Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 94

Some mainstream sources
Here is a standard introduction to personality psychology and intelligence. It uses two pages to describe the R&I issue and after describing how Race is a challenged concept but with some biological utility it concludes that: "Even if racial groupings are not biologically meaningless, however, this does not mean that race-based differences in mean IQ have a biological basis. It is entirely possible that environmental factors that differ between racial groupings – potentially including nutrition, social norms, poverty, discrimination – contribute to these differences. Although IQ tests generally do not suffer from significant internal or external bias where race is concerned, it is possible that situational biases might exist. For example, Steele and Aronson (1995) demonstrated that when African American students were led to believe that a difficult verbal task was diagnostic of their intelligence they performed more poorly on it than when the task was not presented in this way. They argue that being made aware of a negative stereotype about one’s group creates feelings of threat and vulnerability that impair performance. When black participants are administered intelligence tests, aware that lower intelligence is part of the stereotype of their group, their performance may therefore be adversely affected. As a result, their intelligence may be under-estimated and the racial stereotype invalidly ‘confirmed’. This ‘stereotype threat’ phenomenon may at least partly account for racial disparities in measured intelligence." User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This is from a commonly used introduction textbook to the field of Psychology. The astute reader will note that it weighs environmental claim much more heavily than genetic ones which it in fact largely refutes. Note also that I am not being selective, but simply quoting the first psychology text books to which I have access. "In a careful review of thee Bell Curve, one of the leading researchers in the area of intelligence concluded the book offered no convincing evidence that genetic factors were primarily responsible for the 15-point IQ difference between African Americans and Caucasians (R. J. Sternberg, 1995). "is conclusion is based largely on the distinction between whether genetic factors can influence the development of intelligence in an individual and whether they can influence the development of intelligence among races. the APA task force said there is good evidence that genetic factors play a significant role in the development of an individual’s intelligence. However, there is no convincing evidence that genetic factors play a primary role in the differences in intelligence among races. A tremendous amount of research data challenges Herrnstein and Murray’s statement that IQ differences among races are caused primarily by genetic factors (Neisser et al., 1996; R. J. Sternberg et al., 2005). Although no one knows exactly what causes the difference in IQ scores shown in the above graph, many psychologists suggest a number of environmental factors, such as differences in social-economic classes, educational opportunities, family structures, and career possibilities (Loehlin, 2000). Recent research that shows the difference in IQs between African Americans and Whites is narrowing by 4–7 points suggests that environmental factors can significantly influence IQ (Dickens & Flynn, 2006). "us, one of the Bell Curve’s major conclusions—that racial differences in IQ scores are based primarily on genetic factors—is not supported by the evidence (Neisser et al., 1996). Two prominent researchers concluded that thee Bell Curve’s argument for racial inferiority appeared to be based on scientific evidence, but closer examination shows that it was not (S. J. Gould, 1996; R. J. Sternberg, 1995)." User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep up the good work, Maunus. I'm following along in the discussion here and I think you're doing the right thing to improve the article. I've been reading some new sources recently, and I should be joining the article editing pretty soon. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will. After taking a break from the topic for awhile, I find myself coming back to the sources because I am teaching a course on the topic currently.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Another commonlu ysed introduction to Psychology: ""Psychology" by Schacter, Gilbert and Wegner (2009) "Everyone agrees that some percentage of the between-group difference in intelligence is accounted for by experiential differences, and the only question is whether any of the between-group difference in intelligence is accounted for by genetic differences. Some scientists believe that the answer to this question is yes, and others believe the answer is no. Perhaps because the question is so technically difficult to answer or perhaps because the answer has such important social and political repercussions, there is as yet no consensus among those who have carefully studied the data. To draw firm conclusions about genetic causes of between-group differences will require (a) the identification of a gene or gene complex whose presence is strongly correlated with performance on intelligence tests and (b) the demonstration that this gene or gene complex is more prevalent in one group than another. Such findings are critical to establishing the role of genes in producing between-group differences.""

A commonly used introduction to Human biological variation: ""Human biological variation" Mielke, Konigsberg & Relethford (2006) "Examination of individual ancestry, however, can aid in testing the hypothesis that black-white differences in IQ are due to genetic differences. If this hypothesis is correct, then there should be a correlation between IQ score and the degree of European ancestry. That is, black children with more European ancestry should have higher IQ scores than those with less, or little, European ancestry. Such studies have generally found no correlation between European admixture and 18 scores (see studies reviewed by Flynn 1980, Loehlin et al. 1975, Macintosh 1998)."..."Although genetic variation exists between individuals and within groups, genetic differences underlying intelligence do not vary across populations because the same selective pressures are applied everywhere. As such, any IQ differences between groups today must reflect environmental differences. It is likely that these debates will continue, but at present there is no compelling evidence that genetic differences underlie group differences in IQ."..."IQ is perhaps the most studied and controversial trait dealt with in behavioral research. There is still wide debate over the exact meaning of IQ scores. Are they good measurements of innate intelligence, measures reflecting one's ability to take an IQ test, or both? Twin and family studies have consistently demonstrated a heritable component; however, the magnitude varies considerably, and more recent work in behavioral genetics suggests previous estimates of the heritability of IQ may be biased upward. There is evidence for both genetic and environmental influences on IQ scores. Group differences in IQ test scores, such as found in American whites and blacks, appear to be due to environmental differences."" User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mielke, Konigsberg & Relethford is an anthropology source. The field of anthropology today certainly differs greatly compared to the field of psychology in regards to the concept of race, and differences related to race. Their hypothesis also conflicts heavily from other studies done regarding admixture rates which do show correlation to IQ. Such as the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study which is a highly regarded mainstream study. Keep in mind the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study started with the intention to prove that the white-black IQ gap is entirely environmental and was geared toward that bias. But after the follow up study, seemed to do more to strengthen the genetic hypothesis instead.


 * "The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions"--Sandra Scarr (1998)


 * Rowe's research also showed a correlation between admixture rates and IQ.


 * "For each characteristic, the mixed race mean fell between the means of the two parental populations."--Rowe (2002)
 * Other studies showing admixture rate to IQ correlation are Owen (1992) and Lynn (2002). Then there's the studies that show no correlation such as Eyferth (1961) and Moore (1986). All these conflicting researches really doesn't seem to show much consistency. BlackHades (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mielke, Koenigsberg and Relethford is not "an anthropology source" is it a Human biology source. Your continuous attempts to discredit or second guess ordinary mainstream science is pathetic. These prominent geneticians and biologists are quite able to accurately summarize the status of their field, they don't need your help. So try to find some sources of equal reliability: textbooks, handbooks, review articles. You don't need to waste our time with more original research and primary sources. Psychologist can differ all they want on race (though they don't), but they don't have any expertise in the field of human biological variation OR human social variation so their opinion on the biology of race is as relevant as their opinion on how to cure cancer. The Minnesota transracial adoption study was pioneer funded and concluded 30 years before the publication of this book. They summarize the research and find it unconvincing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you even bother researching before posting? Do you understand what the difference between a biologist/geneticist and a biological anthropologist is? Hint, not even close to the same thing. Need another hint? Biological anthropology is more commonly known as PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY. No they are not biologists nor geneticists. Please get your facts straight. For you to not even KNOW they're anthropologists makes it highly doubtful you know very much about what contains in this source at all. Allow me to help you out here:


 * James H. Mielke, Anthropology Faculty Lyle W Konigsberg, Professor of Anthropology Dr. John H. Relethford, Anthropology Department


 * Your continuous attempts to only try to show one side of the position in sources remains extremely problematic. You think an anthropology source that hand selects studies, and ignores any other numerous studies in the field that may contradict it, and draws a definitive conclusion from it is a reliable source? This is your qualification for a reliable source? Allow me to demonstrate what an actual high quality reliable source on the topic is that actually shockingly considers many admixture studies in the field and isn't hand picking:


 * “Overall, there is about a five-point average IQ difference in favor of the biracial children which is consistent with (some) genetic or prenatal effect. However, within the two adoptive categories the difference between Black and biracial children vanishes, which is consistent with an entirely post natal effect. Because of the confounding, neither inference can confidently be drawn. And of course the 6 and 14 biracial children in this study are precariously small groups from which to draw any sweeping inferences. So we are left with the usual conclusion. More research is needed.” John C. Loehlin. “Handbook of Intelligence” pg 189 (2000) Cambridge University Press
 * I'm wasting time? I would say you're wasting time providing unreliable sources that handpicks studies for a conclusion you're looking for rather than focusing on high quality reliable sources that has a comprehensive overview on the entire subject matter. I'm providing extremely high quality mainstream sources like Hunt's "Human Intelligence" and "Handbook of Intelligence" from Cambridge University Press. Whereas you actually called Nisbett mainstream and continue to look for sources to fit his extreme position. Who's trying to discredit mainstream sources again? BlackHades (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the first reliable source you have presented. Your claims about Mielk et al. being biased are extreme and ignorant. I am of course aware that they are anthropologists, but that does not mean that the source is "an anthropology source", they are each specialists in HUMAN BIOLOGICAL VARIATION, and yes RELETHFORD is a geneticist. And their book has the maximal level of authoritativeness and reliability. Loehlin of course supports the same conclusion as they do because they show that the adoption studies ARE INCONCLUSIVE (and hence provide ZERO support for either of the conclusions), just as Starr does in your above quote. They are IN AGREEMENT with Mielke et al. And now you will have me excused, I have to go teach a course on Race and human biological variation. When I have time later this week I will initiate ArbCom Enforcement sanctions against you as you are obviously in vilation of the sanctions against Tendentious editing and misrepresentation of the mainstream but skewing it towards a particular view. By the way I now have Hunt's book, and unsurprisingly you are also misrepresenting his conclusions. I am done discussing with you, nothing good will come from it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Three physical anthropologists and it's not an anthropology source? You've made 41 edits in the past week in this article. I've made 4. Who's tendentious editing again? I've been very clear that the mainstream position is that more research needs to be done and too much is currently unknown. However the mainstream currently rejects both extremes. Which is the 80% genetic hypothesis as well as the 100% environmental hypothesis. This is fully supported by highly reliable mainstream sources such as both Hunt's "Human Intelligence" and Cambridge University Press' "Handbook of Intelligence". Explain again how I'm misrepresenting the mainstream. By the way, I also have Hunt's book as well as "Handbook of Intelligence" and I misrepresented nothing.


 * "Rushton and Jensen and Lynn are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. Nisbett's extreme statement has virtually no chance of being true."--Hunt, "Human Intelligence" pg 434 (2011) "Tentatively, the difference in patterning of abilities between Americans of Asian ancestry and Americans of European ancestry looks as though it may be at least partly genetic, based on its stability over acculturation, its presence in the one small adoption study in which it was assessed, and because Native Americans, who share common ancestry, show a similar pattern."--Loehlin, John, "Handbook of Intelligence" (2000) pg 189.


 * You stated that Nisbett is mainstream despite high quality reliable sources that state otherwise. You stated there is several direct empirical support for environmental explanations and that the majority favors environmental explanations. When in actuality high quality mainstream sources tend to say too much is unknown to draw definitive conclusions on the topic, and that neither genetics nor environment currently can explain the majority of the gap. You've made statements such as:


 * "I agree that the body of the article is also biased by giving undue weight to discredited hereditarian minority views, such as the brain size argument and admixture studies which has no valid research in its favor"--Maunus


 * Despite the fact that both Hunt's "Human Intelligence" and Cambridge University Press' "Handbook of Intelligence" will disagree with you and say otherwise. You're correct about there being tendentious editing and misrepresentation of the mainstream but you should be pointing the finger at someone else. BlackHades (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You misrepresent Hunt by saying that he consider's Nisbett to be outside the mainstream when what he is saying is that a particular claim made by Nisbett is extreme, that claim is made in an entirely different source than the one you try to discredit - that is tendentious misrepresentation. You also misrepresent Hunt by quoting out of context making it seem as if he is generally supportive of Rushton and Lynn and the hereditarian view which quite clearly he is not. The next paragraph goes onto reject their reasoning and claim correctly that the 100% environmental view is not actually held by any of the environmentalists (also not by Nisbett) who have no problem with recognizing that there maybe an, as yet to be ascertained, genetic portion to the gap. The question is of the relative contribution. My statement is exactly the same as Loehlin and the authors of "Human Biological Variation" - namely that there is no empirical evidence in favor of the genetic portion of the gap and some evidence in favor of environmental factors. Admixture studies, adoption studies is considered inconclusive even by your own sources. I am confident that ArbCom will be able to see who is misrepresenting sources and the scientific consensus. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You continue to twist my words. When do I ever try to claim that Hunt is "generally supportive of Rushton and Lynn and the hereditarian view". Let's take a look at what I ACTUALLY said.


 * "I would still recommend Hunt & Carlson. Their paper and textbook is highly regarded in the field and essentially all editors here accept it as a high quality secondary source. They do a reasonable job highlighting the bias in the field among both hereditarians and environmentalists. They're heavily critical of both the 80% genetic hypothesis as well as the 100% environmental hypothesis in which they consider both these to be extreme."--BlackHades


 * If you require further clarification of what I said, it means Hunt is critical of the 80% genetic hypothesis of Jensen/Rushton and the 100% environmental hypothesis of Nisbett. And you still continue to misrepresent sources. Hunt never states or implies that the 100% environmental view is not held by any environmentalists. What he actually states is:


 * "Many researchers who are primarily interested in environmental differences associated with racial and ethnic differences in intelligence would not be at all perturbed by an ironclad demonstration that, say 3% of the gap is due to genetic differences."--Hunt, "Human Intelligence" pg. 435 (2011)


 * I have no clue where you're getting that Hunt states the 100% environmental hypothesis is not held by any environmentalists. He states that many environmentalists wouldn't be perturbed if a tiny portion of the gap is genetic. This is not the same thing. And you're wrong about Nisbett. He does claim and argue for the entirely environmental explanation. What part of Nisbett do you think Hunt is calling extreme if you're claiming Nisbett isn't arguing an entirely environmental explanation? It's not just in regards to race and intelligence that Nisbett is outside the mainstream either. His entire approach in psychology is outside the mainstream. He's a feverish opponent against the mainstream acceptance in psychology that adult individual IQ tests have a heritability of .70-.80 and argues that it is substantially below .50. The paper that Nisbett is most well known for his "Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental process (1977)" has been widely criticized by the mainstream. So much so that his co-author Wilson in 2002 in "Strangers to ourselves: discovering the adaptive unconscious" had to backtrack substantially and admit the claims in their original paper was too far fetching. Given that Nisbett is not mainstream in regards to the race and intelligence debate arguing for an entirely environmental position, not mainstream in regards to individual heritability of IQ or the g factor, and not mainstream in the field of psychology in general, I'm highly curious what exactly you're trying to say when you claim "Nisbett is mainstream".


 * And yes by my own sources, admixture studies show that the results are inconclusive. Exactly. Thank you. Were you under the impression that I was trying to show anything else? The problem with your Mielke, Konigsberg & Relethford source, as I tried to gently point out, was that they were extremely selective in their selection of admixture studies. They only hand picked admixture studies that specifically showed no correlation and chose to ignore any admixture studies that would show correlation. In order to conclude:


 * "..genetic differences underlying intelligence do not vary across populations because the same selective pressures are applied everywhere. As such, any IQ differences between groups today must reflect environmental differences."--Mielke, Konigsberg & Relethford


 * This is in stark contrast to the high quality reliable source of "Handbook of Intelligence" that I provided you that doesn't hand pick only admixture studies that show no correlation but tries to consider all admixture studies in the field. And then concludes that some studies support the genetic hypothesis, while some studies support the environmental hypothesis and that the results are inconclusive and more research needs to be done. You really don't see the difference between your source and mine and why one might be more reliable than the other? BlackHades (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is that mainstream sources are allowed to handpick the sources, and in WE rely on their ability to determine what is mainstream, and what is outside of it. So if Mielke et al., being mainstream researchers in human biological variation and genetics, so far from the environmentalist camp as it is possible to be within mainstream anthropology, leave out certain old studies that you would have liked them to include that is in fact evidence that those studies are not considered mainstream. Your attempt to discredit them as sources because they leave out your pet studies are a backwards reading of our policies of WP:RS based on a violation of WP:OR. The way wikipedia works is that we identify the best sources, textbooks, encyclopedias and reviews published by respectable presses by scholars in good standing in the relevant field and then we write what they say. We don't conduct original reasearch to find primary sources that they may have left out, but trust their professional judgment to make those choices. Your argumentation is directly contrary to the function of wikipedias policys. Nisbett quite obviously is not arguing that the there is any evidence for the entire gap being environmental, he argues in his old book THAT THE EVIDENCE FAVORS AN ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLANATION (which all reliable sources agrees that it does, he just says that it favors an entirely environmental explanation which is an overstatement but still technically true since the ONLY evidence favors the environmental explanation) that it will be explained by environment and in the 2012 Review Nisbett and his many esteemed coauthors demonstrate that the environmental hypothesis has better empirical support but that it is not conclusively shown to account for the full gap. THAT IS THE STATUS OF THE EVIDENCE IN MAINSTREAM SOURCES. Now I will hold good on my word and I will not waste more time in futile tit for tat with you, and the next time I spend on this article will be rewriting the content. That is a task for which I clearly have support from other editors. If you wish to contest any of my editorial choices I would suggest that you do so on the talkpage through an RfC because I am not going to engage you in this kind of ridiculous and time consuming exchange again. And yes I will be filing an ArbCom Enforcement report against you whenever I have the time to gather the evidence of your clear violations of the SPA/Advocacy injunctions under WP:R&I.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Forthcoming changes
In the coming weeks I am going to restructure the body of the article so that it doesn't segregate topics arbitrarily into arguments for the two sides, because that masks the dialogue within the field and creates a weird recursively embedded he-said/she-said structure to the entire article. And it ends up allotting undue weight to minority arguments and POVs on both sides of the debate. The article should give more prominent attention to those arguments and topics within the debate that have received more attention. I am considering either a chronological approach or one that is organized by topics and not by whether the arguments are forwarded in support of the genetic or environmental point of view. Perhaps I will combine the two types of organization so that sections devoted to the main phases of the debate will be treated in separate sections e.g. "Army intelligence test debates", "Jensenism debates", "Bell curve debates", "Flynn effect debates" etc. This will allow me to describe the dialogue going on between various researchers around a single topic. To establish a relative weighting I will be using the Nisbett et al. paper and the Daley and Onwuegbuzie chapter and the chapter in the same handbook by " Racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence in the United States: multicultural perspectives" by Lisa A. Suzuki, Ellen L. Short and Christina S. Lee. To make sure to do justice to the the G-factor/Hereditarian argument, I will also draw on Hunt's "Human Intelligence".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nisbett is an extreme source. He is not mainstream. There are several reliable secondary sources that repeatedly makes this clear. Despite all the disputes I've had with Aprock, he still previously agreed and acknowledged that Jensen is more mainstream than Nisbett and that Jensen should have more weight than Nisbett. There have already been previous discussions in talk among editors that Nisbett may already be over-weighed in this article. Increasing weight to Nisbett compounds the problem and should be avoided. I'd recommend using more mainstream sources. For example there is essentially universal agreement among all editors here that Hunt and Carlson is an extremely high quality secondary source. Some sources by them to consider:


 * Hunt, Earl; Carlson, Jerry (2007). "Considerations relating to the study of group differences in intelligence". Perspectives on Psychological Science 2 (2): 194–213.
 * Hunt, Earl. (2011). Human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.


 * These would be far better reliable secondary sources to use than Nisbett. BlackHades (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are entirely incorrect about Nisbett he is as mainstream as they get. Jensen is NOT more mainstream than Nisbett, except perhaps within the conservative branch of psychometry. Hunt is fine too, but definitely considered to be on the conservative side of the mainstream as Nisbett may be on the opposite side. Calling Nisbett extreme calls into question your judgment very heavily, and you should provide some very good quality sources to support that view if you want to be taken seriously. I want you to note that one of the Arbitration committee's findings was that some editors were attempting to shift the balance towards a set of sources that you seem to be pushing too. Jensen will get more weight than Nisbett because his views have been more influential. The Nisbett et al. paper defines the mainstream today.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your bias is glowing ever more obvious. No Nisbett is not mainstream. I've provided you several reliable secondary sources that explicitly state such. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have any weight at all (he should) but your attempt to push this entire article to his position, and your preferred position, is one that violates the remedies of the arbitration committee. Nisbett being extreme isn't my words but the words of highly reliable secondary sources. I don't know why some editors think the Arbitration committee remedies apply only to hereditarian sources and that all environmental sources, no matter how extreme, are somehow exempt from it. But this idea is sadly mistaken and wrong. Extreme sources should be treated as extreme sources. Whether it's hereditarian or environmental.


 * Here's a link to concerns raised by several editors that Nisbett may already be over-weighed in the article.
 * Comments by Aprock on Nisbett and Hunt/Carlson:


 * "While this is a good source, it establishes that Jensen's view is more mainstream than Nisbett's. It does not say that Jensen's view is mainstream."--Aprock
 * "I've repeated held up Hunt/Carlson as a high quality secondary source. I've never held up Nisbett's book as such."--Aprock 


 * If Aprock can acknowledge that Jensen is more mainstream than Nisbett and hold Hunt/Carlson (which clearly calls Nisbett extreme) as a high quality secondary source, despite his own personal positions, yet you appear to have so much difficulty in accepting these facts, what do you think this says about your bias and your own personal agenda? What do you think it says about your agenda when several editors have already voiced concerns that Nisbett is over-weighed in the article and you're choosing to ignore all of them and push for even MORE weight for Nisbett? I would strongly recommend you use your own previous advice and "think outside the box" and edit this article more aligned with the remedies set forth by the arbitration committee. BlackHades (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are twisting my words. I have not held up Nisbett's old pop-science book as a mainstream source we should use. Nisbett's book originally was used as the model for the organization of the entire article because of the way he puts up the hereditarian and environmentalists arguments in the appendix. Hereditarian editors did not have the problems with his book then that yuo are now claiming, they were entirely in favor of using that organization. By leaving that scheme of organization I am in fact giving less weight to that book. I am going to use the Review coauthored by him and 5 other researchers and published in AP. You have provided one source in our discussions that call one of Nisbetts claim's extreme. If you had read anything I am saying I am not claiming that that particular claim is the mainstream. You don't know jack shit about my biases or my positions so I would very much advice you to stop talking about them.  User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * More sources:
 * "Nisbett’s extreme statement [genes play no role at all] has virtually no chance of being true. Similarly Wicherts et al. do not exclude genes among possible causes."--Rindermann, Heiner. "African cognitive ability: Research, results, divergences and recommendations." Personality and Individual Differences (2012).


 * "In presenting such an extreme view, Nisbett and Wilson have provoked strong reactions"--Thompson, Sarah "The Construction of Personality" pg 172, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1988


 * “Jensen’s view, as it happens, is more mainstream than Nisbett’s. Roughly two thirds of those responding to the Snyderman survey identified themselves as liberals. Yet 53 percent agreed that the black-white gap involves genetic as well as environ­mental factors.”--Cowley, Geoffrey. "Testing the science of intelligence." Newsweek 24 (1994): 56-60.
 * BlackHades (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A Newsweek article citing a pre-Bell Curve survey is useless as a source for anything. Thompson seems like a reasonabley good quality source, and she describes the claim as extreme, which it obviously in so far as it ascribing 0% possibility of genetic contribution when we basically have no empirical knowledge to make that assessment. Rinderman I don't know but a single authred review in Personality and Individual Differences, an avowed hereditarian journal, is not a very strong source for that claim.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A short investigation confirms my suspicin regarding Rinderman, he is quite clearly a classical racial-hereditarian of the Rushton/Lynn school who is known as a popularizer of the Bell Curve arguments in Gemany. Not a very convincing source of a statement that Nisbett is extreme. Also I think we should review Nisbett's claim, as far as I remember he actually doesn't say that genes play no role at all, he says that there are enough known environmental causes to explain the entire gap, if he excludes a genetic contribution entirely that would surprise me a lot. I will reread his book in the next days. I have also order Hunt 2011 from the library. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I think you may be too dismissive of the Snyderman & Rothman source. Yes it is an old source but it is still heavily cited among academics even today which does show it maintains some relevancy. The study was published in a highly mainstream peer review journal by the APA. You can't go more mainstream than that. I'm not saying we should revolve everything around this source. Just that it does maintain at least some relevance and shouldn't be fully dismissed. BlackHades (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is heavily cited in the the Occidental quartely yes. Not in serious scholarship. If it has any use at all it is to say what the consensus was 25 years ago.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. But back in regards to changes for this article, I would still recommend Hunt & Carlson. Their paper and textbook is highly regarded in the field and essentially all editors here accept it as a high quality secondary source. They do a reasonable job highlighting the bias in the field among both hereditarians and environmentalists. They're heavily critical of both the 80% genetic hypothesis as well as the 100% environmental hypothesis in which they consider both these to be extreme. I would say it's pretty safe to say the mainstream in the field would be in between these two extremes. BlackHades (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it is in between those two extremes. Noone has argued it isn't. You can't seriously argue that a 25 yearl old opinion poll has more than historical value.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Maunus wrote, "In the coming weeks I am going to restructure the body of the article so that it doesn't segregate topics arbitrarily into arguments for the two sides, because that masks the dialogue within the field and creates a weird recursively embedded he-said/she-said structure to the entire article." This will be a very welcome change. Currently, the article reads like the transcript of a high school debate by novice debaters, rather than like an article in a professionally edited encyclopedia. It will be very important to refer to the tone and the manner of high-quality sources on this topic, as well as the content of those sources, to help this article reach encyclopedic standards of quality. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Brilliant! This "Jensen and Rushton v. team anybody else" thrust so prevalent in the article isn't justified by sources in the field. These two were on the outs of the mainstream--that's not a secret.  Their supporters attribute this to political correctness, but that just acknowledges the fact their supporters are aware their claims are not the mainstream.  Nisbett was overused here (I say "was" because I last read the article here months and months ago) - but that's because a pro-hereditarian fixated editor (since topic banned) overused him here to provide a veneer of "balance" (one of Nisbett's books tackled Rushton/Jensen claims in an appendix - hence, again, most if not all of the claims cited to Nisbett were Rushton/Jensen centric).  The notion that the "race and intelligence" issue is, by definition, answering this question "Is the gap genetic or not?" reflects the hereditarian's pre-occupation with it.  The degree to which this question weighs in the policy response or research into or education about the gap should guide how much weight to give it here.  An editorial re-boot will probably get us a lot closer to accomplishing what needs doing here because it releases editors from the Jensen/Rushton call-response quagmire consuming most of the oxygen in the room.  Professor marginalia (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have begun gathering sources that I have at hand in my office to review the recent edits to this article. My plan is to assemble the several sources I have at hand (some are books I own, some are articles or book chapters that I have already downloaded or photocopied, and some are books I currently have circulated from a public or academic library) and to arrange them in strict chronological order for (re)reading. I have been reading the current research and scholarly literature on this article's topic actively since 1992, and first read an article by the late Professor Arthur Jensen all the way back in 1972. I'll gather up the mainstream (mostly) secondary sources, begin reading them in order of publication, and list those here. Of course other Wikipedians are strongly encouraged to identify other reliable sources for updating this article here on the talk page too. Once I've (re)read several of the key sources, I will begin copyedit-and-cite-check reads, section by section, of this article. Thus far, it looks like the phase of editing the article now underway (as announced in this talk page section) is very constructive, helpful to readers, and collegially supportive of  Wikipedia core content policies. I will try to join in in the same spirit. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Promised Follow-up to My Comment: Here is a list of articles and book chapters I have been reading recently, and continue to read, as I review a number of publications on the topic of the Wikipedia article here. It should be understood that in the last few months I have also been reading many sources cited in the Wikipedia article IQ classification, a high-priority article for WikiProject Psychology that had badly needed updating for years. The reading has been interesting.




 * especially chapters 4 (The Distribution of Mental Ability) through 9 (Definitions and Critera of Test Bias).
















 * especially chapter 4 (Individual Differences for Adolescents and Adults on Gender, Ethnicity, Urban-Rural Residence, and Socioeconomic Status)



It should also be understood that I will be referring to all of the high-priority sources identified by other editors, all of which I have at hand in my office. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin. Nisbett, Richard E.; Aronson, Joshua; Blair, Clancy; Dickens, William; Flynn, James; Halpern, Diane F.; Turkheimer, Eric American Psychologist, Vol 67(6), Sep 2012, 503-504.
 * In this response to Rushton's reply to their 2011 review of the field, the authors very clearly demonstrate the fact that BlackHades has been trying to muddle: namely that the mainstream view is that gap "is best understood as environmental in origin". This is not an extreme or fringe view but one that is held by solid mainstream researchers such as Flynn, Nisbettt, Halpern, Dickens, Aronson and Turkheimer all of whom are highly esteemed intelligence researchers. They also show clearly how the scientific process is slowly weeding out unreliable sources by ignoring them in reviews: in response to Rushtons claim that they ignore his and Jensens 2006 review. It is because, being riddled with errors and misinterpretations, it has no scientific standing as shown by Dickens and Flynn (2006). The mainstream view is clear, sees environmental explanations as being the main source of the gap. Wikipedia should not present otherwiseUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As previously stated this is not the only view in the scientific field. Keep in mind I was never trying to say this source shouldn't be used in the article nor did I ever imply that I intend to block the source. From your AE you make it sound like I was. I was trying to provide you with wider variety of positions in the field. This topic is heavily contentious, disputed, and controversial in the field. This article should be able to accurately replicate the dispute and controversy as it exists in the scientific field. There are certainly very prominent psychologists in the field who's positions contrasts greatly with that of Flynn, Nisbett, etc. And they are publishing their work in the most mainstream peer review journals in the field. These other positions, as much as some editors seem to want to, cannot be so easily dismissed.


 * The concern that I tried to raise with you in this talk discussion, of which you found it so abhorrent that you felt it required AE, was that it appeared as though you were trying to over-weigh this one position. That was my whole concern. That is why I tried to provide you with differing positions from other prominent psychologists. The article needs to reflect the controversy and dispute as it exists in the scientific field. Simply focusing on only the most hardened environment arguers of the field, like Nisbett and Flynn, will not achieve that goal. Does Nisbett and Flynn deserve weight? Absolutely. But often times you make it sound like their position is essentially near consensus and that the whole dispute and controversy of race and intelligence as it exists in the scientific field is over and that nearly the entire field aligns with the Nisbett/Flynn position. I would request better balance. All significant positions in the field, from the extreme environment such as Nisbett/Flynn to the extreme genetic of Jensen/Rushton, and everything else in between deserves weight in the article. Yes the balance should be in proportion to the prominence of the positions in the field but it seems as though you over-weigh the extreme environment positions such as Nisbett/Flynn far more so than it would reflect in the field and downplay any other positions that would conflict with this one position. That is the concern I had before and still remains the concern I have now.


 * I would request more cooperation and collaboration in using much more wider variety of sources from varying positions that will accurately represent the controversy and dispute as it exists in the scientific field. This is certainly much more preferable than if you added sources that contained just this one position and then me having to later add other varying positions in the field for balance. Which then of course you'll predictably accuse me of cherry picking sources, tenacious editing, advocacy, etc, when in actuality the problem would have been the unbalance you would have created in the first place that needed to be fixed for balance. BlackHades (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My Approach going forward will be: 1. to identify as many recent high quality mainstream secondary and tertiary sources as possible. 2. to remove most primary sources unless also supported by secondary sources from the article as well as all material that only relies on primary sources. 3. Establish weight of different topics based on the weight given in high quality secondary and tertiary sources. 4. Rewrite the article in accordance with how the dispute is represented in such sources. 5. If you have queries with any of my changes that I can not immediately accommodate (for example because I disagree) I will post RfCs on the talk page (this is because I don't want the editing of the article to be bogged down in useless back and forth with you that clearly doesn't get us any where) - I will do the same if you make changes with which I disagree. I will start by making an RfC about whether this plan for rewriting the article is reasonable. My approach will mean that contrary to what you suggest the source will rely on fewer sources of higher quality and not on a wider number of sources and a smaller variety of positions - because the positions included will be entirely determined by whether they are referred to in the highest quality review sources. It will also likely result in what you call an "overweight" of the "extreme environmental position", but that is not going to be a result of any bias of mine, but of a bias of the mainstream sources - which in contrast to what you claim very obviously establish that this is a majority position (not a consensus) and not considered "extreme" (except perhaps by the conservative wing of psychometricians, but not in the wider discipline of psychology). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You've yet to provide any source to support this claim. Where's the source that makes the conclusion that the "extreme environment position" is the mainstream position? What I see are hereditarians and environmentalists in the field continuing to bicker back and forth in peer review journals. Both in highly mainstream journals and often times in the exact same journal. Yet you accept the environmental papers and ignore the hereditarian papers. Even when they're from the same journal! This is a topic that remains extremely controversial and heavily disputed in the field. The 1996 APA Task Force report states there is not enough evidence for either environmental explanations nor genetic explanations and that the cause of the gap is presently unknown. You tried to claim this report is old and that now there is a majority that supports the extreme environmental explanation. Yet Hunt (2011) makes essentially the same statement that the APA did back in 1996:


 * “The direct evidence that we have for genetic effects does not come close to accounting for the size of the gap between White and African American test scores. Neither do environmental effects. And, unfortunately, the environmental evidence has often been presented as evidence that environmental effects do occur – which no advocate of genetic models has ever denied – but has not been presented in a way that permits a quantitative estimate of how important environmental effects are in determining group differences in intelligence in the population.”--Hunt, Earl. (2011) “Human Intelligence”, pg. 435.


 * Your assertion that the extreme environmental position is the mainstream position in the field appear to be based on your own synthesis, and not based on a statement that any actual reliable source actually claims. So I'm reiterating my request for the source that states the mainstream position in the scientific field is the one that supports the extreme environment hypothesis. BlackHades (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The approach announced by Maunus above is an approach that fits Wikipedia policy. (Incidentally, it fits the practices of professional editorial offices when working on reference materials.) My previous post to this talk page mentioned that I would be reading in a variety of reliable secondary sources I have at hand, which I have begun doing. I'll disclose my list of current reading in my next post to this talk page. I too think that the most productive use of our time is to read very good sources and then look carefully at the article text, ideally with less drama on this talk page. See you in the salt mine. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Faulty citation
Citation number 49 appears to not work. I was wanting to know if it not loading was the link's normal behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.57.95 (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It can be found here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC: What sources should we use to establish notability and relative balance of different viewpoints?
In order to move forward I propose that we establish a criterion to evaluate the ideal sources on which to depend for establishing notability, status and relative weight of different viewpoints within the Race and Intelligence literature. The proposal has been modeled on WP:MEDRS. Following this general proposal for a decision regarding quality of sourcing, we will be able to make decisions about specific sources, about how they should be weighed in determining the weight of arguments.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal A.
When establishing notability and relative balance of viewpoints within the Race and Intelligence literature should we give priority to the following kinds of sources: "1.) recent, general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable psychological and anthropological journals, 2.) widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in either the fields of intelligence, and/or Race and human biological variation, and 3.) professional guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies"?


 * Survey


 * 1) Yes For a controversial field such as Race and Intelligence which relies entirely on the quality of research and argumentation that it is beyond either the capability or responsibility of wikipedians to assess, it is of the utmost importance that we closely follow the most reliable mainstream sources and the way they weigh views and arguments.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes although I have to add one caveat specifically about the phrase "race and human biological variation", because from what little I know the concept of "race" itself as the word is generally used is pretty much discredited by academia, although they do apparently acknowledge that there are significant differences between what might be called ethnicities in some "races." John Carter (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, but I wonder if just agreeing to apply the sourcing requirements of WP:MEDRS directly and explicitly might be more straightforward, and provide a stronger foundation from which to manage sourcing questions. For example, say: ''Use WP:MEDRS as applicable. ...  ... aprock (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. It is essential that we follow the contemporary consensus on this issue, and the proposed sources are those that will best do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. Standard sourcing approach for science articles, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes. But we should cede to existing wikipedia policies when we require more thorough detail regarding balance and notability. BlackHades (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes of course. As written, this is basically just an expression of Wikipedia policy. I have been keeping source lists on human intelligence and on  race and related issues in user space here on Wikipedia for a long time. (I invite anyone participating in this discussion to recommend further sources for those source lists, each of which has a talk page.) I will comment on some specific sources below. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes MEDRS is a fine model, which works because it represents consensus among editors (even though it's not policy); MEDRS is also valuable because current policy sets the sourcing bar too low for contentious, high-traffic areas of the literature. -- Scray (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes. Use of high quality mainstream sources is always in order. And I concur with Scray, "MEDRS is a fine model, which works..." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Yes. As above. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 22:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

 * Comment Are you trying to rewrite WP:NPOV? When trying to establish notability and relative balance of viewpoints, we should be following existing wikipedia policies. Which is WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE etc. We already have wikipedia policies in place to establish notability and relative balance. BlackHades (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have moved your comment into a separate discussion section. If you meant it to be "no" then please move it up with that wording instead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no position at this point. You said you're modeling your proposal after WP:MEDRS. And much of what you wrote would already fall in line with existing wikipedia policies regarding notability and balance. Could you explain what you feel this proposal would accomplish that already existing wikipedia policies regarding notability and balance such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:MEDRS would not? And if this proposal does pass, does it supersede existing wikipedia policies on notability and balance? What happens if a source follows existing wikipedia policies but doesn't follow the guidelines for your proposal? Or how about the reverse, what happens if a source follows your guidelines but happens to violate some wikipedia policy? Which supersedes which? BlackHades (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I need to answer this question. Policy is policy. An RfC is a way to establish a local consensus for how to move forward in writing a specific article. I see no no possibility of conflict between any WP policy and this proposal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Much of your proposal is already in line with already existing policies. Which is why I guess I still don't quite understand the necessity of this proposal. On the face of it, I would support it since much of it already aligns with existing policy. The concern, I guess you can say, is if this proposal to meant to supersede existing wikipedia policies or not. If under existing wikipedia policies, a source should have such and such amount of due weight, but under your proposal a different amount of weight is assessed, which guidelines do we follow? Wikipedia policies or this proposal? Your guidelines are a good starting start point in determining relevant and important sources, but ultimately, I would say existing wikipedia policies should be followed to determine notability and balance. If this proposal is meant to be a good starting point to establish notability and balance, but that ultimately wikipedia policies will still be followed and has final say, meaning this proposal is not actually meant to supersede existing wikipedia policies, then yes I would support it. BlackHades (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Local consensus can not override policy as I am sure you know. But local consensus can decide to follow a particular interpretation of policy for a particular purpose, and it can decide to impose a particularly strict interpretation of policy if deemed in the interest of the article. I consider this to be a stricter interpretation of WP:RS, just as WP:MEDRS is for the field of medicine. I am also not proposing that less reliable sources cannot be included, but that they cannot be used for the purpose of determining weight and balance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @Aprock: I don't think we can use the phrasing of MEDRS directly because it specifies "medical journals" and "medical guidelines" - and of course most the relevant literature in this topic is not medical.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that, though I think being explicit that this is modeled after WP:MEDRS is important. If this does make things a little easier to manage, it might make sense to eventually carve out a generalization of WP:MEDRS, which can be more broadly applied in the most controversial topic areas. aprock (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Maunus and Aprock both make good points here, and I agree with Aprock's suggestion that WP:MEDRS should be explicitly named as a model policy. I note for the record that I do use a bio-medical library and medical textbooks for some of my research, and there are quite a few reliable sources among that literature with important information for the topic of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure why notability is mentioned. Weight and notability are different things, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They are related in that non-notable viewpoints and relatively non-notable viewpoints, receive no or limited weight.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We give weight to viewpoints based on their prominence in the most reliable sources, in contrast, notability is a binary decision (either something is notable or not). Merely being notable does not give a viewpoint any due weight to be mentioned in another article. The flat earth movement is notable, but it does not have weight to be mentioned in earth (standard example from WP:NPOV). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don' think there is anything weird or wrong with saying "notable" where you say "prominent", although it is a different kind of notability than the one we use to determine whether an topic deserves an article. For me it is the same principle - if a viewpoint is notable/prominent enough to be mentioned in mainstream articles about the topic (which flat earth isn't regarding the topic "earth", but which the hereditarian viewpoint clearly is regarding the ropic R&I) then we include it - but weighted relative to its prominence in those sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal B. Reliability of Sources
For each of the following sources please give your opinion on whether the following sources should be considered highly reliable mainstream sources that should receive priority in establishing balance and notability of different viewpoints. In your evaluation try to asses whether a source should have Highest, High, Medium, Low or No weight.

Handbook Articles

 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) Highest priorityUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Highest priority aprock (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Highest priority This is actually not my favorite treatment of the topic, but the nature of the source makes it authoritative, and I have the whole book at hand. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Highest priority. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) Highest priorityUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Highest priority aprock (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Highest priority A good chapter from the same Cambridge handbook I have in my office, and I actually like this chapter a bit better than the Daley et al. chapter. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Highest priority. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) High priority Includes important information about Wechsler test score trends. I have the full text of this chapter, which is useful for editing other articles as well. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) High priority. Where applicable. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) Medium priority somewhat more dated than the other handbook articles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Low priority Too dated compared to the others. Presumably changes were well considered. aprock (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Medium priority The Loehlin chapter, in a handbook I also have in my office, is useful mostly for showing how the topic was viewed more than a decade ago (and thus how it has developed since the chapter was published). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) High priority A solid general overview on the topic from a prominent psychologist. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Low priority. Dated. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Review Articles

 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) Highest priority A recent review article in the flagship journal of the APA, coauthored by 7 of the most well-respected intelligence researchers. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Highest priority The author list of this article is basically an all-star cast of researchers on the topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) High priority By this I mean it's noteworthy and relevant as a review for the all environment position of the field. However, they are very selective in their arguments and they completely avoid discussing many studies and points that would contradict their position. A concern raised by several psychologists. Many of these points is highlighted by Hunt's "Human Intelligence". Great care should be taken here to avoid representing their views as the views of the broader scientific field. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Highest priority. Current understanding of the field from highly respected mainstream researchers. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) High priority A followup piece to the above where the autors explicitly states their view and explain why certain studies and arguments have been left out of the review. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) High priority The rejoinder by the authors of the main article is very important for establishing what is mainstream and what is fringe in regard to controversial aspects of this article's topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Lowest priority This is just a one page response in the usual tit for tat, back and forth argument between hereditarians and environmentalists that's been going on for decades. If it does deserve weight, it should be based on the same presentation that American Psychologist made in their issue. Which was side by side, equal time with Rushton and Woodley and Meisenberg. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) High priority. Mainstream understanding of the field. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) Highest priorityUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) High priority There are newer publications on this article's topic that go beyond Hunt and Carlson, but this was a good overview of the topic for the time it was published. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Highest priority High quality secondary source that overviews the issue from different perspectives. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Medium priority. "If not for two major unsupported statements, "Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence" would be a superb piece." It is also not a research review. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) Medium priority Single authored review in a specialized journal historically linked to the hereditarian side of the argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Low priority It looks like this paper was delayed in actually being published, as the preprints online all claim a date of 2012, but the citation of the actual published paper is for the year 2013. This paper is so far only cited (per Google Scholar) in other papers by the same author. Other signs of uptake of this paper are conspicuous by their absence. It will be important to verify the published text of the article, as it looks like editors called for changes in the submitted author manuscript. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Lowest priority. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) Highest priorityUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Highest priority Wicherts is a researcher of impeccable integrity who has often examined the data underlying other publications on the topic of this article. I think Wicherts has a journal article soon to be in press related to the topic of this article that will be well worth looking for when it is available online. (Wicherts is very good about posting links to his articles from his faculty website when publishers allow him to do so.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Highest priority. High quality review. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) Medium priority While this is a primary source for some of the most controversial research, it does represent the final summation of that research. While it can't be used to establish the weight, it can be used to establish which lines of research best represent their final views. aprock (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) High priority When I say high priority here, I mean conscientious editors will read this to be sure what the late professors said about their line of research. What weight their views should have in the article here will depend on what other sources say about those views. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Medium priority: Useful for understanding the view of Jensen and Rushton - not for understanding the relative weight of views within the field.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) High priority An important source as far as the overview of the hereditarian view of the field. Without actually going into the merits of their argument, the paper itself is heavily cited in the field. Their points heavily discussed, which means it needs to be discussed here. BlackHades (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Low priority. Best covered by secondary sources. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Reports and statements by professional organizations, groups and bodies

 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) Medium priority Now a very dated statement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Medium priority Dated, but relevant from the controversy perspective. aprock (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Medium priority Of course I read it when it was published, and have a copy mailed out by the APA in my office. New research has superseded this one, but it gives an overview of this article's topic as it appeared to a broad spectrum of APA leaders in the year of publication. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Highest priority The position of scientific organizations heavily intertwined in the issue, is always relevant. The main significant statements made in the report still holds today. That individual IQ is highly heritable, racial IQ gaps do exist, the cause of racial IQ gaps is largely unknown. These three points are still largely held today. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Medium priority. Dated and superseded. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" and Intelligence
 * Survey


 * 1) Low priority Only a statement of concern, not an assessment of results.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Medium priority Useful for Wikipedians to read as very few Wikipedia articles about race pay much attention to the scholars best acquainted with race scholarship. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Medium priority While I do maintain the importance of the views of scientific organizations, the field of anthropology does not appear to have done much research on this particular issue and certainly far less so than the field of psychology. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Low priority. Dated statement of concern. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) Low priority A statement of opinion, not peer reviewed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Primary source. Not peer reviewed. The piece claiming it is mainstream does not make it so, requires secondary sources for that. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Low priority aprock (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Medium priority Important for knowing what one group of authors signed off on at a previous period in the controversy. Both signers of this statement and persons who specifically refused to sign this statement are still active in research on this topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Medium priority It's not peer reviewed which does lower it's notability. It'e still noteworthy however in understanding the position of some of the most active and prominent researchers on this issue. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Lowest priority, primary source. Dated, uninvited "letter to the editor" type newspaper opinion piece with a misleading title. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Texbooks

 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) Highest priority Wendy Johnson is an experienced researcher in human behavior genetics, a respected colleague of most of the big names active in research in that discipline. Her book chapter in the cited book, which is part of a more extensive Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies series of textbooks, is a model of reexamining and integrating the evidence that has been discovered since Jensen's 1969 paper that did so much to reignite interest in the topic of this Wikipedia article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * James Mielke, Lyle W. Konigsberg & John Relethford. 2006. Human biological variation". Oxford University Press.
 * Survey


 * 1) High priority Being specialized in human biological variation its strength lies in its ability to assess the likelihood of a genetic component to race/IQ correlations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) High priority This is a very important source for this article. I've seen this textbook before, but I'll have to obtain it again, probably by interlibrary loan. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) Highest priority A thorough review by a well respected scholar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Highest priority A good skeptical review of many relevant aspects of the issue. aprock (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Highest priority I own this book. There are some mistakes on some other issues in this book, but it is much more mainstream and thoughtful than most of what has been used to source this Wikipedia article for years. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Highest priority Very thorough overview of the issue. Solidly displays the bias and nitpicking that both environmentalists and hereditarians in the field are guilty of. Investigates many key issues in great detail. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) Highest priority A thorough review by a well respected scholar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Highest priority A high level current presentation. aprock (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Highest priority A classic on its topic. Especially useful because the book is in its second edition, after being used for years as a textbook at Harvard, Caltech, and other universities where psychology students are expected to read thorough textbooks. I own this book, just as I still own the first edition. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Rod Plotnik & Haig Kojoumdjian, 2007. “Introduction to Psychology”. Cengage Press
 * Survey


 * 1) High priority Because it is an college level textbook its strength is to assess the general balance of hereditarian/environmental arguments in the general discipline of Psychology, not just intelligence testingUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Schacter, D. S., Gilbert, D. T., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Psychology. New York: Worth.
 * Survey


 * 1) High priority Because it is an college level textbook its strength is to assess the general balance of hereditarian/environmental arguments in the general discipline of Psychology, not just intelligence testingUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nick Haslam, 2007. "Introduction to Personality and Intelligence" SAGE Publications Ltd
 * Survey


 * 1) High priority Because it is an college level textbook focused on the field of intelligence and individual differences its strength is to assess the general balance of hereditarian/environmental arguments in the general field of intelligence studies.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Scott Lilienfeld, 2013. Psychology: From Inquiry to Understanding. Pearson. ISBN:978-0205961672
 * Survey


 * 1) High priority I'd like to suggest the Lilienfeld textbook because Lilienfeld did his Ph.D. studies in a milieu of behavior genetics research with a lot of emphasis on research rigor. This book is in its third edition, so it has been examined by professors for its usefulness and accuracy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Survey
 * Survey


 * Survey
 * Survey


 * 1) High priority I don't currenlty have access to this book but it seems highly useful.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

 * Let me see if I understand this correctly. You feel Nisbett et al. "Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments" should have the highest priority. There have been criticism published against this paper, which is certainly expected in a field as contentious, disputed, and controversial as this one, which is published in the exact same peer review journal as Nisbett et al. Which include Rushton, J.P "No narrowing in mean Black–White IQ differences—Predicted by heritable g." and MA Woodley, G Meisenberg. “Ability differentials between nations are unlikely to disappear.” You didn't even bother listing any criticism to this paper in your list which seems to imply you feel there should be no weight. Yet the response that Nisbett et al. makes directly to these criticism which is "Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin." you feel is also highest priority? So its..


 * Nisbett et al. = highest priority.
 * Criticism to Nisbett et al = zero priority
 * Nisbett et al's response to criticism = highest priority


 * Is this correct? BlackHades (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The list of sources does not pretend to be exhaustive, if you feel high quality mainstream sources are missing feel free to add them to the survey and we'll let consensus decide.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason why I brought this up is that the criticism to Nisbett et al is published in the exact same peer review journal that Nisbett et al is published on. Not only are they published in the exact same journal, they were published in the exact same issue and date. Which is "American Psychologist 67(6) (2012)". With JP Rushton on pages 500-501. Woodley and Meisenberg on pages 501-502 and Nisbett et al on pages 503-504. Given that they are all coming from the exact same source and same journal, the weight in this particular instance should be equal since it's impossible to try to argue one is coming from a higher quality source than the other. American Psychologist makes no indication that it favors one particular view over the other. BlackHades (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that follows. It is not unusual for journals to publish responses when specific researchers are criticized as Rushton is in Nisbett et al's. review. Rushton's criticism is single authored article which is not a review and it receives a response that can only be understood to mean that his research is simply no longer considered part of the mainstream by the group of scientists who wrote the review and was therefore excluded. There is ample evidence for the general view of Rushton as being on the fringe of science. If you believe Rushton's article should receive as high priority as Nisbett et al.'s review then you are free to add it, but I believe it should receive little or no weight. Even if he were still alive he could not have been claimed to be a part of the scholarly dialogue after such a forceful rejection of his research by the mainstream. But by all means enter it into the survey and consensus will decide the weight. Woodley and Meisenberg I have no opinion on at the moment, they might be worth including but I haven't read their piece yet.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin" isn't a review either. It's just a direct response to the criticism as raised by Rushton and Woodley and Meisenberg. It seems inappropriate to give weight to the response of the criticism but no weight to the criticism that actually lead to the response when both the criticism and response are from the exact same reliable source, which is American Psychologist, in the exact same issue and date. This tit for tat response in the field has been going on for decades where environmentalists respond to hereditarians, who then responds back to environmentalists, and back and forth, often times in the exact same journal.


 * Hereditarian positions are not fringe and this constant attempt to make it appear as such needs to stop. Fringe cannot get publication in such a mainstream peer review journal like the APA. Per WP:NPOV "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."


 * There is no indication that the extreme environment positions as expressed by Nisbett/Flynn are more prominent in mainstream peer review journals like the APA, Intelligence, etc. In fact Jensen would have more papers published in mainstream peer review journals than anyone else in the field. Would you agree with this? High quality textbooks such as Hunt's "Human Intelligence" are quite heavily critical of the extreme environment positions such as Nisbett/Flynn. To be fair they are critical of Jensen/Rushton as well but this push of yours to make Nisbett/Flynn mainstream, when there is no evidence to support they are, is inappropriate. The obituary of Arthur Jensen published in the peer review journal Intelligence, called Nisbett's position a "dwindling band"


 * "Art's case was still not universally accepted but supporters of a wholly environmental explanation had become a dwindling band among whom the most prominent is Richard Nisbett (2009)."


 * Lynn, R. (2012). Obituary: Arthur Robert Jensen, 1924–2012. Intelligence.
 * As previously stated Nisbett has been outside the mainstream in the field of psychology for decades. So much of what he asserts completely conflicts with the accepted "knowns" from the "Intelligence Knowns and Unknowns" APA Task Force Report of 1996. Criticism of Nisbett isn't even just from hereditarians. His position even conflicts heavily from more neutral psychologists such as Hunt and Loehlin. Are you familiar with his "Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental process (1977)" paper? It's the paper that made him infamous and brought on strong condemnation from the psychology field.


 * Dickens, who's one of the coauthors with Nisbett/Flynn, made it very clear that while he agrees with Nisbett/Flynn, their point remains controversial.
 * “Both Flynn and Nisbett take the view, as do I, that genetic differences probably do not play an important role in explaining differences between the races, but the point remains controversial, and Arthur Jensen provides a recent discussion from a hereditarian perspective.”--Dickens, William T. "Genetic differences and school readiness." The Future of Children (2005): 55-69.
 * Hunt, while he does have some criticism for Jensen/Rushton, called their 2005 paper, which was published in a highly mainstream peer review journal, "well presented".
 * “The argument for genetic causes for group differences has been maintained by several serious researchers over the years. The three most prominent advocates of this position today are Arthur Jensen of the University of California, Berkeley; Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster; and J. Phillipe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario. The arguments they propose, which are essentially identical, were well presented in a 2005 paper by Rushton and Jensen.”--Hunt Earl. (2011) “Human Intelligence” pg. 433
 * You continue to completely undermine the controversy that exists in the scientific field. This issue is strongly contentious, disputed, and controversial. Dickens himself admits their position is controversial. In no way does he ever indicate that it is mainstream. You insist the extreme environment position of Nisbett/Flynn is mainstream and that hereditarian positions are fringe. When I've repeatedly requested for any reliable source that makes this claim, you never provide any. This is the kind of advocacy that would be forbidden by active arbitration remedies. Per WP:NPOV, all significant views must be given weight and the weight should be on the prominence of the view as it exists in reliable sources. BlackHades (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Well presented" is hardly praise - it means it is well written, not that it makes sense or is true - Hunt gives the two of them plenty of harsh criticism in the 2011 book - basically he considers Jensen's statistical vector model to be useless. And yes I will continue to insist that the mainstream view should be treated as the mainstream view. And i will continue to state that the mainstream view is the one found in reliable mainstream sources such as Nisbett&Flynns review which is not extreme, and which no one has called extreme. And yes, the point of this RfC is to establish that it clearly is the mainstream view, because it is the view that is favored in most mainstream sources. Dickens' does not say that his view is extreme, he says it is controversial which is something else and obviously true.Rushton and Jensen will get their weight according to their prominence in reliable sources - but they are not reliable sources themselves. Richard Lynn's glowing obituary of Jensen is not a reliable source for anything at all - and suggesting it is, is extremely poor judgment. Your obfuscation and pov pushing becomes more and more pathetic by the hour. Rushton is fringe and has always been fringe as a brief review of his article here will attest. Nisbett on the other hand is not fringe, but thoroughly mainstream, and fringe authors who have been rejected from the discipline do not publish review authors with 6 prominent and well respected co-authors in AP. You are clearly desparate .User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * By "rejecting from the discipline" do you mean mainstream journals like American Psychologist and Intelligence publishing Rushton's work over and over again? Or are you arguing that scientific journals like American Psychologist and Intelligence are actually fringe sources? They must be if Rushton is fringe and yet they continue to publish his work over and over again. Let me see if I understand this. American Psychologist publishes Nisbett et al. You then proclaim Nisbett et al is coming from a highly mainstream source. American Psychologist publishes Jensen/Rushton. You proclaim Jensen/Rushton is fringe....You do realize they're both coming from the same source right? When you say fringe are you even going by WP:FRINGE? Reliable sources in WP:FRINGE is defined as:


 * "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas."


 * You're really claiming that Rushton is not prominent in any of the above? In particular "academic and peer-reviewed publications" which is defined by wikipedia policies as the "most reliable sources". You really want to claim that Rushton fits the wikipedia policy of WP:FRINGE? You even explicitly stated that you didn't even bother reading any of the criticism to Nisbett et. al. Which I don't even understand how when they're published in the exact same journal and issue on adjoining pages. You didn't even read it and yet you've already established it is fringe and deserves no weight...based on? It can't be the source, if you proclaim the source is unreliable we have to remove Nisbett et al as well as it's the same source. If you proclaim it is a reliable source, then we would have to give weight in accordance to the prominence that it is the source. You can't give unequal weight when American Psychologist themselves allocated weight based on their own expertise. American Psychologist gave equal time and weight to Rushton, Woodley and Meisenberg, and Nisbett et al. In no way did the journal American Psychologist indicate which view is the minority and which is the majority. It can't be high level textbooks, since such high level textbooks such as Hunt's "Human Intelligence" flat out reject the primary conclusion by Nisbett et al. and clearly outlines the problem that environmentalists like Nisbett constantly make:


 * “The direct evidence that we have for genetic effects does not come close to accounting for the size of the gap between White and African American test scores. Neither do environmental effects. And, unfortunately, the environmental evidence has often been presented as evidence that environmental effects do occur – which no advocate of genetic models has ever denied – but has not been presented in a way that permits a quantitative estimate of how important environmental effects are in determining group differences in intelligence in the population.”--Hunt, Earl. (2011) “Human Intelligence”, pg. 435.


 * So when you say Nisbett et al is the mainstream position in the field, what is this based on? I must have asked you 10 times now for a source, ANY source, to support this repeated claim of yours. You claim "mainstream sources" say so. What mainstream sources? American Psychologist? Intelligence? Cambridge University Press? So once again, what is your source for this bold claim? BlackHades (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not going to agree through discussion on this. I think you are either wilfully trying to misrepresent the mainstream of science or simply not sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic. I am sure you think the same about me. Further discussion between us will get us nowhere. I have added two additional questions to the RfC to let the consensus decide what is more mainstream - the "100% environmental view" or Rushton.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The way you word the RfCs, I would agree with both of them. You can pull these RfCs since there is no dispute here. Or keep them up if you want but I don't see the point since no one is challenging them nor do I think anyone would argue against them. If this is what you thought I was challenging then you appear to have misinterpreted me. Mainstream is defined as the majority prevailing position. This is what I meant by mainstream. Are you still confident that Nisbett's 100% environment position is the mainstream position? Mainstream being defined as the prevailing majority dominant position of the field? Keeping in mind that if it is true, it would mean Hunt is not mainstream. Loehlin is not mainstream. The APA Task Force report is not mainstream. I HIGHLY doubt this. Nisbett's position is not more prevalent than Hunt's position, Loehlin's position, or the APA's Task Force position.


 * Regarding the other RfC, our argument was not whether Rushton was mainstream, it was whether he was fringe. If you still maintain he is fringe, then we can open a new RfC on it. But if you agree that he is "prominent and notable enough to be included", meaning you believe he passes WP:FRINGE, then we appear to be on the same page and there doesn't appear to be a dispute here and an RfC is not necessary. BlackHades (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have defined what I mean by mainstream a long time ago. I can hardly be held accountable for your failure to read that. Rushton's position is a fringe view within psychology and within intelligence testing. It is not considered a part of the central mainstream paradigm to which Hunt, Loehlin, Nisbett and the APA and the many other mainstream sources we are reviewing belong. But he is a prominent figure within the debate (I would say more out of notoriety than merit), and hence should receive more weight than zero. The exact amount should be determined by the weight given him by the best mainstream sources. As Rushton himself noted, for example in his rejoinder to Nisbett et al. the weight his scholarship was allotted was not necessarily as much as he would have preferred. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You stated that you feel fringe is a "small minority view that is against a solid consensus to the contrary within a field of inquiry, and who often represent a completely incommensurable paradigm." This could be considered accurate to Rushton depending on what specific part of Rushton's position you're referring to as some parts of his position is more accepted than others. For example, Hunt does agree with some specific points by Rushton. The question though is do you feel Rushton fits wikipedia's policy of WP:FRINGE, more specifically do you feel his position doesn't meet "significant view" as published in reliable sources as stated by WP:NPOV? Just so we're super clear, I'm not asking if he's mainstream, I'm asking does he pass the threshold for "significant view" per policy. I can't see how he doesn't pass this threshold. His view is repeatedly published by reliable sources, often times in the same reliable sources that publishes Nisbett or Flynn's view. Secondary sources in support of his position does exist. Again from similar or same reliable sources. Prominent adherents to his position can easily be named as required by WP:NPOV. Per wikipedia policies, he meets "significant view" as stated in WP:NPOV and hence due weight is certainly greater than zero. BlackHades (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE states "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." and yes I do think Rushton fits that category. Particularly I think he falls under the category 3. "questionable science". But Rushton also clearly passes the criteria of notability for a fringe theorist: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia." As such I think what we need to do is to follow the mainstream sources and see how they describe him and his work and how much weight they assign it - and we need to make his position within the field clear to the readers so as to not mislead them. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I personally think that in a lot of cases like this, which involve contentious matters, maybe one of the best ways to start is to try to develop articles on some of the proposed sources themselves, indicating what the academic world thinks of them, and, if it is encyclopedia-type or otherwise a collection of separate works of more than one editor, indicating where possible which of those sources are more highly regarded than others. Those articles on sources could then be included in links of some sort to this article, and maybe any other related articles. Having that data available on site here to all would almost certainly make it much easier for others to come into the discussion and more quickly assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of the article, at least as regards those sources which have been given their own articles. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but this list of proposed sources are the kind of sources that could presumably be used to write those types of articles - not the kind of classical sources that would typically have an article written about them. The Bell Curve and How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? and similarly classic texts within the field already have articles - but they are primary sources and should not be used to base the article on.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering this is an RfC, it speeds up matters, for those with no background knowledge of the dispute, if ISBN's and DOI's are included in all books and papers etc mentioned. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * IRWolfie, see the source list I keep in my user space for many more bibliographic details, and some other recommended sources. I'll try to edit entries here tomorrow, now that I've seen your request. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Question C: Is the "100% Environmental" position a mainstream view?
The question is whether it is a widely held mainstream view that the entire IQ test score gap is likely to be explainable by environmental effects. Note that the question is not whether it is the only mainstream view, nor whether it has been proven to account for the entire gap, but only about whether it is considered a probable explanation by a wide selection of mainstream scholars.


 * Survey
 * 1) Yes The "100% Environement" explanation has been mainstream since the first UNESCO statement on race continued to be so in the subsequent statement and in the statement of the 1997 AAPA statement. The view is espoused in psychology textbooks such as those by Schacter et al., Plotkin & Kujoumdjian, and in Intelligence and Personality textbooks such as the one by Haslam. The articles by Daley and Ongwuebuzie and by Suzuki et al. in the 2011 Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence describe only environmental factors and are highly critical of most of the published material pruporting to show genetic causes. Wicherts et al. also favor environmental factors in explaining the gap, though they do not exclude the possibility of some genetic factors being found. The 2011 review article and rejoinder to Rushton by Nisbett, Flynn, Turkheimer, Halpern, Aronson, Dickens & Blair show conclusively that the 100% environmentalist is not a fringe view but espoused by a wide selection of highly esteemed intelligence researcher. The views that see the intelligence gap is explainable is either by equal measures of genetic and environmental factors, or sees it as being mostly environmental with some possible yet to be ascertained genetic factors are also mainstream views. The 80% genetic hypothesis of Rushton and Jensen is not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes If this is how you're defining mainstream, then the answer is obviously yes. BlackHades (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * 1) Comment Your question is completely faulty. By definition, there can only be one mainstream position. Wikipedia article Mainstream defines it as "the common current thought of the majority." Mainstream is the prevailing dominant view. It is not possible to have more than one majority. The RfC needs to be written. BlackHades (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any such definition of mainstream. I have given the definition of mainstream that I use above on this talkpage. It means the centre of dialogue within a discipline, not just the single dominant or majority view in disciplines where there is so. I have no where claimed that the 100% environmental view is the majority or dominant view within the discipline. There is no single dominant view in the field of R&I now.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then the problem appears to be that we were not using the same definition of mainstream. Based on the definition of mainstream you mentioned, we would be completely on the same page. Yes there is no single dominant view. That was ironically what I was trying to prove you to this whole time.. BlackHades (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Which was why I wrote this a long time ago: Talk:Race_and_intelligenceUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Question D: Is J. Philippe Rushton considered a mainstream scientist?
The question is whether Rushton as a person and a scholar is generally considered to be within the mainstream of the field of Psychology. The question is not whether he is prominent and notable enough to be included, but about whether his views should be given equal weight to mainstream views within the article.


 * Discussion


 * 1) No Rushton is not mainstream. I know of few scholars who have been faced with harsher criticism than Rushton both on methdologiogical and theoretical grounds (the moral and ethical criticisms of course do not count when assessing a scientific view). There is a veritable body of literature of critiques of all aspects of Rushton's methods and analyses, from faulty data collection to cherrypicking of studies, to misrepresentation of studies, to statistical blunders or statistical malpractice and to theoretical misunderstandings of the theories he is applying. Rushton has been roundly critiqued on all fronts from mainstream researcher in all of the relevant disciplines. EVen the other pyshcologists in his own department at UWO published scathing critiques of his work. I know of three textbooks (Alland's "Race in Mind", Brace's "Race is a four letter word" and Graves' "The emperor's new clothes") with chapters about Rushton's work in which it is criticized as racist pseudoscience, and I know of several other textbooks that mention Rushton in passing dismissing his research as obviously flawed. He is simply not considered a serious scientist. Why is his work sometimes published in highly respected journals? I think it is out of courtesy to give him a chance to defend against the serious criticisms, and because hereditarians have a habit of complaining about being "censored" whenever their work is rejected by a journal. I think many journals consider it a better strategy to publish it and let it fall on its own (lack of) merits. Also note that Rushton's work is generally single authored except for his co-publications with Jensen and Lynn - both of whom were his close friends and were occupying similar positions as pariahs within the science and hence had little to lose. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) No The argument we had was whether Rushton was fringe not whether he was mainstream. This RfC needs to be rewritten as well. BlackHades (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) No To be on-point with what is discussed here in relation to the editing of the Wikipedia article Race and intelligence, any view on that issue that is distinctive to the late J. Philippe Rushton and not prominently mentioned with support (rather than refutation) in a mainstream reliable source is a fringe view (or, at best, the view of a tiny minority). As such, it would receive little or no weight to receive due weight during the editing of this article. I know of many researchers on this topic who evaluate Rushton's distinctive contributions to the literature similarly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) No. Rushton's views are devoid of scientific merit. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward: Proposal for new structure
This is how I am considering restructuring the article. Note that the history section is not analogous to the article on the history of the controversy because it focuses on the actual research and not on the controversy and political implications. It will be written not fully chronologically but so that each set of arguments and critiques are located together in a section, while also placing the research into its historical context. Let me hear what you think.


 * Lead
 * Background
 * Colonial scientific racism and claims of white superiority, Galton and intelligence testing,
 * History of Research
 * The Army Tests (a short paragraph)
 * Yerkes/Terman/Brigham/Shuey - Boas/Myrdal/Benedict&Weltfish/Bond - civil rights and desegregation
 * Arthur Jensen (a short paragraph)
 * How much can we boost - Jensenism debates - emergence of London school of IQ difference research vs. social constructionist psychology - G/Spearman vs. multiple intelligences,, Shockley, Pioneer fund,
 * The Minnesota Adoption study (a couple of paragraphs)
 * Findings + critiques (lack of control of environmental factors (prenatal environment and role of race phenotype on life experience))
 * Mismeasure of Man (not more than a line)
 * Arguments + critiques (ideologically motivated and misrepresenting data)
 * The Bell Curve debates (a couple of paragraphs)
 * Arguments + critiques - APA report, "mainstream science"
 * The Flynn Effect(a couple of paragraphs)
 * Findings by Flynn + differing explanations (Flynn, Neisser, Rushton/Jensen)
 * National IQ studies (a paragraph)
 * Findings/Claims by Lynn/Vanhanen + critiques (Wicherts et al.)


 * Main Concerns and Questions
 * What do IQ tests measure?
 * What is intelligence and IQ?: Spearman's hypothesis/G, multiple intelligences, cross-cultural intelligence, Jensen, Hunt, Sternberg
 * Fluid/Crystallized,
 * What is race? Social construction, genetic ancestry: Kaplan, Hunt/Carlson, Tang et al.
 * What are the genetic influences on IQ?: individual within-group heritability high (but of variable size in different groups), difficult to correct for environmental effects, no gene/race/intelligence links discovered, hardly any known relations between polymorphisms and intelligence in normal range
 * Adoption, admixture - problems with both (not correcting for environment)
 * What are the environmental influences on IQ?
 * Nutrition & Health, SES/class, Stereotype threat, literacy/education/prior experience, stress, all have been shown to affect the gap in different ways.
 * What are the relative contributions of genes and environment to the IQ gap?
 * 80% genes (because of high individual heredity) (Rushton/Jensen/Lynn), 50/50(or agnostic) (Hunt? Deary? Loehlin? Neisser? Ceci? who else?), probable 100% environment (Flynn, Nisbett, Aronson, Dickens, Turkheimer, Halpern, Fagan, Marks (Sternberg?))
 * Is it ethically defensible to study Race and IQ?
 * Rose/Kamin/Lewontin/Flynn/Hunt/Jensen


 * Current research agendas:
 * Finding environmental causes for the gap
 * Finding links between genes and intelligence, and between genes and populations

Comments & Discussion
Would the history section be expanded from what it currently is? Given that the history of race and intelligence already has a separate article, I don't think it should be expanded more and perhaps it should even be shortened somewhat.

I would argue against the "What are the relative contributions of genes and environment to the IQ gap?" section. Such a section seems like it would have too much potential for editor abuse. More so than any other section. Beyond that, the answer is unanswerable in a scientific sense. Aside from the extreme hereditarians and the extreme environmentalists, most do not give specific or even relative figures of contribution. Those that do, tend to get criticized by others who point out that it is impossible to come up with such precise contribution figures based on current evidence. Hunt points out that all the current environment evidence combined cannot come close to explaining the gap. Same with current genetic evidence. There are more unknowns of what is causing the gap than there are knowns. A point made by the APA Task Force Report which appear to still hold today.

The "Is it ethically defensible to study Race and IQ?" is a very good addition to the article. I was planning on proposing this addition myself.

Regarding the "What are the genetic influences on IQ?" You mention individual heritability of IQ, admixture, and adoption. I don't know if these are meant to be just part of the section or the entire section but the other sections that are currently in the article would need to be included as well. Which includes brain size, Spearman's hypothesis, mental chronometry, etc.

Regarding the "What are the environmental influences on IQ?" section. While you mentioned the problems of not correcting for environment influences in the genetic section, you didn't mention the problems of not correcting for genetic influences in the environment section. This would need to be included in this section as well. For example, differences in IQ by SES/class. Hunt explains this problem quite thoroughly. The which comes first, the chicken or egg dilemma. Whether high SES/class increases IQ or whether those with higher IQ by genetics would lead to high SES/class thereby producing high IQ offspring. The same problem of not controlling for genetic factors also exists in literacy, education, etc.

Your recent “literacy” addition to the article is missing criticism of the argument. Hereditarians in the field would point out that non verbal culture free IQ tests which require no literacy to take, such as Raven's Progressive Matrices, show no closing of the gap but actually show an increase in racial IQ gaps. Such criticism needs to be included in the literacy section. The section appears to be overweight currently as well as 4 paragraphs are devoted to a single study.

You've stated that for environmental factors "all have been shown to affect the gap in different ways" but this is not conclusive. Test bias and SES are not considered significant contributors for the cause of racial IQ gaps per the mainstream view such as APA. Studies have shown comparing equally high SES between whites and blacks does not decrease the white-black IQ gap. Such studies would need to be included in the section. Environment factors such as SES, education, literacy, have problems relating to not correcting for genetic influence as mentioned above. Hunt, and especially Jensen, have made strong critiques on these arguments. Nisbett et. al's conclusions regarding environmental factors are controversial and not universally accepted. They should not be presented as though they are definitive.

On the “current research agendas” section, could you give some specifics that would be included in the section?

Overall, I think it's a reasonable format for the article. The history section shouldn't be over done as it already has a separate article. You mention including criticism of genetic factors but never mention any for environment factors. All the environment arguments you listed will have plenty of criticism against it found in high level journals and textbooks. It would be important to include criticism of both genetic and environment factors. Given the constant bickering back and forth both hereditarians and environmentalists in the field do, often in the same high level peer review journals, criticism for both should be relatively easy to find. More neutral researchers like Hunt will have plenty of criticism for both. BlackHades (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The history section needs to be expanded, and it is not overlapping with the History of IQ and Race controversy, because this will be the history of the RESEARCH not of the controversy. It is necessary to provide an overview of the different phases of the research and place the main studies in the correct context. The history section will come to include most of the older material that is now in the other sections. It is simply a way of reporting the findings of the main studies in a chronological way.
 * The "relative weight of genetic/environmental factors" is necessary because different scholars DO give their guesses and they are covered. This section will show how the reader how much different scientists ascribe to either of the two factors and is absolutely crucial in order to alloow the reader to determine the balance of views in the field. If it is open to editor abuse then the obvious advice would: don't. Apart from Hunt I don't know of any reliable review sources that describe the supposed problem of not correcting for genetic factors in environmental studies and frankly I don't see how it would even be possible, and the APA reports view is by now 15 years old and does not describe the current state of the field. Nisbett et al. conclusions will be presented as the conclusions of a large group of the foremost researchers in the field. In science nothing is ever definitive. The hereditarian claim of Ravens being culture free and showing no closing gap will be mentioned of course, along with the counter claim that there is not such thing as a culture free test. In all the psychology introductions I have read this is the main point of critique against IQ testing, and in spite of the APA's claim that IQ tests are culture fair I think this remains a very frequent point of discussion in several of the reviews such as the ones in the cambridge handbook. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're splitting hairs here. The controversy would be the research of race and intelligence.


 * Only a minority of researchers actually give the "relative weight of genetic/environment factors". There's already been too many problems in this article by those that try to over-weigh the prominence of their preferred position while trying to censor/block any opposing view. It's easy to just say don't do editor abuse but such abuse has been rampant in this article and creating this section compounds the problem much farther. If such a section were to exist, it would need to be clear that the prominent view is that too much is still unknown regarding racial IQ gaps and the contribution of genetics/environment is unclear. It needs to be careful not to over-weigh the more definitive positions given by the extreme ends of the spectrum. This will be difficult to maintain given the past history of the article and I would welcome the input of other editors on the thoughts of creating this section.


 * There are plenty of criticism to be found for environmental arguments that mentions the problem for not correcting for genetic factors. Jensen/Rushton and Nisbett/Flynn have bickered back and forth, writing refutes against each other, in the same high level journals for decades. Hunt is also certainly a high level textbook and his criticism of both genetic and environmental arguments should be included. Nisbett et al. would be a significant minority view and should be presented as such. Other significant minority views, that may conflict with Nisbett et al., would need to be presented as well. The research of race and intelligence remains an extremely slow moving field. I'm not sure there's been a ground breaking, widely accepted finding in the last 15 years that have drastically changed the landscape of the debate. What would you consider as the major ground breaking findings of the last 15 years that have drastically changed the course of the debate? BlackHades (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not splitting hairs, no. The controversy and the research are two different topics. I dont know what you base your idea that Nisbett et al. is a minority opinion. It is not, there is no majority that opposes their view. It is false to suggest that the debate is plaroized with rushton on one end and nisbett in the other and the mainstream in between as you have been doing. It is simply not the case. The Nisbett/Flynn/Turkheimer/Halpern/Aronson/Dickens view and the more agnostic view of Hunt, Carlson and Loehlin and similar scholars are both mainstream views + neither of which is in a clear majority relative to the other (except numerically). If you were to look in college level introductionary textbooks to psychology and to personality and intelligence, as I have been advocating, you will find that generally they lean very heavily towards environmental factors. So no, it is not in any shape and form a minority view and it will not be portrayed as such.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is correct to say that widely used introductory textbooks are one of the best barometers of what constitutes mainstream consensus on the topic. They are meant to serve a wide audience, in language that is general and which introduces key concepts.  To the extent that the mainstream consensus is changing, the newest widely adopted introductory textbooks are the place to track such movement. aprock (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You've previously stated:
 * "I have no where claimed that the 100% environmental view is the majority or dominant view within the discipline. There is no single dominant view in the field of R&I now."--Maunus
 * You appear to contradict yourself. If there is no single dominant majority view, then Nisbett et al. would be a minority view, as would be other views. Significant minority but minority nonetheless. You also continue to over emphasize the 100% environmental view far more so than the actual prominence of the view. BlackHades (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No I do not contradict myself no, I am saying the exact same thing. There is no single majority dominant view. There are several. Nisbett and FLynn's 100% environmental view is one of them, Hunt, Carlson and Loehlin's agnosticism is another. Rushton And jensen is a minority view. You can only reach the conclusion that I am contradicting myself by either misrepresenting what I am saying or not actually reading it. This is o=not the first time you dont adequately read what I am saying, please try to pay more attention to what I am actually writing and less to what you believe I am writing. When you fail to read, misread or misrepresent what I am saying you are wasting everybody's time.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your contradiction appears to based on your complete failure of understanding terms like "majority". Majority means overs 50%. See Majority for more detail. If you require a dictionary, then here's a link to one. It is not possible for there to be more than one majority. A simple understanding of mathematics will demonstrate why. You should take the time to figure out what you're actually writing instead of resorting to personal attacks when you have absolutely no understanding of the terms you're spouting. As THIS is what is actually a waste of time. BlackHades (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to ignore you from this point on. I have defined the terms I use several weeks ago. Your failure or lack of will to understand is not my problem. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You expect everyone to go by your own unique self created definition of terms that nobody else in the world uses? Is there a reason why you can't just use English? No I don't understand the Maunus language nor is it my responsible to learn this language. I know and understand English, and when I write, it is based on the assumption that those that read it, understands English as well. BlackHades (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I take issue with this structuring. The article should not be leading with talk of scientific racism and colonialism as that creates a misleading and partisan interpretation of the debate, poisoning the wells with readers. Seems it is more appropriate to note that there has long been an observed difference between certain groups. Not claims of a difference, but actual evidence of differences in intelligence. What the debates centers on is whether this is merely a difference in actualized intelligence, a fundamental difference in potential intelligence, or some combination of the two. Our purpose in structuring this article should be to establish that there is an observed gap in intellectual achievement between racial groups and explain what researchers think of it. Racism is part of the discussion, but only to the extent that the research has been used to perpetuate racist attitudes or influenced the debate over the research.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A historical overview starts with the earliest and ends with the latest. Claims about white intelligence superiority dates at least back to the 17th century where the theory was proposed by people like Linneaus and Jefferson. They of course claimed to have evidence. Most books that treat the topic from an angle other than psychometrics include this aspect of the history as should we. Our purpose in restructuring the article should be to make it conform closer to how mainstream literature treats the topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @TDA, I think your feedback will only be made stronger by incorporating high quality secondary and tertiary sources into your constructive comments. aprock (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

comment: The proposed article outline appears to be thorough and neutral. I'd recommend starting in a sandbox and taking further comments there. Regards, Meclee (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no "poisoning" by starting with colonialism. Indeed, starting with colonialism prior to the slave trade we see that people were treated the same regardless of race when they first arrived in the "New World." This topic cannot be discussed without applying the crucible of societal impact. I was part of a study of preemies and took batteries of IQ tests for years (and hence my long interest in the topic although I don't edit much on it here). Testing has evolved since, nevertheless, one cannot divorce what IQ "tests" measure from access to education, cultural valuation of education, efficacy of education,... you get my drift. (Science has confirmed that the genes associated with "race", i.e., characterization by appearance, are also the least significant with regard to biological function, but another conversation.) The proposed structure does a reasonable job of exploring the topic in terms of how we got to where we are, and where we are now. The earlier point over "if A trumps B, B is discounted, and B disputes A, then we don't include dispute of A"is not worth arguing over. Just as writing about anything else, time is better spent on how to properly represent views dissenting the mainstream than arguing over inclusion and exclusion. The latter is a road WP:PERDITION.
 * We should also be careful to not assume chronology correlates inversely to bias in scholarship. Any discussion must be on the merit of the source, not "dated" or "most current" simply because of when it was published. Arguing over dates is nearly as productive as arguing over inclusion/exclusion. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you have the extremely erroneous idea that people were treated the same regardless of race when they arrived in the new world?Otherwise I agree. Ah no I also disagre with your idea about older sources. The reason newer sources are preferrable is not because of less bias, but because of newer research and the gradual refinement and correction of previous research that is the foundation of science. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is factually correct that there is much new research on this issue every year, and there is no reason to suppose that an old source will be better than a new source for any subtopic mentioned in this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment on proposed structure: I agree with the consensus emerging among the editors here that the article rewrite structure suggested by Maunus is a good way to go forward in making improvements to the article. I have several of the sources at hand, and I am ready to join the work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Iran's intelligence quotient for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iran's intelligence quotient is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Iran's intelligence quotient until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2013
I want to be able to place this in Brain size article > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14279729. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brother uche (talk • contribs) 03:35, 04 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article Brain size is not locked, so you should be able to edit it yourself. It may be a good idea to seek consensus for your proposed addition before adding it, however. If you'd like to do that, please start a new section at Talk:Brain size. (There is no need to use the Edit request template.) You can sign your talk page posts by clicking the signature button over the edit window or typing four consecutive tildes: ~ . Rivertorch (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 September 2013
The following should be added at the end of the Closing the Gap section:

The gap may also be diminished by simple incentives. According to Heckman & Kautz (2012), ''[t]he Black-White gap in IQ can be completely eliminated by incentivizing students with M&M candies.''

Source: Heckman, James J. & Tim Kautz (2012), “Hard evidence on soft skills’’, Labour Economics, Elsevier, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 451-464.

37.250.137.231 (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just ... no. ES  &#38;L  11:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)