Talk:Race and intelligence/References

Untitled
Please discuss the importance and use of each of these references. Which ones depend on which other ones? Which ones are particularly revered or controversial? If you are going to have a separate article for this, you should take advantage of it. +sj +  —Preceding undated comment added 07:13, 14 July 2005

TOC
if we break the sections down to single letters, we can use the tag. --Rikurzhen 03:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. I'm not sure which is more usable or looks better, to chunk it up by a few letters at a time or have one heading for each letter.  Dd2 07:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it is a little better done by letter. Dd2 07:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

POV
Missing relevant POV references from Sternberg, Gardner, etc. Jokestress 15:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This isn't a reading list. It is an actual bibliography; to which references are added when used. --Rikurzhen 16:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

New fancy system
Well, I've finally made something work. The way I want it.

As D2D has already discovered, you can now make Author–Year references to this page from Race and intelligence with a pretty nice syntax. I promise to write a HOWTO real soon, but I want to play with it to make sure it works. I wrote a new template Template:AYref for this, which uses nontrivial template and variable magic. Ideally, all references from related articles now go to this page, and I want to remove full references from the footnotes.

Anyway, D2D seems to be clever enough to pick up the syntax just by staring at it, so if anybody else wants to have a shot, just follow his lead. (This is an intelligence-related page, after all!)

But a full HOWTO is coming real soon. Arbor 20:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * nice! --Rikurzhen 20:41, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that the same syntax works from the main article as well as the two subarticles. All will get you to this page. Normally, a call to my AYref-template on article Foo will point to Foo (References). Getting more pages to share the same reference page is a simple matter of redirection. (Though I spent ages trying to solve it differently until I realised this simple solution.) Arbor 07:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have now tagged each and every entry so that it is visible to the AYref template. Actually, I wrote a small perl-script to do it for me. The logic is: As I said, it's done by a small script, and may not have gotten everything right. If you want to change an ID, just do it. (As long as you check that it isn't already used by a reference.)
 * 1) the ID of an article is the surname of the first author, followed by underscore, followed by the year of publication, followed by "a", "b", etc. to disambiguate. For example "Duck_1943a".
 * 2) For articles with two authors, the name looks like "Duck_and_Cover_1964"
 * 3) For articles with more than two authors, the name looks like "Duck_et_al._2004".

To refer to this paper's entry, use the appropriate syntax: Note that underscores exist only in the internal ID, which is only seen in editing mode when editing the References page itself. The AYref template avoids underscores. (Nasty technical problem. Don't ask.) Arbor 14:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Revamping
Hey Rikurzhen, I wasn't sure if some of the changes to Pinker 2005 were intentional. It seems useful to wikify names, for example .. or is there reason not to? Anyway, Nectar 09:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

not really. i did the update by copying all the references into endnote, but there's no template for conference talks. i used a generic template, which didn't turn out very well. the new book template has a space for linking to the author's wp page, which i haven't filled in, but it could be updated manually. --Rikurzhen 03:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is over-the-top
Have the collective editors of Race and intelligence actually read all of these references? If so, how many of them actually relate to what is written in the article? This list needs to be reduced, and as sj said, commented. The use of templates also needs fixing (by a bot). ··gracefool |&#9786; 11:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Many of these references are really quite badly written and obviously racist. This is poor science... Danielfong 10:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I also would like to be able to trace the footnotes back to the places they are used to see if they are relevant. (however bad they may be)futurebird 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Snyderman and Rothman (1988) is a dubious source
It is not accepted outside of small conservative circles. More left-leaning people have called it outright racist. It is not the kind of material that an encyclopedia article should use as a source and it is just about the only source for much of this article, which consists primarily of regurgitated findings from a single questionable study.

If not removed, I recommend out-merging most of the Snyderman and Rothman findings (except for a brief summary) to its own article. After that, this article should be expanded to include the entire history of this debate in the media and more balanced coverage of right wing bias.futurebird 06:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this system of footnoting

 * Hopelessly convoluted footnoting system makes it hard to revise the articles.
 * Seems to be designed to intimidate people out of revising the current content.
 * If a source proves to be suspect it is impossible to trace it back to see the articles that reference it.
 * References should be contained in the article to which they pertain. I have found errors in the reference tags, incorrect dates, and broken links, these would be easier to fix and reconcile if the references were in the articles. futurebird 20:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all of these sources were used.
Many of these sources are not use anywhere. I propose removing those that are not used. I'm working through the list, tagging unused sources. futurebird 15:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This article makes unscientific claims that are not supported. Beginning with the politico, Charles Murray, does anyone have any objections to removing the following from this article.

Murray, C. (May 2002). "IQ and Income Inequality in a Sample of Sibling Pairs from Advantaged Family Backgrounds". American Economic Review 92 (2): 339-343.

Murray, C. (September 2005). "The Inequality Taboo". Commentary Magazine 120 (2): 13-22.

Murray, C. (November-December 2006). "Changes over time in the black–white difference on mental tests: Evidence from the children of the 1979 cohort of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth". Intelligence 34 (6): 527-540. DOI:10.1016/j.intell.2006.07.004.

If you object to removing the above three references, please state the reasons based on science within the framework of the purpose of this article. I will wait one week for replies, and then remove them and any associated text. Thanks. Skywriter 20:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I object, on the basis that Charles Murray is also a scientist (a geneticist and an intelligence researcher) in his own right. You cannot censure from Wikipedia views which you disagree with. What you can do is bring cited views that counter this view.--Ramdrake 13:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a General Note About the Economics of 'Race and Intelligence' Publications
I think that it would be a good idea to make some comment concerning the nature of who it is that has funded the various references at various points within history. This may shed some light on the vested interests that have been served via the use of these references at certain points within history.

Ultimately, it is very probably that a significant amount of the references referred to are in some way politically funded and have funded sources that were deemed conducive to the policies of previous political power structures and regimes. Perhaps some analysis towards the political sources of funding, in those cases where government sponsorship has been used when funding a reference, will enable the objectively minded reader in determining whether or not a particular source of information is likely to be accurate.

I am currently not aware of whether or not there exists a separate wikipedia article along these lines that categorises the references according to the times during which they were written (it is not unreasonable to assume that references written earlier on in history are more likely to rely upon results that are not scientifically accurate and that have been deliberately written with bias). Furthermore, which sources of information provide the raw numerical results needed in order to justify the assertions that they make (for example, when attempting to analyse a statistical dataset of information – which sources provide those datasets that they seek to analyse?). Perhaps, in the case of those publications that do not provide, in an eminently reasonable way, their source data in order to verify the claims made in the paper/publication, it would be prudent to tag or otherwise indicate that such publications are featured within the references section of the race and intelligence article. Of course, as mentioned in all of the above, I am assuming that it is reasonable to assume the morality and honesty of the 'contributor' who wrote the paper – clearly this is not likely to be the case.

On a final note, I notice a distinct lack of CHINESE and ASIAN research in your list of references. Far from calling the articles SELECTION OF REFERENCES BIASED AND INHERENTLY UNTRUE, I think that it might be a good idea, in some way at least, to account for the racial and ethnic origins of authors (something along the lines of an ethnic analysis of the race and intelligence references – it would seem a little strange if one ethnic group turned out to be more qualified in regards to determining the levels of intelligence of other ethnic groups).

The above are, of course, only a few points.

--MrASingh 20:34, 23/03/2007, 2007 (UTC)