that the genetic effect of intelligence is >0%. I take it you have a reliable secondary source for this? Guettarda (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See Hereditarian Position is Mainstream. Where secondary sources repeatedly state that Jensen's hereditarian position is the mainstream position. BlackHades (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)