Talk:The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy/Archive 2

Continued misrepresentation of Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd (2006)
Here is the full text of the article:

Carey (2006, this issue) cited in his response to our article (Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, January 2005) a study by Tang et al. (2005) showing that “of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity” (p. 268). Carey (Carey, 2006, p. 176) then stated that he would very much like to hear a response to this finding from Sternberg et al. (2005), who maintained that “race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one” (p. 49), that reifies those physical correlates of ancient population dispersions “as deriving from some imagined natural grouping of people that does not in fact exist, except in our heads” (p. 51). We are glad to provide a response. Imagine the case of Dr. Smith. Dr. Smith has a hypothesis that the proper basis on which to classify people's race is not skin color, which has so often been used (mistakenly, he believes), but rather eye color. He discovers some interesting facts. Whereas 0.14% of a sample showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity based on skin color and other such criteria, not even one person misidentified genetic membership on the basis of eye color. He is impressed. He then discovers that race defined by eye color is quite powerful. Blue-eyed races tend to live more in Northern climes, and brown-eyed races, closer to the equator. Blue-eyed people, on average, are more susceptible to sunburn and concomitants of it. Blue-eyed races have health problems, on average, more typical of people in Northern climes, and brown-eyed races, those more typical of equatorial climes. Although the effects are not whopping, they are statistically significant. There are even differences, on average, in the distribution of languages these races speak. Dr. Smith even notes that, in earlier times, eye color actually was used as a basis for classifying people on the basis of race, which gives historical weight to his scientific finding. (As an example, Sternberg's mother escaped Nazi-occupied Austria only by virtue of her blue eye coloring, which suggested “Aryan” racial membership to police guards on a train.) The point of the apocryphal story above is that correspondence between self-identification and biological characteristics does not form a suitable basis for assigning people to “races.” Moreover, it appears that Carey's (2006) response to our article can be explained, at least partially, by his incomplete understanding of the data, analyses, and results presented in Tang et al. (2005). First, the Tang et al. study was done using samples primarily from the United States, where the primary ethnic groups are derived from very different parts of the globe: European (primarily Western European), African American (of mixed West African and European origin), East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and other groups not generally distinguished by U.S. policymakers but genetically distinguishable), and Hispanic Mexican American (of mixed Native American and European origin). Thus, there exist noticeable genetic differences that parallel the origins and culture differences among these groups, specifically, the immigration patterns from different parts of the globe into the United States. Correspondingly, given where these culturally defined groups came from geographically, it is not surprising that they have genetic differences. More relevant to the point that we make—that is, of the continuity of genetic diversity among various ethnic groups and, correspondingly, the artificial nature of the concept of race—is the observation that African Americans can have considerable differences in their ancestral contributions, depending on where, culturally and geographically, their ancestors came from. In the United States, culturally (socially) and historically, anyone with any African ancestry is viewed as or referred to as “African American.” Consider the children of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. She was already half European (a half sister of Thomas Jefferson's wife), and their children were therefore three quarters European, yet they were still socially slaves and “African American.” Depending on how such individuals self-identify and how the genetic clusters are derived statistically, they will cluster with “pure” Europeans or a “partially African” cluster and will either fit or be outliers for these clusters. Second, we also note that the analysis in Tang et al. used the “no admixture” option; in other words, the analyses did not allow for a careful examination of sources and structure of variability “added” by mixed ethnical marriages, which, clearly, would minimize estimates of within-group variation and maximize estimates of between-groups variation. Third, despite the relatively close approximation between the social clustering and genetic clustering found in Tang et al., it is on a global scale that we see intermediate populations that do not allow any clear dividing lines between so-called races or genetic/biological clusters of people. In other words, although Tang et al. described a large and diverse sample, the diversity of this sample is extremely far from being representative of the diversity among human populations. Almost all genetic variation (and its physical manifestations, if any) shows significant variation in quasi-continuous clinal patterns around the world. Almost any set of groups with genetically restricted origins will show genetic differences that allow clustering that would correspond to the social groupings. However, when many neighboring populations are considered, the borders between ethnicities and races dissolve, and categorical thresholds get replaced by continuities. Consider the Mediterranean “races” of times past. They have tended to eat olives and drink wine, compared with the Nordic “races,” who drank aquavit and ate herring; these “races” also showed language differences. We can find biological and genetic traits to distinguish these groups; yet most people today would say it is ridiculous to say these separate peoples belong to separate races socially and culturally. In other words, if we sample only from Mediterranean and Nordic ethnic groups, we will see distinct differences, but if we sample from all intermediate gradations of Europe and consider admixtures that arose as a result of wars (rape) and trade (marriages), a genetic “distinctness” will be replaced by genetic “continuity.” Carey (2006) suggested that he suspects that “much of the difficulty in discussing this issue stems from a tendency to treat ‘social' and ‘biological' (or ‘genetic' and ‘environmental') phenomena as mutually exclusive” (p. 176). Not among us: Two of us have our doctorates in genetics and publish widely in genetics journals, and all of us have written extensively about gene–environment covariation and interaction. We do not dismiss but rather study the presence of genetic (see Kidd, Pakstis, Speed, & Kidd, 2004, for a review) and cultural (see Sternberg, 2004, for a review) variation in humans, focusing on our different areas of expertise but never denigrating the others'. We simply reject the notion that any biological difference between people (such as skin color, eye color, weight) that has various physical concomitants forms the basis for a labeling of it as the basis for race. With regard to Templer's (Templer's, 2006, this issue) response, we do not give much credence to the Snyderman and Rothman (1988) survey. If the survey were done in 1908, probably there would have been even more emphasis on genes. If scientists in earlier times were surveyed on the causes of fire, they might well all have agreed that phlogiston was responsible. In another era, they would have agreed that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Implicit theories are useful ways of ascertaining popular folk beliefs, including those of scientists, but they are not scientifically definitive. As to Rushton's (1995) findings, we are not clear on what conclusion is to be drawn from the correlations—that people with larger cranial capacities are more likely to move away from the equator, that moving away from the equator produces greater cranial capacity, or that both larger cranial capacity and distance from the equator are dependent on some unknown third variable. Thus, although we acknowledge the presence of these and other ideas by Rushton, we do not consider the suggested causal explanations as supported by the data. As noted earlier, the evolution of modern human groups has resulted in almost everything being correlated with geographic distance from Africa. Thus, many correlations that are highly significant statistically can be found and replicated, but they reflect nothing about evolutionary history. Finally, in response to McLafferty (McLafferty(2006, this issue), we agree that the dichotomization of nature and nurture is a somewhat artificial analytical division that has been at times misused. Whereas we might not fully accept the revised classification proposed by McLafferty, we agree that the nature–nurture division has outlived its value. Nor is there a simple continuum between fully nature and fully nurture—the relevance of variation in nurture depends on the mean and range of variation in nature, and vice versa (Lewontin, 1974). References Carey, G. (2006). Race—Social, biological, or lemonade?American Psychologist, 61, 176. Kidd, K. K., Pakstis, A. J., Speed, W. C., & Kidd, J. R. (2004). Understanding human DNA sequence variation. Journal of Heredity, 95, 406–420. Lewontin, R. C. (1974). Annotation: The analysis of variance and the analysis of causes. American Journal of Human Genetics, 26, 400–411. McLafferty, C. L., Jr. (2006). Examining unproven assumptions of Galton's nature–nurture paradigm. American Psychologist, 61, 177–178. Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution and behavior: A life history perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1988). The IQ controversy: The media and public policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59, 325–338. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Kidd, K. K. (2005). Intelligence, race, and genetics. American Psychologist, 60, 46–59. Tang, H., Quertermous, T., Rodriguez, B., Kardia, S. L., Zhu, X., Brown, A., et al. (2005). Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies. American Journal of Human Genetics, 76, 268–275. Templer, D. I. (2006). Is the evidence on ethnicity and intelligence conclusive?American Psychologist, 61, 176–177.

The second part of Captain Occam's paraphrase seems to be WP:OR. Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd did not write that "that the views of the scientists surveyed reflected 'popular folk beliefs'". Perhaps Victor Chmara was the editor responsible for that misrepresentation and Captain Occam was merely restoring his edit, but it is clearly unacceptable. They were referring to the same question in the survey on the Black-White IQ difference discussed by Jencks and Phillips that Templer cited in his correspondence (reproduced in a previous section). Mathsci (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Robert Sternberg et al
I have no idea why the following short letter by Donald Templer was referred to in the article (by Victor Chmara and Captain Occam). 

This is a very short letter written about another paper by Sternberg et al and seems to have no relevance to the current article on the survey/book of Snyderman & Rothman. It is an example of WP:UNDUE. How is the reader supposed to know about the 2005 paper of Sternberg et al that Donald Templer of Alliant International University, Fresno, is talking about and what is the direct relevance to this article? Mathsci (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the 2005 article of Sternberg et al discussed above makes no reference to any work of Snyderman & Rothman. There seems to be no justification at all for the edits by Victor Chmara and Captain Occam. Mathsci (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, your reasoning is highly inconsistent here. The short letter by Templer has relevance here to the same extent that the short letter by Sternberg et al. replying to Templer's letter (and to letters by other people) and published in the same issue of American Psychologist has relevance. Both discuss Snyderman and Rothman's survey, albeit briefly. If you think that the Sternberg letter is relevant, then certainly the Templer letter is, too.

This is all that Sternberg et al. 2006 had to say about Rothman and Snyderman:

According to you, Templer's side of this exchange of arguments in the comments section of American Psychologist should be omitted, while the arguments by Sternberg et al. should be included in the article. That's pure POV pushing.

Maunus and Occam have agreed that my description of Templer & Sternberg's arguments is superior to yours. Sternberg et al. 2005 is referred to (though not named) because Templer was replying to it in his letter, arguing that Snyderman and Rothman's survey makes the arguments in Sternberg et al. 2005 dubious. Sternberg et al. 2006 was, in turn, an attempt to defend the arguments in Sternberg et al. 2005 against the criticisms of Templer (and others). The two letters were a part of the debate about Sternberg et al. 2005, and the reader should be made aware of the fact that the letters were written in this context.

This is how I described all this:

Either both Templer 2006 and Sternberg et al. 2006 must be discussed in the article, or neither.--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Victor Chmara, Occam and Maunus on this one. But before changing it back, I would be curious about other opinions. Anyone? David.Kane (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It’s now been over a day since Mathsci removed Victor Chmara’s wording for this section, and during that time nobody here (other than Mathsci) has expressed anything other than criticism of this change, so I’ve changed it back.


 * Are we ready to add back any of Victor Chmara’s other revisions that were undone? Nobody seems to be disputing Victor’s point that Mathsci’s wording about Horowitz and Conrad is original research, but I’d like to make sure we’ve come to an agreement about this before I restore that part of Victor’s wording also. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WeijiBaikeBianji, do you disagree with this? I would assume that you do because you’ve reverted my edit, but you haven’t explained what objection you have to the justification for this wording that’s been provided by me, Maunus, Victor Chmara, David.Kane.  So far, the only person who’s expressed disagreement with us about this is Mathsci, who also hasn’t attempted to address the justification that Victor Chmara has provided for his wording above.  If you disagree with Victor about this, you need to explain why; reverting while not engaging in discussion is really unhelpful. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned below there are three problems with what Victor Chmara wrote and Captain Occam has been restoring. Firstly his partial summary of the content of the 2005 paper of Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd is inadmissible.  Secondly he fails to mention that Templer in a very brief paragraph just summarises the responses on the Black-White IQ gap. Thirdly the part on folk beliefs did not refer directly to scientists polled in the theory. That is a misreading of the correspondence. My completely newly formulated sentence took into account these three problems. Mathsci (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Captain Occam, you kindly asked, "WeijiBaikeBianji, do you disagree with this?" Actually, I haven't had time to form an opinion on the issue. My revert was not to say, "I agree with the version to which I'm reverting and disagree with the most recent edit" as much as it was to say, "Whoa! Let's discuss this some more before we go catch the train." I haven't been convinced one way or the other what's the most sound statement about the book. But I note here that


 * * I have the book at hand, in my office,


 * * I have a large supply of other sources on the topic at hand in my office,


 * and


 * * I have a sense of what the use of the book as a source has been in subsequent literature, from years of reading that literature.


 * As of the moment I posted the NPOV tag on the article, I didn't have the "gut reaction" that the article to that date fully reflected what the literature says about the book. So I have invited editors to discuss how to edit the article, and you and other editors have kindly joined in. I haven't had time to page through the sources I have at hand to check which I can verify directly and which seem most germane to the book. I rather suspect that a few of the sources that have been cited on this talk page in the last few days are sources I have never seen, so I will have to ponder carefully how to regard those on the basis of what you and other editors here say about them. I'm just making the friendly suggestion that consensus shouldn't be assumed, but rather gained by persuasive examination of the sources during discussion with other editors. I'll be busy much of tomorrow, but I do feel obligated to return to this article (after I do some ministerial edits on wholly unrelated articles) to see how the two issues here can be resolved. The two issues here are 1) what should be said about the Snyderman and Rothman book by Wikipedia policy, based on the sources (the issue in this section) and 2) whether or not the book should have a separate stand-alone Wikipedia article by Wikipedia policy on articles about books (an issue for a different section of this talk page). I have not made up my mind about either issue. I see both have been subject to previous discussion and are now being discussed again. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said in response to you on my talk page, I have two problems with your revert. The first is that the content that Mathsci has been removing was the established version of the article for two months, and there has not yet been a consensus to change it.  And the second is that other than Mathsci himself, every editor who’s expressed an opinion about his changes to the established version of the article has disapproved of them.  Even if you don’t consider us to have reached a consensus about this yet, I don’t think a non-consensus change that has this little support should stay in the article while we continue to discuss it.  If consensus ends up favoring Mathsci’s changes at some later point, we can always add them back. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As explained several times on this page now, the content added today was newly devised by me (a) perfectly to match the sources and (b) to be neutral. The material Victor Chmara and Captain Occam favoured stated opinions of Robert Sternberg and his collaborators which did not match the sources. The academic dispute between Templer and Sternberg et al was somewhat irrelevant to the current article. At that level their two short notes constitute primary sources, which we can't really comment on, just as we can't directly comment on the 2005 paper of Sternberg et al. However, as a coincidental commentary by Sternberg et al on the Black-White question in Snyderman & Rothman, the note of Sternberg et al qualifies as a secondary source, in exactly the same way as the footnote of Jencks and Philipps does.   Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mathsci, as I said before, I’m not interested in arguing with you about this beyond what I’ve said already. You’re already starting to repeat your earlier claims that have already been addressed, and I know that this can continue for weeks, because that’s what happened on the History of the race and intelligence controversy article.  I’m not willing to waste another several weeks of my time on another instance of you doing this.  What eventually resolved the discussion over that article was that when it became clear that every other editor involved in it disagreed with you, and that you were going to continue filibustering there indefinitely, we eventually went ahead and edited the article over your objections.  I expect the same thing to eventually happen here, but the question is whether we’re at the point yet where that’s appropriate.


 * WeijiBaikeBianji, do you have anything to say in response to what I’ve said? If you object to my reasoning in my previous reply to you here and in my user talk, I’d like you to explain why. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Captain, I think a strong case has been made not to revert to Victor Chmara's version (again, please be wary of claims of previous consensus: that the article wasn't changed in some time may not be indicative of consensus, just that editors were busy doing someting else). I think there are several editors here willing to discuss the issues with this article, and rushing to revert to a specific version is counterproducive at this point. If you want to be producive, please join the discussion and stop pushing for a revert.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What I have to say at this moment (at which I plan to spend several hours editing articles other than this one) is that I don't think you, Captain Occam, have yet correctly characterized what Maunus's view is of how the article should be edited. (After you mentioned Maunus as one editor who formed the consensus group you claimed, I looked carefully at his posts here on the talk page and at all of his recent contribs.) But I could be mistaken about that. In any event, I will let Maunus speak for himself. Ramdrake's point is well taken that consensus for reverts shouldn't be assumed from stasis in articles. I've only just begun to make substantive edits anywhere on Wikipediamy personal opinion is that all articles on Wikipedia that have anything to do with IQ need huge amounts of editing, and much more attention to the best reliable sources, to correct their many current errors. But I can't do that all by myself, so my absence from editing any one article during a given span of weeks should not be taken as my statement of consensus that the article is in fine shape already. I won't be back here until Saturday evening (United States time zones) at the very earliest, so please do not assume that I am in consensus with anyone here yet. I'm still thinking about the issues. I'm still gravely concerned that Wikipedia policy wouldn't warrant a full article on this book (the issue for a different section of this talk page). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me point out, again, the two outstanding issues here. Victor Chmara has already described these in detail, and no counter-argument has yet been presented to them.


 * 1: The Horowitz article does not discuss this study. It briefly mentions one of the study’s authors (Rothman) in the context of discussing Rushton, but it isn’t clear whether Horowitz has this study in mind or any of Rothman’s other writings.  This could go in the article about Stanley Rothman if one is ever created, but in an article about this study specifically it’s an example of synthesis.  This is the same standard that’s generally been applied to every other article about a specific book:  it’s synthesis to include information from articles that discuss the book’s author or publisher, if those articles don’t discuss them specifically in the context of the book in question.


 * 2: It’s a violation of NPOV for the article to cite the Sternberg letter but not the Templer one. Sternberg’s letter was specifically in response to Templer’s, so by including one and not the other we’re only presenting one side of this conversation.  Both letters discuss this study, although not in depth, so any claims about synthesis or lack of relevance apply to one just as much as to the other.  I think the article should include them both.  Including neither is also an option, but what definitely shouldn’t be an option is including one but not the other.


 * If people want to assume there’s no consensus about this yet, I guess that’s fine. But the larger problem here is that these are, in my opinion, fairly obvious violations of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV.  At least three people (and possibly four, if Maunus can be included) agree that they are, and nobody has yet presented an argument that they aren’t.  If other people object to these things being changed, shouldn’t they be able to provide a policy-based explanation for why these parts of the article are better in their current state?  And nobody can provide one, isn’t it appropriate to change them? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It’s now been over two days since I pointed out why I think these parts of the article are violating WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV, and nobody has made any effort to dispute what I’ve said here. I’m not going to make a claim either way about what the consensus is, but if there are parts of the article that violate these policies, then they need to be changed.  I’m going to wait a little longer before changing them, to make sure nobody has an argument against the explanation I’ve provided for why these parts of the article violate these policies.  But if nobody does, then it’s appropriate for me to edit the article in order to remove what by all appearances are policy violations. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My eyes glaze over at about 10 ":"'s ("::::::::::") deep. Is there a better solution than redutio ad "he said she said"? (or augmentation in this case?) I apologize I'll be busy the next few days...

... but just to take a step back: regarding "The material Victor Chmara and Captain Occam favoured stated opinions of Robert Sternberg and his collaborators which did not match the sources." I rather thought that what reliable sources/individuals state trump whether or not we (personally) agree that what reliable source/individual states about X matches our estimation of what we (personally) would say about X—that is, after all, what one says when contending a statement does not match the source being characterized. It would seem the appropriate solution is to attribute statements. To be clear, I have NOT deciphered the material in question; this is purely a procedural matter, as much as I hate quoting procedure. Therefore, also, to the degree Sternberg's evaluation does not match the evaluation by others of same, those need to be included as well. I really don't have the energy to wade through Occam vs. Mathsci above. @Occam, can you provide several succinct bullets summarizing proposed changes? There's no rush, and rushing on your part will be looked upon askance as the arbitration is still in progress. "If I don't hear anything in X days,..." in my experience leads to nothing but trouble, regardless of whether edits in scope are warranted or not. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 13:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The most succinct way to describe the changes I’m hoping to make is by linking to Victor Chmara’s version of the article, which contained these changes for around two months, until Ramdrake removed them. There are three main changes that I think need to be made here.


 * In the last paragraph of this section, Victor Chmara, David.Kane and I have said that we think the Horowitz material should be removed, because the cited article from Horowitz doesn’t discuss this study. It (briefly) mentions Stanley Rothman, but doesn’t say anything about which of Rothman’s writings it’s referring to, and the article is mostly about Rushton.  Therefore, discussing the Horowitz article here is synth.


 * Victor Chmara, David.Kane and I are also suggesting that in the same paragraph, the last sentence of the Conrad material should be removed. If you read the part of Conrad’s book that’s being cited, it’s clear that the statement about "unintentional credence" is specifically about the reaction to The Bell Curve, not about Snyderman and Rothman.  This instance of synth isn’t as severe as the previous one, but David.Kane, Victor Chmara and I still think this sentence isn’t relevant to the study.


 * And finally, in the paragraph before that one, if we’re going to describe Sternberg’s response to Templer’s letter, we should also describe the letter from Templer that Sternberg is responding to. Both letters discuss this study about the same amount, so they’re exactly as relevant as one another, and it’s a rather obvious NPOV violation to include one side of this conversation while excluding the other.


 * You’re welcome to make these changes yourself, if you agree with them. In fact, I’d kind of appreciate it if you did.  They definitely need to be made, because violations of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV shouldn’t be allowed to stay in the article indefinitely, but I know it’s preferable for involved parties in the arbitration case to edit these articles as little as possible while the case is in progress. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I’ve gone ahead and changed these things. I know there’s no hurry with this, but there’s also no reason to leave apparent violations of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV in the article when nobody is disputing that these policy violations exist.  These problems have been pointed out here for several days now, and nobody has tried to argue with my explanation of why they need to be changed.


 * If there’s anyone who disagrees with this, I hope they’ll actually provide an explanation here of why they do which addresses my own points, rather than just reverting my edit without discussing it. The latter would be a pretty clear example of POV-pushing. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, now I’ve been immediately reverted by WeijiBaikeBianji, with the edit summary “This still needs more discussion before a revert.” WeijiBaikeBianji has not commented here to explain what additional discussion is necessary, despite my specifically asking anyone reverting this material to do so. These issues have been discussed at length for more than a week, the relevant parts of the articles being cited have been quoted or linked to by Victor Chmara, and nobody has actually argued against the arguments which are being presented (yes, with citations) that the material in question violates these policies.  These parts of the article have already been discussed as much as it’s possible for them to be discussed until someone explains why they think they don’t violate the policies in question. WeijiBaikeBianji, do you not recognize the problem with reverting this while refusing to address the justification being provided for this change?


 * If you aren’t willing to either undo your revert or engage in discussion about the material that you’re reverting, what you’re doing is POV-pushing. There’s really no other term that can be used for it. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget to focus on Wikipedia criteria for articles about books.
Wikipedia has criteria for articles about books. Which, if any, of those does this article meet? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder to discuss this separate issue here. I think a legitimate case can be made for deleting this article, even by a rather inclusionist editor like me. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:N. Any book that is discussed in other reliable sources is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. This book passes easily, as evidenced by the many references. David.Kane (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:N says if a subject has received "significant coverage" it is worthy of inclusion, and then goes on to specify that "significant coverage" "means that sources address the subject directly in detail". I believe that what is being debated here is whether the sources that do mention the survey mention in quite directly and in detail, or just in passing, in which case it would fail the "significant coverage" criterion.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No. You need to read the subpage of WP:N devoted to books (WP:NB) and, especially, the footnotes therein. Key line: "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience." And make sure to check the footnotes, especially "The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." So, since this book receives several sentences, paragraphs or pages of coverage in other works, it is notable enough. The threshold for notability is very low, as it should be. David.Kane (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll think about this a while, but I think there are grounds for deletion of articles that apply even to articles on notorious (that is, undoubtedly notable) subjects. And if this book is notable, so are very many books on related subjects that are not yet in Wikipedia, so perhaps I should devote my time to creating many more articles about books. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there "are very many books on related subjects that are not yet in Wikipedia" and which belong there. The same applies to famous academic articles. If you have the time (you clearly have the knowledge), I would love to enlist your help in making this article better. David.Kane (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've turned to my copy of Snyderman and Rothman this evening (= I finally added enough entries to my bibliography that Snyderman and Rothman was unburied from other books in my office). Jensen 1969 was a much more important publication. I'll have more to say about the book discussed here in a few days. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the POV tag on 10 August 2010; let's discuss whether this article should be edited or deleted.
I see there was no consensus the last time this article was discussed for deletion. As the ArbCom case winds down, perhaps editors can calmly consider the issue of what the notability of the study/book was or is, and what would be an encyclopedic, NPOV way to discuss it in this article or in a section some other article(s) if this article is deleted. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that a statistics expert should take a look at how the study was conducted. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added an "expert needed" template and posted a short message on the talk page of the Statistics portal about this issue. I've also reverted gthe article one notch to a version which seemed less POVish to me.--Ramdrake (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an example of a short survey that was enlarged to a book. The writers appear to have been lobbyists. Once the WP article exists, the only method for discussing or editing it is to use secondary sources. It has not been discussed very much in the literature. I don't see how asking for a wikipedia editor with knowledge of statistics would help; I don't know whether any subsequent secondary source has given a detailed account of the statistical significance of the survey (Jencks & Phillips comment in a footnote on one question), but that seems to be the place to look for any comment—anything else would essentially amount to WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there perhaps some Wikipedia criterion for articles about books that needs to be looked at here? Your point on original research is well taken, but perhaps someone with more statistics knowledge than I have can point to sources that generally discuss issues of survey design and survey interpretation, which would be germane insofar as sources make clear how this survey was designed and interpreted. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I don’t approve of your large rollback of Victor Chmara’s changes. As he explained in his edit summary, mentioning Horowitz’s book is synth, because Horowitz does not discuss this study. The fact that Jensen, Eysenck, Gottfredson and Gordon have received funding from the Pioneer Fund also should not be the way we introduce them, for the same reason that it also wouldn’t be consistent with NPOV policy to introduce Jensen as a “Kistler Prize winner”.

You said in your edit summary for this rollback “please discuss”, so I hope you’ll engage in discussion about the changes you’ve made and why you think they’re justified, and won’t continue to restate them until they have consensus. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji: 1) If you have questions about this article's notability, please read WP:NOTABLE. This article has clearly received significant coverage in reliable sources. So, to my mind, it isn't even close. As to POV, if you have questions about that, feel free to either boldly edit or bring them up at the Talk page. Otherwise, we should probably remove the tag after a week, as usual. 2) "statistics expert should take a look at how the study was conducted" No. It is not our job to judge studies/books in Wikipedia. This could be the world's worst study. It could be the best. It does not matter for Wikipedia. We report what reliable sources say about the study, nothing more and nothing less. David.Kane (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's actually quite dubious that this book (which I have at hand in my office) is notable under the specific notability requirements for Wikipedia articles about books, but feel free to make the contrary case under the new section I opened focused on that issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the POV tag as of 27 August 2010, as there are now plenty of editors here who seem inclined to discuss calmly what the sources say and how to bring the article up to Wikipedia policy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have the article, and I have the book.
I visited the friendly local state flagship university library today to photocopy the article by Snyderman and Rothman to go with their book, which I had already circulated on an earlier visit to that library. I've been doing the usual kinds of searching for reviews of the article and of the book too. I'll be happy to dig into my ever growing list of sources too to see what they say about Snyderman and Rothman's activities. I did turn up one online source from the Pioneer Fund that gives the book prominent mention.

-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Per mine to Captain Occam, and to clarify, WP:BLP is urgent, anything else is not. I'll be looking forward to see what sources you uncover that specifically relate to the study. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 13:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm digging into the sources here to check what they say and compare that to what's said in this Wikipedia article so far. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have begun a line-by-line look at this article for NPOV, having obtained and printed out most of the sources that were recently discussed here on the talk page. I note for the record that the article creator has supported deletion of this article in the AfD discussion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * by the way the link to the most recent afd at the top of this page takes me to the old afd, and not the most recent one. futurebird (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch, Futurebird, I just fixed that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm slogging into substantive edits of the article (slowly but surely), relying on the sources I have at hand to document how the book has been received and what its impact on the subsequent literature has been. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)