Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 97

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)
 * 3) No According to the definition of mainstream below which is different from this one. 210.183.210.10 (talk) 11:07, 11 October 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)
 * 5) Maybe. Rushton's views are significant minority to mainstream. 210.183.210.10 (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Objection. Such matters are not suitable to be settled by popular vote. Targaryen  speak or forever remain silent 23:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Such issues are to be decided by referring to reliable sources on the article's topic, which is the focus of some of the other recent talk page threads. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is that this RfC is garbage and uses two mutually exclusive definitions of mainstream: "multiple mainstreams" for the author's preferred minority view, and "single mainstream" for the author's personally disliked minority view. Shall we open another RfC and switch it around? No, that would be transparently disingenuous wouldn't it. Did the closer even read it? 27.1.214.45 (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maunus does completely alter the definition of "mainstream" from Question C to Question D. I was one of the 2 votes for "Yes" in Question C, with Maunus being the other vote for yes. But if the more traditional English definition of mainstream is used, defining "mainstream" as the current prevailing position, the answer to Question C would be "No". If Maunus used the same definition of "mainstream" in Question C as he did for Question D, then the answer would also be "No". Nisbett's position is definitely NOT the prevailing position and there's been absolutely no evidence presented to support that it is. His position only made up 15% of the field when the Snyderman & Rothman survey was taken. This position ranked 3rd in the survey, behind the genetics/environment combination position as well as the insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion position. Many of Nisbett et al's arguments also conflict with the "Knowns" of the "Intelligence Knowns and Unknowns" 1994 APA Task Force Report, meaning it tends to argue over specific points that already previously achieved consensus. Many mainstream researchers have repeatedly argued against this 100% environmental position. Including Loehlin, Hunt, Carlson, Bouchard, Scarr, etc.


 * But with the specific way that Maunus worded Question C, the answer would be yes. This should be interpreted to mean the view is notable and should carry weight in the article but should not be mistaken for the more traditional definition of mainstream that means "prevailing or dominant position". BlackHades (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. My definition of mainstream is very clear and it is also ery commonly used. In most fields there is more than a single mainstream view. Fringe views are the views of those who such as Rushton are not a part of any of the mainstyream tracks of research but is generally considered to be working on problems or with tchniques that are of dubious validity. I think it is a little sad to see you guys whine when the consensus is against you. By your definition of "Mainstream" which is only valid when there is a single dominant position in a field there is no mainstream in theoretical physics, because the different variants of string theory are mutually exclusie and none hae a clear majority. There is also no mainstream way of classifying primates, or human ancestors since there are several taxonomic classifications in use by scientists. And wikipedia would hae no way to distinguish between a clear fringe view such that almost everyone in the discipline agrees is wrong such as say Aquatic Ape Theory and the different iews that are accepted as possible hypotheses. Your idea of how science works is erroneous and adopting your definition of "mainstream" would be a huge problem for wikipedia. The 100% environmental hypothesis is one of the mainstream views regarding the Racial IQ gap - the 80% biology view is not. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Except you don't have a definition of mainstream, you have two defintions of mainstream, the choice of which depends on whether you are applying it to your favorite POV or not. Your 'multiple mainstreams' schitck is just nonsense. Please desist. 211.119.109.57 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's not debate whether words can have different definitions. They can.  That said, Question D clarifies that the use of mainstream in this context was intended to get at the following:  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.  So the question was one of the application of WP:DUE.  Whatever definition of "mainstream" being used here seems less relevant than responding to this question.  Accusations that words were intentionally twisted to suit the proposer or my close doesn't appear to be based on anything factual (also, I've never edited this article), so I see no reason to reconsider my close.  I suggest you go to WP:AN if you want a more formal reconsideration.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 15:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There is very good evidence that the 100% environmental position is mainstream: a coauthored review by 6 of the most respected intelligence researchers in the discipline's flagship journal. COntrary to hereditarian Hunt, Mackintosh in his texbook writes: ""In spite of claims to the contrary, there is remarkably little evidence that the difference is genetic in origin: when brought up in relatively comparable environments black and white children usually obtain relatively similar test scores; and studies of the degree of white ancestry in American blacks suggest that this has little or no impact on test scores. By contrast, there is quite good evidence that several environmental factors, prevalence of low birth weight, breast-feeding, and especially style of parental interaction, do contribute to the difference in test scores.(p. 358)". By the way I agree that the hereditarian position in its reasonable versions such as those by Hunt is a mainstream view. That would be clear to anyone reading what I have actually written.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources identified here (professional handbooks and widely adopted textbooks) are examples of the best of reliable sources on this contentious topic, and I will be looking to these as I pursue further article edits. I have taken care during several trips to my friendly flagship state university library to look up all the other sources that have been used in this article over the last few years, so that I have those at hand, and it is high time to begin rewriting this article from top to bottom according to Wikipedia policy on sourcing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that there has been time for editors to check the sources and read through those that are readily available, this will be a productive time of year for updating the article from top to bottom for coherency, due weight on various subtopics, and referencing according to Wikipedia content policy. I look forward to seeing the next edits to article text along those lines and expect to edit some article sections from my own keyboard in the next few months. Let's all discuss here how to make the article better. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Knowing full well that this is a late comment, I see how the 2008 Macmillan Encyclopedia of Race & Racism has a composite entry of about 11 pages on the topic of "IQ and Testing" in its second volume. The individual subarticles are an overview, a two-page article on the origin and development of intelligence tests applied to matters of race, a two page article on "culture, education, and IQ scores," and a 3-page article on "Critiques," including issues of cultural bias, nature and nurture, applying heritability measures, environmental factors, and the fact that races are not considered valid biological units. Yeah, it is only one reference work, and I'm not sure how highly regarded it is, but it might be one indicator of what to cover in this and related articles. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will check the availability of that edition of the encyclopedia and of its new second edition (2013) at libraries accessible to me. Thank you for the source suggestion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Move to "Race and I.Q"
I think this article should be moved to "race and IQ" as that is more scientific (and most of this article is pretty scientific) and most of this article is talking about IQ tests achieved by individuals from different races.--MrEpsilon (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Prove that IQ tests are scientific. HiLo48 (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not helpful to use scientific denialism with hostile language on a talk page. It just serves to stifle discussion. Givethemahug (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Aaaaand I just realized race and IQ redirects here anyway. Okay, nevermind.--MrEpsilon (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Race and brain size
Should the Boskop skulls be mentioned? They were large neotenic skulls found in southern Africa(the cranial capacity was around 1700cc, larger than even the neanderthals). I found an article about them in discover. The author argues that based on their size they would have had an IQ average of 150. Interesting as they are believed to be the ancestors of the modern khoisan people http://discovermagazine.com/2009/the-brain-2/28-what-happened-to-hominids-who-were-smarter-than-us and here on John Hawks blog http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/return-amazing-boskops-lynch-granger-2009.html Turtire (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No. We dont deal in pseudoscientific speculation here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race.
Please explain why this statement is valid. Do you need some of the hundreds of sources and studies? Sombe19 (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the rest of the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

AndrewHamsha (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)HamshaAndrew (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Bill Gates blog
Is in no way a reliable source for this topic. He has no expertise in any area of research that is relevant for this article. His blog is not peer reviewed. And finally the blog post is not about the topic of race and intelligence, which is of course the first requirement for being used in the article. The fact that African and African American populations are at much higher risk for many environmental conditions that affect cognitive development is already mentioned based on the many reliable sources that make this point. Consensus so far has been to build this article based only on high quality sources. Let's keep doing that, the opposite is a bad spiral to get into.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC) That section is about improper nutrition causing lower intelligence. This fact shows just how common of a problem it is in the world. And Bill Gates is an expert on this, since he he runs the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which he has donated 28 billion of his own money to. More opinions please, should we have that edit in there or not?  D r e a m Focus  00:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The information I added is at "One in four children are stunted from malnutrition limiting their brain development, 75% of them live in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. []"
 * Running a foundation makes noone an expert, suggesting so is absurd and shows a basic lack of understanding of our sourcing policies. Nor does writing a blog. Neither does having money or donating it. If this fact is relevant to this article it will be included in actually reliable sources that are specifically about this topic. And those are the sources we should use. If we start lowering the standard of sources to including blogs by interested laypeople then this entire article will degenerate into complete nonsense in a very short time.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with what the blog said, but I also agree that it's not an acceptable source. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)People that are the spokesperson or heads of notable organizations often release official statements that are used as reliable sources. I can word it to say, "According to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, one in four children are stunted from malnutrition limiting their brain development, 75% of them living in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa." How about that?  D r e a m Focus  01:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But why? This can be sourced to real sources, the last thing we need is green light for a section with celebrity quotes tangentially related to the topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, no matter how you word it, a blog is still, by definition here, an unacceptable source. Look around, such a claim or similar is bound to be somewhere else in the foundation's publications, or somewhere similar. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur: Gatesnotes.com -- Bill Gates's blog -- is not an acceptable source. BCorr | Брайен 12:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur with Manus & BCorrl. Even if Gates' blog were a RS (which it's not), it doesn't specifically address race, only geographic region.  Only reliable sources can correlate the two; otherwise, the extrapolation is OR.  AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, incidentally, charities and their founders often distort facts and research (either unintentionally or intentionally) to suit their own purposes, so their quotes can hardly be trusted. (Though incidentally I think Bill Gates is unlikely to do this, having a more rigorous scientific mindset than most.) Ben Finn (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
Please clarify the meaning of this sentence: "Lynn and Vanhanen argue that due to genetic limitations in intelligence particularly in African populations, education cannot be effective in creating social and economic development in third world countries.[48]"

Does this mean the following? "Lynn and Vanhanen claim that populations in the third world, particularly populations in Africa, tend to have limited intelligence because of their genetic composition and that, consequently, education cannot be effective in creating social and economic development in third world countries.[48] CarlosChio (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence appears to give undue weight to a minority point of view, so it should probably be revised on that ground. Your reading of the sentence as it now is in article text is correct. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean "undue weight"? Is your definition of "due" weight that the hereditarian position should be completely ignored? JDiala (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Revival of source discussion
I see that the helpful discussion of reliable sources from an earlier RfC has once again aged off this article talk page. After I reposted the previous discussion, which is still in the talk page archive, an I.P. editor visited my user talk page to suggest starting a fresh discussion here. Fair enough. So pretending that we are starting from the beginning today, but possibly informed by previous discussion of sources, let's discuss here what current,  reliable sources of the highest scholarly quality would be useful for further improvement of this article, which has generated a huge archive of talk page discussion but is still only an article of moderate quality so far. I look forward to hearing everyone's suggestions of good sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A social construct?
"The current mainstream view in the social sciences and biology is that race is a social construction based on folk ideologies that construct groups based on social disparities and superficial physical characteristics". My question is, how is that statement reconcilable with essentially the entire article on race and health? The entire sub-section on the validity of race is centred around two things: genetics and statements made by certain organizations and scientists. I would like to see discussion on the practical applications of 'race' (along with the aforementioned medicine, this would also include things like forensics). The main fallacy here is that the only way for race to be a valid construct or have any scientific significance is for races to be discrete, when, of course, this is an absurd requirement (an analogy may be made with light; different colours are certainly on a continuum, so there is no particular point where one colour becomes another, but no one can seriously claim that "yellow" and "blue" are social constructs). JDiala (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems you don't really understand what it means for something to be a social construct. Named colors by the way are certainly social constructs. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is partially true but misleading. Different colours also have different physical properties (similarly, different races have different biological traits) . The point is that even if the precise distinction between two different things is not unambiguous this does not imply that those two things are not different. However, you may be correct in that I am interpreting this article suggesting 'race is a social construct based on folk ideologies' to mean 'race is a biologically invalid concept'. If that is imprecise, then the article should elucidate this. JDiala (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again you demonstrate that you dont understand what a social construct is. The fact that different colors have different wavelengths and are caught by different receptors in the eye does not mean that named color concepts are not social constructs. In the same way the fact that different named racial groups have weak correlations with frequencies of some biological markers (much less of a relation than wavelengths have with color) does not mean that they are not social constructions. The articles on race which already linked does elucidate the way that biology and social construction intersects in detail.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will concede that, quite possibly, I am misconstruing the term "social construct" as meaning "biologically irrelevant"(with regard to the colour analogy, this would be "physically irrelevant"), primarily because this is what the media is interpreting this claim as. That aside, you have not responded to the substantive points. You claim that "the fact that different colors have different wavelengths and are caught by different receptors in the eye does not mean that named color concepts are not social constructs". However, I am referring to the fact that different colours have different physical properties - I am not referring to colour perception. Electromagnetic radiation of some wavelength is vastly different from electromagnetic radiation of other wavelengths even though, as they are on a spectrum, the precise distinctions between blue, red, radio waves and gamma rays, is essentially arbitrary. Does this mean they are irrelevant categorizations? No. Lastly, these "some biological markers" are important when they result in clear phenotypic differences, which exist (and are indeed obvious) and are well documented (hence why I am discussing the issue of race and health and forensics, to which you have not responded). I would say that this article too ought to discuss how biology (and therefore intelligence) and social construction intersect so that others don't make the same error of "not really understanding what a social construct is" because that entire sub-section, to the lay reader, seems to repudiate a priori the hereditarian hypothesis; race doesn't exist, so obviously there is no genetic contribution to the IQ gap. JDiala (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Medicinal and forensic uses of race rely on the fact that socially constructed racial groupings happen to correlate sufficiently with ancestral groups phenotypes that they can to an extent serve as a proxy for each other. If you are suggesting that this be stated in the section on race then this is certainly possible.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is precisely what I am suggesting. It should, at the very least, be noted that even if race is a 'social construct' it is one which has clear applicability. The myriad phenotypic differences (documented not least by Rushton) between racial groupings which are less controversial than intelligence should be discussed before dismissing the concept of 'race' altogether. The reason I am bringing this up is because when discussing this issue, one common tactic to sidestep the debate is the following syllogism: race is a social construct, thus racial differences in intelligence cannot be true. Of course, this is false - even if racial categorizations are social constructs, "ancestral groups phenotypes" (which correlate rather well with 'race') may still be different. JDiala (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Te debate is covered in some detail in the "race" section and the fact that race may correlate sufficiently with genetic populations to be a possible factor in racial disparities in IQ is definitely stated. The diligent reader will of course read past the first sentence of the section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion is largely limited to population genetics. I am referring to, again, the phenotype--which is why I brought up race, health, and forensics(though we needn't limit ourselves; sports performance, for example, may also be considered. The list is endless). A sentence would suffice. JDiala (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article Race and health is currently still misleadingly poorly sourced. All of the better authors on the topic have discovered that the current research shows that "race" is largely a medically meaningless category, and if it is meaningful at all, it is meaningful to medicine for its social associations rather than its weak biological associations. For example, -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 11:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is it poorly sourced? Moreover, why is Michael Crawford a "better author"? He is an anthropologist, not a medical practitioner. The statement made is unsubstantiated. There's swaths of literature on racial (as vague as that term may be) differences in hormone levels, body composition, diseases, blood type, cranial capacity etc. and that these differences have clinical significance. JDiala (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Species is also a social construct human made up for something that is actually a continous sprectum.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's important to point out that everything is a social construct. Unfortunately the stupid mass media will interpret that as biologically and scientifically meaningless, but what can one do. I'm fixing the other biological classification articles. By the way color is a bad example since it a perfect continuum, while the topography of genetic space has maxima and minima, and can be divided as an objective natural kind. But the word race is a social construct, so we can put it in the first sentence of all articles. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately only the established editors of the human race article feel it's important to point out race is a "social construct". Funny that. Especially since color is more of a social construct. Actually I think it's some kind of Marxist deception tactic. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Kallisti
I hate to encourage certain people, but is bound to perk up some ears around these parts. Please be careful in your interpretation. Wnt (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * By Wikipedia policies and content guidelines, we should prefer secondary sources to press releases as sources at all times for all Wikipedia article. But thanks for the link; I'll take a look at what it points to as I continually pursue sources on this article's topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies - I see the release didn't actually link though it mentioned it. Wnt (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Rejoinder concerning Turkheimer, 2003
This paper is used here and on Heritability of IQ by way of the 2012 paper for the finding that in low SES families heritability of IQ falls down. Yet, this finding has been contradicted by a lot more research since, especially Hanscombe et al. 2012. I want other editors to chime in on this, but the fact remains that Turkheimer's paper doesn't remain unchallenged.Wajajad (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont see this paper as contradicting Turkheimer. It develops the same conclusion, namely that there is higher variance in SES among lower SES groups and that this is due to environmental not genetic differences. This is exactly the same conclusion as Turkheimers, and is in fact a contradiction of the argument that SES-IQ correlations are due to genetic effects. They conclude that: "Although the genetic influence on IQ is the same in lower-SES families, shared environmental influence appears to be greater in lower-SES families, suggesting that family-based environmental interventions might be more effective in these families." This is exactly the same conclusion argued by Nisbett, Flynn, Turkheimer et al. which is that low SES ave a less stimulating environment which leads them to overall have greater difficulty in achieving their maximal genetic potential (which is the same as high SES families) and hence produces greater variance and a lower mean. It then tempers thyat conclusion by noting that the environmental difference is modest (which is to be expected I would suggest because of the preselective bias of twin studies that tend to be skewed towards high SES families, undersampling low SES) and secondly by possibility that the effect of genetic heritability increases during the individual lifetime.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maunus has said correctly that the reliable secondary sources (please read those if you are here to build an encyclopedia) accept the result of the Turkheimer 2003 paper, while mentioning that other studies with somewhat different study populations have not all had the same result. But, anyway, this obsession about heritability estimates is itself, according to all the reliable secondary literature, a sign of misunderstanding what heritability means. Turkheimer (remember, this is the guy that some editors on Wikipedia earlier battled to label a "hereditarian", because Professor Turkheimer has a long and distinguished career in behavior genetics research) is the co-author of a definitive review article that reminds us "Moreover, even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability."  Until editors here understand what heritability means and what heritability doesn't mean (for which topic I also recommend another review article, namely  ), it will be hard to produce improvements in the article text of this article, which I hope is something we are all here to do. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 10:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A few points:

1) "It develops the same conclusion, namely that there is higher variance in SES among lower SES groups and that this is due to environmental not genetic differences."

The phenotypic and, especially, non-genetic variance of IQ is what may be higher in low SES families. "Higher variance in SES" doesn't mean anything.

Moreover, Kirkpatrick et al. found lower IQ variance in low-SES families, in contradiction with Turkheimer. They also found that heritability does not vary as a function of trait level (low IQ and high IQ are equally due to genes).

2) "in fact a contradiction of the argument that SES-IQ correlations are due to genetic effects"

Nope. The method used in these studies only estimates how those genetic and environmental main effects on IQ that are NOT shared with SES are moderated by SES.

3) Turkheimer's study is underpowered and its conclusions are not consistent, in terms of the magnitude of moderation, with other studies. Hanscombe et al. 2012 did find a moderation effect but it's very small compared to Turkheimer's.

4) "I would suggest because of the preselective bias of twin studies that tend to be skewed towards high SES families, undersampling low SES"

The TEDS sample is representative of the UK population in terms of SES. Turkheimer's sample is highly unrepresentative (and old).--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 4. I dont know much about the specific samples used so you may be right that Turkheimers sample is even less representative, but was argueing based on as far as I know in general twin studies and adoption studies tend to undersample the lowest rungs of the SES hierarchy. 1. I of course meant higher variance in IQ, not in SES. I have no comments to your 2 and 3 - but will await how future reviews assess the different studies and their flaws and advantages. This is exactly why we need secondary review articles to assess the relative significance of this and other primary studies. And it is why the Nisbett et al. review is among our best sources for the current state of affairs. Maybe Plomin will publish a similar review from his perspective soon.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

America
I did a routine linking to the United States, thanked by one user, then another user reverted saying not only the US. Fine but in that case we must remove the mention of the US in the opening. I dont care which but we either dont include American or we include it with a link to the US. American can, esp outside the US, refer to people in the Americas but I dont believe the text referred to that. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I meant to remove the reference altogether, but somehow blew it. It's ok now.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Piffer (2015) secondary source discussion
A copy of this discussion should also be made on the Heritability of IQ page, considering this source has relevant data pertaining to several topics.

The paper is available to read here and is published in Intelligence, a notable journal for this topic area.

What's most relevant is the discussion of GWAS hits for various education attainment parameters (and said hits are also associated with g) and that these hits have been replicated (contrary to the belief that GWAS hits for cognitive traits won't replicate or haven't thus far replicated.)

The frequencies for these alleles also differ across populations, and were found to reflect national differences in IQ.

I urge editors to look into this new review and figure out how the findings can be used to improve this and other articles. Wajajad (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That paper is not published in Intelligence, but is self-archived on the internet. Piffers unpublished selfarchived papers are not relevant untill people begin citing them in peer reviewed sources. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Piffer's paper was published in Intelligence yesterday after what I hear was much wrangling. While I think it's great that his work has finally found its way into an excellent journal, I believe it's premature to use it as a source for Wikipedia articles (except for his review of significant GWAS hits). Many of his methods are novel and not yet widely accepted. Population stratification remains a problem despite his attempts to adjust for it. Once the rumored 70 GWAS hits from the SSGAC consortium are published, Piffer's method can be put to a stronger test.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, it is not yet up on their website. I agree, we should wait and see how it is taken up in the future studies and or reviews.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we can use it now for smaller claims, like that of significant GWA hits and replication (as Victor pointed out.) We can wait until more scholars review Piffer's work here before we put up content related to the possibly more contentious claims.Wajajad (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The article abstract says, "Allele frequencies varied in a way that matched group-level phenotypic intelligence, albeit not significantly so." It's very easy to overinterpret statements about "significant" (the term there is used in the statistics sense, not in the real-world sense) GWAS hits, so I'd be wary of putting much into the Wikipedia article at all from the contentious article in the journal Intelligence (to which I have a subscription and which I have read regularly for years). Note that Piffer is citing mostly just himself for the methodology relied on in the paper. It's painfully apparent that certain POV-pushing bloggers are running far ahead of scholarly consensus in how they are promoting this one paper in a journal that many behavior genetics researchers find unworthy of attention. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 13:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We should be very cautious about using any 2015 primary sources for making any claims no matter how small. What is required is good, i.e. reliable, scientifically prestigious secondary sources and taking our own information from the secondary sources and then only use the primary source to conform whatever the secondary sources are saying. This is basically how wikipedia works, the reliable secondary sources of course demonstrating notability by their very existence. And of course blogs are no use to cite anything but especially not a subject as potentially politically controversial as this one clearly is. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Behavior geneticists find Intelligence not worthy of attention? That's news to me. It's difficult to think of any prominent behavior geneticists who have studied cognitive abilities and haven't published in Intelligence.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems a patently false statement, Intelligence as a journal doesn't only hold weight in the field of psychometrics, but also in other fields in which research related to human cognitive traits or intelligence is done, i.e. behavior genetics. Prominent behavior geneticists do indeed hold Intelligence as being an important journal, and none seem to consider it "unworthy of attention". What that means is that this paper does indeed qualify as a reliable source, and being a review, qualifies as a secondary source. Wajajad (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wajajad, you are learning about this source solely from ideological blog posts, and not from the actual scholarly literature by authors who have published review articles in journals like Science, Human Genetics, Psychological Science, American Journal of Psychiatry, Behavior Genetics, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, and other journals with better editorial standards than any blog. (Those are the kind of people whose writings inform me about human behavior genetics research.) Simply put, the article under discussion is not a review, and we can all know this because the journal in which it was published, Intelligence, says, "Theoretical and review articles will be considered, if appropriate, but preference will be given to original research." And reading the article under discussion (yeah, I know, that is actual work, but that is what you should do before suggesting that the article be used as a source for editing a Wikipedia article on a controversial topic) indicates plainly enough that the author is attempting to promote a new, unverified method of analysis, which has already been criticized by scholars more active in research on the topic than the author is, to reach novel empirical findings. He is not reviewing previous research in the sense of writing a review article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 16:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What is it a secondary source for, Wajajad? It cannot be a secondary source for itself, nothing can be both a primary and a secondary source, every ref has to be either primary OR secondary. I suggest editors bring their reliable secondary sources to this page so we can all have a look and comment and then add something. Its the secondary sources and not the wikipedia editors opinions about say geneticists and intelligence which are of interest here. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually a work can be a primary source for one claim and a secondary for another.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is true and I havent suggested otherwise but it cant be both at the same time for the same claim, it can only be a secondary source for something different. And blogs make for neither primary nor secondary sources. So the article needs secndary sources, which so far havent been provided, leaving me to suspect we are unable to provide them and hence unable to mention the article or any of its conclusions. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Today's edits
Might be worth looking at Talk:Eugenics. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am against the changes for the basic reason that instead of qualifying the "claims" it puts them as "findings." Moreover, claiming there is no Maths in Africa is inaccurate. It is also misleading about Gobineau. Because it is not balanced with his later statements about Jews. And what does that has to do with Intelligence? Achieving things are not only about intelligence, but about culture and character. These statements, as well as those in the other page you presented, are not scientific and as an example of purposed deception. Please, look at the literature on the issue. It is a repeat of the same thing, all over and over. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What is your reference for your claim about math in Africa? I believe it is more neutral to describe the claims as findings because to describe them as "claims" presumes that they are not backed by evidence.  You may disagree with Gobineau's statement, but I am simply quoting him.  It is not our responsibility to critique Gobineau; we simply report the facts.  Sombe19 (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You should cease disrupting these articles with what appear like an Aryan agenda. Your editing history tells it all. 1) No, "Findings" is not a better word than "Claims" because these claims were never proven nor was there any evidence. That is why their science is not called science today, but pseudo-science. Besides, if you talk about Gobineau, he was never a scientist in the sense of lab science. His book on the inequality of the races cannot be more unscientific. His position regarding Jews was complicated, is true, but his antisemitism, though implicit (rather than overt), gave way to Wagner's and to Aryanism (though not in a linear way). His notion of race was qualitative, which means that he gave merit to Jews who were whiter. It seems that a paradigmatic change is occurring in today's Aryanism by raising the Jews' racial profile; it says a lot about how current times impact ideology. And I am all for quoting him and his colleagues, but never as if they can be trusted in their claims about race and intelligence. If you dare to ask about my claims on math in Africa, it means that you either have your mind made up already or that you are ignorant about the scholarship on the subject. Contrary to popular misconceptions, Subsaharan Africa teemed with mathematicians, either in the Arab tradition or in the peasant practical one. To think that the Islam was only present in North Africa is to participate in the 19th-century racialists' ignorance of African history.
 * I will not argue without sources. Here are for Gobineau: Francisco Bethencourt, Élisabeth Roudinesco, Kendra Hendrickson (particularly chapter 2), Mical Bodemann (particularly the chapter called: "Coldly Admiring the Jews", Dorothy Figueira, Gavin Schaffer. Here are for Math, Architecture and Science in Sub-Saharan Africa (particularly pre-1600): Paulus Gerdes, Marcia Arscher, Kim Williams, Michael J. Ostwald (Attention to Gerdes chapter 24), Hidden History of Math, particularly, George Gheverghese Joseph, Sonja Brentjes (chapter 5). These are but the tip of a large body of scholarship that you seem to be missing. They are all digital sources, which can be keyword-searched. I can give you the exact citations for the questions you may have. Before claiming expertise, please, familiarize yourself with the literature.
 * , thanks for calling out to the changes. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You are infringing on copyright by using Google Drive to store and disseminate those papers.

I was reading through your copyright-violating papers and I found this interesting tidbit: "Most histories of mathematics devote only a few pages to ancient Egypt and to northern Africa during the 'Middle Ages.' Generally they ignore the history of mathematics in sub-Saharan Africa and give the impression either that this history is not knowable/traceable, or even stronger still, that there was no mathematics at all south of the Sahara." [emphasis mine]

Fringe Afrocentric pseudohistory (one of your papers asserted that Euclid was a Black Egyptian) should receive less attention on Wikipedia than the mainstream opinion. Who should be weighted more prominently, the Afrocentrists, or "most histories of mathematics"?

Instead of reverting my edit you could have expanded the section to summarize the disagreement as to the extent to which mathematics existed in sub-Saharan Africa (if Gerdes and the other Afrocentric academics should be mentioned at all)

And what about the Galton quotes and my section on life history variables? Sombe19 (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Those sources are not mine. I asked temporary access to them because we were involved in a discussion and I wanted to make sure you had access to them too. That you choose to start talking in this way (rather than asking me about them) shows you are not in a very friendly mood. You are also very particular with what you choose to mention. Yes, I included an Afrocentrist scholar, but there were others who were not, and you did not mention them. You were also silent on the arguments about Gobineau.


 * Secondly, Afrocentricity is no pseudohistory. Blanket statements like this one are, actually, common in anti-Black rhetoric. You have not read them all. That a few notorious scholars, much rejected by core Afrocentrists, have called public attention with outrageous claims does not mean that the entire school is like them. We can say the same about every single school of thought. But let me tell you, it is not surprising that White supremacists would find ways to attack what challenges their privileges, and discredit schools of thought that undermine their racist arguments. The quote you posted here is actually very revealing. Thanks for bringing it. I consider myself eclectic, to a certain point. Subscribing to one single school limits options. Now, you can claim that works that sustain White supremacy are older and more numerous, and thus, canonical, and whatever challenges them is just fringe theories. Such an argument ignores the long history of patriarchy and racism that has shaped modernity. It is, then, a circular reasoning.


 * And, lastly, I did not delete your comments. I brought my concerns here, to the article's Talk Page, hoping to join in a friendly but candid conversation about the issues you posted (which is something you did not do). Yet, I would not hesitate to revert information that has been posted in bad faith. This topic is within my area of speciality, in which I publish and teach about (undergraduate and graduate courses). If I read you well, your postulations are old and discredited. They seem to go against the principles of equality. They appear to feed on the legacies of modern chattel slavery and racism. I would entertain prospects of discussing the matter if you would not be pushing anti-Black and pro-White supremacy ideas (I did not bring Galton, but would gladly discuss with interlocutors who are willing to learn). If you are indeed, circulating ideas of White superiority and Aryanism, please, do not bring them here. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?
Regarding this:. Can you please explain what you are talking about? Sombe19 (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think VolunteerMArek made a mistake, the potential COI is from the user TimBates, who is inserting some material sourced to an author called Timothy Bates. The material inserted by him is reasonable and potentially useful - except that it may be giving undue attention to the editor's own research - if they are the same person. Contrarily your edits which VolunteerMarek reverted are not reasonable or useful, but amount to promotion of as fringe viewpoint through the use of outdated sources, and they do not appear to me to have any potential to improving this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , I agree. Could we ask User:Tim bates to bring his material here for discussion and relevant use for the article? What do the guidelines say about this? One of us could include it in the sources, if we found them useful, of course. I think we should work for recruiting and retaining this type of editor. -- Caballero / / Historiador   ☊  19:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Tucker-Drob and Bates's study is the best available source on SES-heritability interaction, so to the extent that the topic is discussed in this article, it should be used. However, the study does not deal with race differences, so it's largely tangential to this article. Heritability_of_IQ is where the study's results can be given more coverage.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, that is good to know, I think that if we follow policy strictly we should use it in this article unless it is cited in papers that review the SES-heritability aspect of the Race and intelligence question. Do Hunt or the Nisbett et al. paper cite it? (I am away from my library, so I cannot check myself).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Tucker-Drob & Bates is a brand new paper, so it has been cited by just about nobody.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, then definitely I think we should wait to include it until it has been integrated into the literature.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you are saying that because the subject is tangential and no other reason? Caballero / / Historiador   ☊  21:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am also saying it because in articles like this were we face a constant struggle with attempts to insert fringe viewpoints the best strategy is to adhere closely to policy. Policy encourages us to use highly reliable secondary sand tertiary sources to summarize contentious debates, since this is the main guarantee that the article reflects the academic consensus on a point. Newly published research has not yet been evaluated by the academic community, and hence we cannot know how they will be received. We cannot take on the responsibility ourselves of trying to predict which newly published papers will be integrated into the literature, which will be ignored and which will be rebutted - that would be original research. Hence we have to wait until they are integrated into the body of literature, i.e. when they start to be cited, when they are summarized and included in review articles etc. In short, time will show whether this paper is relevant, when scholars working on the Race and intelligence question start citing it - if they do not then it will have been proven tangential. We should refrain from making that call ourselves.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It shows the experience you have dealing with this and similar articles. Is there a consensus? If so, I can contact Tim and explain. I understand why things like this would happen. I have also included one or two pubs of mine in articles I think needed some boosting. But I also understand WP logic, which you just explained so well. Again, do we have a consensus? Caballero / / Historiador    ☊  23:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it may be reasonable to include one´s own articles if they are clearly important and do not skew the content. IN an article like this however that is a constant battleground of opinions I would rather not risk it though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Fringe POV?
I noticed that people keep accusing me of promoting a "fringe" hereditarian POV. It is not a fringe POV, but rather the mainstream POV subscribed to by the majority of scholars and experts. Take a look at this (cut and pasted from the old set of Wikipedia articles on race and intelligence)

A survey was conducted in 1987 of a broad sample of 1,020 scholars (65% replied) in specialties that would give them reason to be knowledgeable about IQ (but not necessarily about race; Snyderman & Rothman, 1987). The survey was given to members of the American Education Research Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, Behavior Genetics Association, and Cognitive Science Society. Political and social opinions, reported in the same survey, accounted for less than 10% of the variation in responses. (Respondents on average called themselves slightly left of center politically.) Measures of expertise or eminence accounted for little or no variation in responses.

One question was "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of the Black-White difference in I.Q.?" (emphasis original). The responses were divided into five categories:
 * The difference is entirely due to environmental variation: 15%.
 * The difference is entirely due to genetic variation: 1% (8 respondents).
 * The difference is a product of both genetic and environmental variation: 45%.
 * The data are insufficient to support any reasonable opinion: 24%.
 * No response (or not qualified): 14%.

The age of the survey and the anonymity of the respondents could constrain its interpretation.

In a 1988 survey, journalists, editors, and IQ experts were asked their "opinion of the source of the black-white difference in IQ" (Snyderman and Rothman,1988)

I assert that it is the opposition's viewpoint that represents the fringe (Marxist) POV, that has been endlessly promoted to the point where it appears to represent mainstream opinion (but it doesn't). Sombe19 (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a diff for the version of the article with that in it?  Volunteer Marek   09:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The articles were deleted a while ago. I had them saved to my computer. Sombe19 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Regretfully, it is possible we may have already moved beyond prudence. This user?, an owner of a single-purpose account WP:SPA, has not fully answered questions about its ideological positions and the potential links to Arianism and White Supremacy (however, even interventions in articles about eyesight are about genetics and intelligence). The user may be employing WP as its WP:SOAPBOX.  When confronted with disruptive editing, it feigns concern, but then it shows no interest in heeding critique. Even when it is unfamiliar with other sides of the arguments WP:CIR, it still demands attention for his or hers-- traits of an ardent votary with a non-encyclopedic agenda.  It fails, for instance, to see how the logic in this archived fragment is false. A 28-year-old (1987) survey is no indication of a genetic fact nor the current state of the field. As a piece of history, it helps to chronicle the changes in biases and their roles in people's perceptions of science. Moreover, its reference to Marxism may reveal more than just ignorance about Marx's indifference to race as a category of analysis. Its vent to include outdated sources and ideas in the article is part of a personal history of problematic editing. Look at some of its summaries:
 * 1- "Restored some material that was deleted a while ago without explanation."
 * 2- "NPOV disputed since references section only includes anti-eugenics sources." In another context, the user has declared, "We need some pro-eugenics material."
 * 3- "The pro-eugenics stance is hardly the fringe."
 * 4- "Communist groups were genocidal but maintained an egalitarian mantra."


 * 1) Rather than moving the article(s) forward the user attempts to bring it back to a romanticized past. 2) Of course, to claim that a debunked ideology has no fair representation in this article is to refuse to accept that it has been debunked. The demands for more pro-eugenic sources is not to improve the article with historical documentation, but to present them as evidence of current consensus (discussions above). 3) To allege that "pro-eugenics" is not a "fringe" theory is to ignore that already in 1997, 1998 J. Phillippe Rushton was protesting the overwhelming rejection of his ideas, which according to Andrew Winston, had been pegged to a corner outside of the mainstream. 4) The user's generalizations of leftists, communists, and Marxists parallel the fascists' historically broad labeling, which hints to political, rather than scientific, urges its interventions in WP.   Caballero / / Historiador    ☊  14:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you keep talking about "White supremacy" when this article (and Rushton) clearly place Asians on top. And you still aren't answering what I posted about why my POV represents the mainstream rather than the fringe. Sombe19 (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I was not asking about Rushton, but about you. It seems you are siding with the "rushtonian literature," then. No doubt, Rushton does not embody the core of the White Supremacy school. His inclusion of East Asians at the top of the human hierarchy, however, does not negate it. His main points pivot on the lightening of the skin as people "came out of Africa" and moved into colder climes, thus making the process of whitening the key factor for higher intelligence. And yes, I did answer your argument about your POV not representing mainstream when I explained and gave sources on how even Rushton, who followed what for some was a moderate form of eugenics, saw himself pushed to the corner. You seem to have read at least one of them. If you still need more sources, I can lead you to them. Caballero / / Historiador    ☊  15:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Rushton was pushed to the corner by people who weren't experts. The majority of experts agree with me.  And I agree with Rushton that Asians should be ranked on top.  Sombe19 (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. Caballero / / Historiador    ☊  15:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sombe, this is a discussion we have had a million times - and it is firmly established consensus that the hereditarian viewpoint is not dominant within the literature. Hereditrarianism is not in itself a fringe view, but some of its versions proponents like Rushton and Lynn are. There is no point to rehashing this old discussion unless new publications (reliable, secondary ones in major journals) are proposed to support the viewpoint. The 1987 survey is entirely irrelevant on several accounts - the fact tha it predates all the relevant research and public debate is the principal one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1987 seems recent enough for me. Most of the scientific literature in this area was published before 1987.  At any rate, I am tired of this going back and forth accusing each other of having a fringe POV.  We need to have a solid definition on what exactly constitutes a "fringe" point of view.  Unfortunately, I am not able to find this definition anywhere in Wikipedia policy.  Sombe19 (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What is seems like to you is utterly irrelevant. The matter has been discussed and a consensus has been established. Without new arguments it is not going to change. read the archives []·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The irony is that expert consensus is on my side. Sombe19 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the irony is that you clearly wouldnt recognize an expert if she bit you in the ass.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Revert by Maunus, 12/31/15
Regarding this:  Can you explain what is wrong with those edits? Sombe19 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The first problem is thatthere is ageneral consensus among scientists that Rushton's figures are bogus figures, and your edit treats them as if they were valid. The second problem is that the Beals etal paper specificaly states that the data they present doesnt support a racial correlation with brain size.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rushton's figures were derived from other people's figures, such as Ho et al. 1980. Can I get a reference for your claim that the scientific consensus is that Rushton's figures are "bogus"? Sombe19 (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can see Lieberman 2001 pull his data apart, then then look at the fact that none of his claims have been accepted in the mainstream literature. which has consistently pointed out flaws in both his statistical methods and his data.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So why not mention Rushton's figures and then mention the criticism? And I'm still not getting your claim that Rushton isn't accepted in the mainstream literature.  Sombe19 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the Beals paper I would be happy to provide many other references for race differences in brain size. Sombe19 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the Beals paper is the single best source on human variability in cranial size (although it is not up to current standards). It does not however support the argument that you are trying to make it support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And how could consensus ever be established on a controversial topic such as this? Sombe19 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence
Rindermann H, Coyle T R, Becker D. 2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence.

Presented at the 14th ISIR conference, Melbourne, Australia, December 12-14, 2013

It has surveyed
 * 1) Authors of papers published in
 * 2) *Intelligence
 * 3) *Cognitive Psychology
 * 4) *Biological Psychology (if article addressed intelligence or a related topic, i a i)
 * 5) *Journal of Mathematical Psychology (i a i)
 * 6) *Contemporary Educational Psychology (i a i)
 * 7) *Journal of School-Psychology (i a i)
 * 8) *New Ideas in Psychology (i a i)
 * 9) *Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (i a i)
 * 10) For the subject well known scientists or journalists writing on it.
 * 11) Scientists emailed by ISIR member list
 * 12) Scientists informed by ISSID website
 * 13) Scientists and interested students ( N St ≤3) informed by colleagues.

It was emailed the 1237 persons, 228(18%) completed or partially completed.

Results:

Sources for U.S. black-white differences in IQ (74% of their experts having an opinion)

--The Master (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that. Not a reliably published source, and a primary source. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent revert by Volunteer Marek
(Regarding this: )

Please don't blanket revert all those edits. There were many good and unbiased edits in there. Fix what you think needs fixing - don't just blanket revert. Sombe19 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Compare the previous version, with the version after you got done with it: . You made a whole bunch of highly POV edits and completely altered the article. For example, you changed "Claims of races having different intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, racism, social Darwinism, and racial eugenics." to the highly POV "The findings that different races possessed different average intelligence scores were used as a justification". In other words you changed the neutral, and source based "claims" to the highly POV, non-sourced based, and frankly, racist "findings". Which you put in Wikipedia voice as if it was true.

You do the same thing in the next sentence, where you changed "Racial thinkers such as Arthur de Gobineau relied crucially on the assumption that black people were innately inferior to Whites" to the POV "relied crucially on the findings that Blacks were innately inferior to Whites". In other words you changed what was stated to be a (racist) assumption into a claim of fact. Sorry, no way.

Also, your edit history shows that you're a single purpose account with a style and interest very similar to a couple of indef banned editors. Wanna tell us which one you're a sockpuppet of? I'm guessing at least this one but there's probably a few others. So.... I'm not going to waste my time on this.  Volunteer Marek  05:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , thanks for your reversals. Great investigative work! Cheers, Caballero/Historiador (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Sombe19 - I didn't see any "good and unbiased edits in there".  Volunteer Marek   18:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The reverted edits were writtenentirely from a fringe POV, and used outdated unreliable sources. I dont see how any of the proposed changes could be accepted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to step in out of the blue on an old article, but whoever the original poster was was absolutely correct. The reverts in the histories they linked to showed a butchering attempt at agenda peddling by 'Volunteer Marek' (jesus christ dude, did you just step out of Stalinist Russia with that absurd name?) and it appears that their edit history has a consistent agenda peddling history. Why one user is banned and the other isn't when their agenda is as based on fallacious nonsense and fantasy is beyond me. They even removed sourced material. Idiocy for good intentions is still idiocy. &lt;!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 15:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Much useful material, recently unearthed
Wikipedia used to have an excellent set of articles on race and intelligence which I have recently stumbled upon. Take a look at this:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28average_gaps_among_races%29&oldid=109005403
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28test_data%29&oldid=177588390
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28interpretations%29&oldid=166472437
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28Controversies%29&oldid=166472468
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28utility_of_research%29&oldid=166728707
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28potential_for_bias%29&oldid=166472494
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28Public_controversy%29&oldid=104094823
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28history%29&oldid=166472369
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_portrayal_of_race_and_intelligence&oldid=196123843

Sombe19 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There was also a bunch of very comprehensive graphics compiling heaps of empirical research which kept getting blanket deleted also. It appears that this article has two kinds of agenda peddlers, both absolutely opposed to science and empirical evidence based reasoning, and it appears both think they're somehow doing good for their narrative by spouting nonsense and ultimately vandalizing what was a functional normal non-controversial article. For many years the mere whisper of inbreeding between h. neanderthalensis would get one in strife, but now post human genome project our view is very different. Unfortunately it appears that some people just write off the human genome project entirely because it doesn't suit their narrative. Cultural Marxism may work in an environment where one's opinion is worth a pinch of shit, but in a world where citations and evidence are more important than one's feelings it doesn't really have a place here. PS: Where DID those graphics go this time? Last time I was here a guy named Marek was constantly deleting them, and now there's a guy named 'Volunteer Marek' who seems to be peddling the same agenda as Marek was, same Marek I assume? &lt;!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

A reminder about edits by socks of banned users
New editors won't know this, old ones may have forgotten it.

By motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:

Banned editors and their sockpuppets have long caused disruption to both the Race and Intelligence topic ("R&I") and editors associated with it.

The Committee notes that the applicable policy provides: banned editors are prohibited from editing pages on Wikipedia; the posts of a banned user may be reverted on sight by any editor; any editor who restores the reverted post/s of a banned editor accepts full responsibility for the restored material.

To reduce disruption, the Committee resolves that no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor: which was posted within the R&I topic or which relates, directly or indirectly, to either the R&I topic or to any editor associated with the R&I topic.

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised to enforce the foregoing in respect of any editor restoring any reverted post.] voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:

The topic area is the articles in Category:Race and intelligence controversy. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the reminder. It's very important to properly source this article, which appears to be one of the ten most controversial articles on all of English Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 15:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that most of the vandalization I have seen since my last visit to this article, which I believe was for a mediation, it appears that the problem isn't the nutzi party but the goose stepping equally heinous polar opposite on the spectrum (both literally and figuratively 'on the spectrum' one could argue) who have removed considerable amounts of sourced material and collations of data into graphics. Why aren't these equally batshit insane and equally vandalizing nuseansaces banned from editing too? &lt;!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 15:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Intro too long
The intro is too long IMHO. Ben Finn (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. As well as too much beating around the bush. SageRad (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikivoice is semi-endorsing racial differences in intelligence, part 2
To return to SageRad's original question:
 * "It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race."

This is about a measurable thing which, according to empirical evidence, may be either zero or not, but in any case so close to zero that nobody can conclusively tell both apart. In other words, the null hypothesis has not been refuted. Usually, such cases are described as "no evidence for such an effect". This wording is logically equivalent to "It is still not resolved" but it makes the logic of such a research situation clearer. Examples are easily found: So I suggest to change the sentence into something like "No evidence for a relation between group differences in IQ and race has been found despite an intensive search for it." --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Astrology: "no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects"
 * Dowsing: "there is no scientific evidence that it is any more effective than random chance"


 * That's a stupid sentence. There are enormous amounts of evidence for the relation between race and IQ. What is under dispute are the causes of these differences.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are mountains of evidence of statistical associations between IQ scores and race, whether self-identified or not. Roth (2001) is perhaps the most recent academic review of the US differences for White, Black and Hispanic groups, but there are lots of data for other groups too. For instance, here's a 2016 paper on differences between political divisions of Russia that found a relationship with percent ethnic Russians. Here's a 2015 paper on Turkish political divisions which found a negative relationship between percent Kurds and cognitive ability (PISA). These are both aggregate-level studies, but one can easily find studies using individual-level data too from pretty much any country which has a diverse population. Here's a study from 2013 on the difference in IQ between Westerns and non-Westerns in Denmark which was about 13 IQ (disclaimer: my paper). This is based on data from the Danish military draft test. --Deleet (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The above sentence makes little sense and seems counterfactual. In other words, there is raw data. The question is the interpretation. The important aspect is that group differences in IQ test scores does not mean that there are group differences in intelligence. The sentence above doesn't add to the opening paragraph and seems to only muddy it. SageRad (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps:
 * There in no generally agreed reason for the statistical differences in average IQs for various groups which have been shown, or whether there is any genetic cause or other specific causes of those differences.

would cover the problems clearly? Noting that IQ != "intelligence" therefore need not appear in the single sentence. Collect (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikivoice is semi-endorsing racial differences in intelligence
The opening para is currently:

To my read, this leaves the question completely open. "It is still not resolved..." I find this troubling. I find it troubling especially in light of the way that many topics that may have validity are so often strongly argues for Wikivoice to represent as "bogus" or "quackery" or "fad diet" or "fringe" etc.... and yet this one in particular is left as an open question? I'll be keeping an eye on this page and thinking more about it. SageRad (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The causes of group differences is an open question. A few think they are wholly environmental in origin, most think they are some mix between genetic and environmental. See e.g. this 2016 survey of experts in the field, cf. also the older survey from 1988. --Deleet (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Presumably "all humans are exactly the same" is something we can just assume. Consistent patterns of cognitive difference are caused by the mysterious forces of racism, which is the only force known to increase with distance. Genes don't exist.
 * Sadly in science we don't just make up feel good stories. My Happy Safe Space (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thankfully snarky bullshit doesn't hold weight in Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please work on your argument. My Happy Safe Space (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is troubling to me because it presents the idea with too much credence. Please work on your civility. I'm not here to debate "the scientific question" with you. I'm here to work on the article as a text that must express verifiable claims supported by reliable sources. Currently, as an editor, i see an article that presents this "fringe" idea that intelligence is racially determined in too friendly a light for the dignity of Wikivoice in light of the policies of Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. Here is a good recent article that i would like to integrate. Perhaps it will give an idea of the ways that the implications of the ideas in this article could be more firmly troubled, more clearly in the first paragraph as well as in the body. SageRad (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that hurts people's precious feelings. Would you like to extract some scholarly references from your magazine? I notice Turkheimer was referenced. My Happy Safe Space (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for your opinions. You seem to show an agenda and a bias here from your comment above. The comment on "people's precious feelings" shows a hostility in regard to the topic area on your part by my estimation. And your encapsulation of "the popular idea that everybody is exactly the same" as the counterpoint to the topic of this article is a pure strawman fabrication, a well-known rhetorical fallacy. This feels like an unduly contentious dialog here and i do not think it will result in betterment of the article. I'll proceed to edit without consulting you first. SageRad (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

For example some people find the idea of racial genetic differences "troubling". Feel free to edit the article. I suggest using something better than a popular magazine though. My Happy Safe Space (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

While it would be nice to ignore the fact that statistics exist which have caused much debate, the problem is that Wikipedia has the idea that that which is given as fact in reliable scholarly sources is generally accorded o be "reliably sourced." "Race and Intelligence" is and has been an area of some substantial controversy, but simply deleting one of the primary factors in the controversy does not excise the factor from existence. Best practice is to follow policy, and present statements of fact as given in the proper sources as fact, and positions in controversies with the weight accorded those positions in proper sources. Should Wikipedia change the policies? If so, then change them. Until them, we follow them. Collect (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * , whom are you addressing in your above comment with the edit summary "stick to policies and not to personal attacks"? If it's me, then answer me as to what you think is a "personal attack"? If you are addressing me, then know that i full well understand the policies and goals of Wikipedia. In that light i presented my trouble with the current state of the article. If you're addressing me, i have made absolutely no intimation about not following policies, so i don't need this sort of upbraiding and lecture. SageRad (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My post as written above, stands. If you disagree with the post, tell me why.  I find a number of editors seems to attack those who do not know the truth, but I suggest that the only way to proceed is to determine what matters of fact must be presented in the article in a neutral fashion.  If you disagree, please tell me which policy I miscomprehend. Collect (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I totally respect and love the policies of Wikipedia. My question was only because it seemed you were implying that i was doing something wrong, so i asked you to be explicit. Your words seemed to imply that i need teaching about policies and to be told not to engage in personal attack, which i do not believe i was doing anyway. Anyway, we seem to be talking past one another or something. I will leave this now as it's not relevant to the article content. SageRad (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to make sourced suggestions other than filling the talk page with how triggered you are. My Happy Safe Space (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to be civil or go away. "Some magazine" is a source i recommended. As an editor, i stated my concern that the article is too much promoting an idea that is to me the very definition of a "fringe conspiracy theory" that exists because it supports the racial prejudices of some people, and that this article needs a lot of care and love in respect to NPOV. Please cease your hostilities. From comments here and at other articles in the last hour, you see to have gained a chip on your shoulder against me and i do not welcome active hostility. Your comments are pretty clearly uncivil and mean, thereby violating a core policy of Wikipedia. We are not here to snark at each other, but to discuss and improve content. Snark and insinuations and insults are counterproductive and disruptive to good editing. I'm sure you know that. So please control yourself. SageRad (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Struck through (and deleted the last post as there was no reply) posts by CU confirmed sock of Tiny Dancer 48 who was almost certainly Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thank you, kind sir. SageRad (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources that refutes the fringe premise of racial difference in intelligence
Here is a source that refutes the premise that there are inherent racial differences in intelligence. This source is over one year old and is not cited in this article yet. Black Brain, White Brain: Is Intelligence Skin Deep? by Gavin Evans. This source refutes, for instance, the Nicholas Wade articles. We need to integrate this source and its content in the article. To quote Evans:

Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker:

this New York Times opinion piece by Richard Nisbett.

Supported by these sources and others like them, i have removed two sentences from the lede that said nothing specific but were weasely in that they mislead the reader to think that the question is still entirely open, whereas reliable review sources seem to say that environmental factors and mismeasure of intelligence by IQ or other tests do or probably do in fact explain the whole effect. My edits are here and here. Please discuss adequately before reverting. SageRad (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Those are terrible sources: a blog post, an article by a journalist famous for his gullibility and innumeracy, and an opinion piece by a psychologist whose views on this topic have been described as having "virtually no chance of being true" in what is the best textbook on human intelligence (Earl Hunt's Human Intelligence, p. 434). An article like this should be based on reliable, scholarly secondary sources, not some random websites and opinion pieces.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Victor above. These sources are not reliable, especially not for this topic. Nisbett does write on this topic, but does not conduct research on it. He agrees the differences are real, but argues that they are environmental in origin. See e.g.:


 * Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin.
 * Nisbett, R. E. (2016). Think BIG, bigger… and smaller. On Poverty and Learning: Readings from Educational Leadership (EL Essentials), 94.
 * Nisbett, R. E. (2009). Intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and cultures count. WW Norton & Company. Appendix B The Case for a Purely Environmental Basis for Black/White Differences in IQ.

--Deleet (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC) (Could not figure out how to indent a list.)


 * I mentioned a book called Black Brain, White Brain: Is Intelligence Skin Deep?, an article in the New York Times by a researcher who's studied the topic, and a piece in The New Yorker by Gladwell who was recipient of the American Sociological Association's first Award for Excellence in the Reporting of Social Issues and a best-selling author on social issues. And you call these "terrible sources" and "some random websites and opinion pieces"? Are you serious? What's a good source in your eyes? SageRad (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The book is written by a journalist who is also an anti-racism political activist according to his Amazon description. Gladwell, another journalist, is known to have poor reliability for his claims (e.g.). If you want to claim such things, you should use academic literature, preferably popular review articles. We have already given you such sources. APA's statement on IQ is a choice widely used on Wikipedia and also mentions the usual findings on race and IQ scores: Blacks about 15 IQ below Whites, Hispanics perhaps 7 IQ below, Asians somewhat higher perhaps 5 IQ above Whites. --Deleet (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Like I said, we should use scholarly secondary sources. There's a huge scientific literature by academic experts on this topic, so why on earth would we rely on blog posts, newspaper or magazine articles, or a book by some journalist? The sources cited by Deleet above are OK, but they represent just one viewpoint which must be contrasted with others. While I don't think WP:MEDRS should be slavishly followed in psychology articles like this, it's a good guideline here, too:


 * --Victor Chmara (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * --Victor Chmara (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * --Victor Chmara (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * --Victor Chmara (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not a biomedical topic per se by the standards which that policy guideline applies them. Are we going to have to go to the reliable sources noticeboard? And if you really want to get down to it, this is a friend's promise and therefore parity would apply to sources that debunk incorrect ideas.SageRad (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My perspective is that "[w]hen available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources", as per WP:RS. Other sources are not per se forbidden as long as WP:MEDRS is not applied, but I just see no reason to not use only scholarly sources written by academic experts here given that plenty of such sources are available on this topic. For the reasons stated in WP:MEDRS, academic sources are preferable to popular ones. What is the compelling reason to not follow this sensible guideline here if the goal is to write the best possible article?--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Please give the actual text about Nisbett if you would from Hunt p 434. Is your contention that the premise that there are genetic differences in intelligence among racial groups is an open question then? Is your contention that they're is NOT a general consensus that it's a false premise? That's what I seem to be getting here. Anyway, MEDRS is not a requirement and I think the sources I name are reasonably reliable and suitable for this article as sources and for further reading. Sure let's include other sources as well but not exclude these. And if there is a consensus as reported in these sources then we don't present a false "balance" as if they're all equal. We present one a fringe and the other as reliable and accepted. SageRad (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hunt's point is simply that it is extremely unlikely that genotypic intelligence would be distributed exactly identically across populations, which is what Nisbett has claimed. Hunt notes that the real debate for most researchers is about the exact nature and size of the genetic and environmental factors causing differences between groups, not their existence:


 * Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis [of racial differences in IQ] cannot be maintained. Nisbett's extreme statement has virtually no chance of being true. However, the 100% environmental hypothesis is something of a stalking horse. 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. The real issue is over the identity and size of genetic and environmental influences on group differences in intelligence, not the existence of either one.


 * Some indication on the prevalence of various views on the topic among experts is available from this recent survey:


 * Experts were surveyed about the importance of culture, genes, education (quantity and quality), wealth, health, geography, climate, politics, modernization, sampling error, test knowledge, discrimination, test bias, and migration. The importance of these factors was evaluated for diverse countries, regions, and groups including Finland, East Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Southern Europe, the Arabian-Muslim world, Latin America, Israel, Jews in the West, Roma (gypsies), and Muslim immigrants. Education was rated by N = 71 experts as the most important cause of international ability differences. Genes were rated as the second most relevant factor but also had the highest variability in ratings. Culture, health, wealth, modernization, and politics were the next most important factors, whereas other factors such as geography, climate, test bias, and sampling error were less important.


 * Nisbett has written at length about these issues in his scholarly publications, which are already cited numerous times in this article, so there's no need to cite a popular article by him. What Gladwell writes about is already included in the article using better sources, so no need to use him, either. Evans is some journalist making silly arguments. Given that he's not an expert and not cited by others, he must be excluded based the principle that if a view is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia.


 * If you want to contribute to this article, please read at least the main scholarly sources, such as the APA task force's classic Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, where where the existence of racial/ethnic gaps is acknowledged but their causes are deemed mostly unknown.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing the relevant text from Hunt. SageRad (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

To parse some of the above... someone would like to dismiss totally the Gavin Evans book saying that he's "a journalist who is also an anti-racism political activist" as if that makes his book unreliable, whereas the Amazon bio says "Gavin Evans was born in London but grew up in South Africa where he became involved in the anti-apartheid campaign while working as a journalist and completing degrees in economic history, law and a PhD in politics. He returned to London 22 years ago and teaches at Birkbeck College while writing for several UK newspapers. This is his fifth book." That does not make his book unreliable. That makes him a human being who has followed his interests and written a book on a topic of interest. You may also note the widely favorable reception of his book among scholars and others. Why did it take two go-rounds to get you to note that it's a book, not a blog too? Anyway... SageRad (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Nisbett, it seems the argument made above, via the quote by Hunt, is that Nisbett is wrong because it's not viable to say that absolutely none of variability in testing results across groups comes from genetics. That's a pretty obvious strawman argument because Nisbett to my knowledge doesn't generally claim that there is absolutely no effect of genetics on testing results across groups. In other words, making a falsely extreme claim attributed to someone and then knocking it down is the definition of strawman fallacy. Here is a report from the APA that says:

And further, Nisbett's own words in this interview:

I hope this suffices to eliminate that opposition to using Nisbett as a reliable source based on this argument from authority of the Hunt textbook. SageRad (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't figure out what you are trying to argue for. Wikipedia is not a forum. Discussing the merits of mixed vs. purely environmental models is not really something for a talk page. What changes to the article are you proposing and why? I don't really care about Evans and since he's not an expert on this topic, his writings should have little bearing on the content of the article. Nisbett, as mentioned, is closer to being a relevant expert. He doesn't conduct research on this topic as far as I can tell, but he does sometimes write about it in scholarly outlets (see earlier examples). I think for the purposes of Wikipedia, he counts as a relevant expert. The APA writing you are citing above is not a report at all, it's an interview in APA's Magazine (Monitor on Psychology) where Nisbett is talking about behavioral genetics, a field to which he has not contributed any primary research as far as I know (I looked over his publications since 2000 on his Scholar profile). Nisbett, however, is often published in the popular media talking about group differences and behavioral genetics (e.g. in New York Times in relationship to the the Watson-controversy). --Deleet (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The article should clearly state that group differences in results on tests are not largely due to genetics. I only discussed Nisbett in light of OR objection to using Nisbett via Hunt above. SageRad (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no expert consensus that group are not largely due to genetics. As you can see in the surveys, experts are fairly divided on the issue. As such, Wikipedia should reflect this and not state that differences either are or are not due largely to genetics. Deleet (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting question. I think it needs more elucidation. There are sources that do say group differences in results on tests are not largely due to genetics. However, there are other sources that say they are due to genetics. And then we have the survey paper linked in a comment above which is an interesting meta-type of source. That source is not classified as a review article by PubMed, but it does claim to be a survey of experts in the field. That source not being a review article, we must use it carefully if at all. We must also avoid doing original research based on the results of that article. To use a parallel, suppose we had a paper that states that 97% of climate scientists think global warming is real. From that could we as editors claim that global warming is real? I don't think so. We would need a relevant review source to make that transform and make the claim directly. Suppose on the other hand we had a paper that said that 50% of scientists say that global warming is not real or anthropogenic. In that case, could we as editors not experts claim in Wikivoice that there is no consensus about climate change among scientists? Or would that be WP:OR? I think it would be the latter. I think that such a thing actually did happen within climate change denialism, as well, so it's not a totally nonsense example. The kicker there was that those scientists were not climate scientists and many were not even recognized as scientists or were really fringy weird people. So, we could look at that survey paper and state its results, but not infer from its results about whether or not there is a consensus. We'd need another review-level article to interpret for us, not to do it ourselves as Wikipedia editors who are explicitly not experts on the subject and cannot do WP:OR or WP:SYN. SageRad (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see any relevance of whether PubMed classifies a paper as a review or not. PubMed is for medicine and this is not medicine. As you have been told, there is a prior survey from 1988 similar to the new 2013 one which found similar results. There are no other surveys of this field, not even ones using irrelevant people as they did for climate science. I know this because I know many if not most of the researchers in the field and I've been following it intensely for years. With regards to Heiner Rindermann, he sits on the editorial board of the Intelligence journal, so he is not a fringe person. You can also see that the editorial board includes Richard Lynn, Gerhard Meisenberg and Jan te Nijenhuis, all of which have published work related to the genetics of group differences. On the other hand, Richard Nisbett does not sit there -- that's because he doesn't actually do much or any research in this field, yet people cite his extreme claim of 0% genetics. Robert Sternberg is not there either, but is also commonly cited. Linda Gottfredson, another prominent researcher in this area is not there. Not because she isn't prominent enough, she just received the Lifetime achievement award of the International Society for Intelligence Research. Arthur Jensen, Phil Rushton and Earl B. Hunt all sat on the editorial board too until they died. Jensen had an entire special edition devoted to him in 1998. Richard Lynn had one in the sister journal PAID in 2012. Rushton one in 2013. Hans Eysenck just had one more at the 100 year mark of his birth. Jensen was a good friend of Douglas Detterman, the founder of the journal. So you see, people publishing in favor of genetic explanations are not fringe at all, they are right there on the editorial board of the most prominent journal for this type of research -- exactly as expected based on the survey. Their opinions stray from the mainstream (academic) view, but not from their co-researchers. Needless to say, Evans is a nobody has never published any research on this topic, just his pop science book. Jelte Wicherts, Wendy Johnson and Earl Hunt all published papers critical of genetic causes of group differences and all sit/sat on the editorial board. But none of them has any made any claim of 0% genetics nor claimed that most of their colleagues think that. Deleet (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I see you have focused on this topic and know a lot about the field. It is very fascinating and is open to many ways of seeing it, differing perspectives. Whether or not it's a review matters in terms of the quality of the source. A primary study is peer-reviewed but a review article takes it to another level, where it's a review of the relevant literature by experts. WP:MEDRS relates to biomedical claims. I'm not sure if this is one. But let's use common sense and best possible sourcing anyway. It's interesting to note the Mainstream Science on Intelligence ad that ran in the Wall Street Journal as well in 1994, in terms of who signed and who did not, and why, and even why that ad was created in the first place. Would you please give me a source on what you say is Nisbett's "claim of 0% genetics"? I don't see that from Nisbett in my brief survey. I see him saying that intelligence is not "largely genetic". SageRad (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * For Nisbett's claim, see Appendix B to his 2009 book cited by me above titled "The Case for a Purely Environmental Basis for Black/White Differences in IQ". Nisbett also made the claim in his 2005 commentary piece to Rushton and Jensen's review article "On the contrary, the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black–White IQ gap is nil."(in the abstract). He may have made it in other places, I haven't read all his writings on this topic. His claim about 'largely genetic' concerns the within group heritability, not the between group heritability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleet (talk • contribs) 23:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

studying brain region differences is more important, East Asians are more inhibited due to a more well functioning either bigger cingulum (cingulate cortex). We have to analyze functionality. Also different races sometimes not only have they brain part differences, but there is a small statistical difference on the subparts of a region. The smaller a difference is, the least the statistical significance, thus we shouldn't metaphysically claim ideas based on pure fantasy. We need more analytical data. Some people claim science is nazi. This isn't true. We simply have to be very analytical and to reveal actual data and also mention their statistical significance also if they cause a statistical behavioural change. That isn't nazi. Random comments might be perceived as racistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4102:CF00:1963:F284:B24D:197C (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Black Brain, White Brain: Is Intelligence Skin Deep? proves conclusively we are all 100% identical using science. Checkmate racists. We should use this source. Precious Feelings (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * (A banned user rather overstates the value of the book presented as a source) Alas you overstate "proof." The author is trained in economics, and has no biology expertise at all. He was specifically an "anti-apartheid activist" which seems more his background than any hard science background. Google books finds no reviews in any of the "usual places", and the book is not a peer-reviewed thesis. We need actual scientific sources if we are to treat this topic rationally. Collect (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Collect (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of the word "Negro"
I note that following political correctness in the US the article never uses the word. Instead it uses euphemisms that are vague and misleading. Southern Indians, Australian Aboriginals and Polinesians are all "Black", but not the same all being out of Africa etc. Many Arabs living in America are from Africa, but again that is not what is meant by African Americans (I presume).

It seems sensible to use racial words when talking about race. But if we cannot use the word Negro, then maybe some well define term. Maybe SSAs for sub-Sahara Africans? Tuntable (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's good to be precise. So yeah, sub-Saharan Africans where appropriate, or Bantu Africans versus San bushmen. "Black" and "Negro" are ambiguous. Are the San Negro? 82.153.102.52 (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Negro-Spanish for black, so if black is the preferred English term, then let it be. But it is true that north Africans are genetically different from south Africans, and that the genetic differences between the African tribes is greater than say between western Europeans. It is better to be precise. In a few years instead of discussing races we may be discussing haplogroups.

60,000 years is a long time
That is some 3,000 generations since we left Africa. Both populations will have evolved to some extent over all that time. But it would seem amazing if after all that time there was no difference in the most critical of human traits, intelligence. Not necessarily better or worse, but different.

Some discussion of this, and why, would be an excellent addition. My guess is that the populations actually inter bred to some extent, with an exception being the Australian Aboriginals. But that is just a guess.Tuntable (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The Most Recent Common Ancestor of all humans may have been as recent as 3000 years ago. Humans sure are fucking around a lot... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Even if this is true (which I rather doubt, given that there are uncontacted peoples in several continents), it does not imply any common genes in the human population: After 100 generations, a single MRCA probably did not pass any of his genes to a now-living descendant since the genes are "diluted" by a factor of 2 each generation.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Genetic
It's mostly genetic. You can look at the fact that babies adopted by a family of another race grow up to exhibit IQs expected of their own race, and that even when controlling for socioeconomic status there's a 10 point difference between the average IQs of blacks and whites.

Source: https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

Benjamin (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Stereotype Threat
The concept of stereotype threat has received some new attention in the psychological literature given some failures to replicate some studies, and a meta-analysis (by David Geary) that found little evidence for an effect. The full article on stereotype threat mentions this, but it should probably be briefly noted here. Currently the coverage is entirely uncritical. Hoping someone here is a bit more of an expert on the topic and can cover that. But I'll give it a try if no one else does. StoneProphet11 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Large addition to lead
I just added the entire mini-essay on the theme of 'controversial proxy' and its many nested dolls. What the article previously lacked was the large leaning tower of controversy regarding the implicit social status judgement [editted]. If my addition is somewhat top heavy, it's because the tower is high. Please factor this into your chainsaw oil. &mdash; MaxEnt 21:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

IQ distribution data by race seems intentionally obfuscated in this article
I find it highly suspicious there's no clear chart, table or map that shows average IQ by race, given that's what the article is supposed to be about. I think it's pretty obvious that data is intentionally obfuscated. That runs completely counter to anything I thought Wikipedia was supposed to represent. The entire article is pretty much hand-waving and excuses to undermine any negative interpretation of IQ race data...that's fine, but if Wiki articles attempt to bury and obfuscate facts then Wikipedia is no longer a credible, objective source to find information. I was just curious to know what the current statistical IQ differences were, without inferring or seeking any racist conclusions with that information, but apparently that's not politically-correct enough for this site and I have to scour Google to get the information I should be able to easily find here.

I agree the title of this page should be renamed to "Race and IQ" vs. "Race and Intelligence". 'Intelligence' is a pretty broad term that is open to a lot of interpretation; Statistical IQ data is an objective, quantitative number that can be fairly and accurately presented without bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overlook1977 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Data on IQ differences between "races" and between nations are given in Race_and_intelligence. If you found any reliable (!!) sources on Google that give additional information, feel free to discuss their addition here. But it's probably not possible to give a "clear chart" since the data vary by time period and country. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed
Under the heading "Race" the claim "However, the mainstream view among biologists is that race is a biological concept, similar to other taxonomic divisions. " Has no source and should be properly cited or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnarlesincharge (talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Ethicosian blocked
as a suspected sockpuppet of. Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev Doug Weller  talk 09:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

United States Test Scores section a mess.
Is there a reason this section is written so poorly? Why is the fact that tested black IQs are lower than whites only vaguely mentioned at the end when this is clearly the point of the section, and the whole article for that matter? Why is the irrelevance of a guess at the percent of blacks above the median mentioned rather than below? Just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't mean you should attempt to alter them through misrepresentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.78.65.248 (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Graph
Since someone re-added the graph from several years ago, I suppose we might as well restart the discussion from back then. My objections are more or less the same as the ones people had in the discussion back then; as presented, the graph violates WP:SYNTH - especially in this case, where the representation and interpretation of the data is extremely controversial. We could potentially use a chart from a particular source, citing it specifically as the position of that source, but it would require considerably more context than was given here - it can't just be dropped at the top of the article with no context in the article voice. Charts and graphs are particularly tricky because if not used carefully they are inherently devoid of context, which is why I think the figures are better placed in the text where the exact controversies and context (who, exactly, is saying what about which data at which point in time) can be clearly expressed. --Aquillion (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

In other words the one coherent representation of actual data is just too controversial for a rambling thread which consists almost entirely of context rather than on topic exposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.78.65.248 (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Futurebird's reversion of my edits
Recently, I came across the lead sentence in this article (which was the same then as it is now) and decided that it was too biased, and so changed it. I edited the page so the lead sentence said "The relationship between race and intelligence has been a controversial subject for hundreds of years." instead of "Establishing a link between race and intelligence has been a primary goal of white supremacist pseudoscience for hundreds of years." In this and other edits made around that time, I also added two studies to the article. Futurebird just effectively reverted these edits, claiming that "You didn't change just the quote you deleted a bunch of citations." (You in this case is me.) This is not true, however: I did not delete any citations; instead I just added 2 studies as citations. Therefore, I think my edits should be restored. Everymorning (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)