Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence

Initiation of Mediation
Welcome to the mediation for Race and Intelligence. I have reviewed the case and the preliminary discussion to the point where I feel comfortable with this case proceeding; further, all 3 "main" parties have indicated acceptance along with ALL of the others who are currently online. After many years of disputes, it is finally time this is put to rest. Using the issues presented and the policies of Wikipedia as my guide, I hope to guide all of you to a resolution that is fair and reasonable. I feel like the process the Mediation Committee uses for these matters is a good standard to follow. Below is a series of Ground Rules that I would like all parties to sign on to in the same edit that they add their opening statement. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions.

Proposed Groundrules:


 * 1) Stick to content, not the contributor - This should be uncontroversial, since it is policy. Personal attacks will be removed by the mediator, substituting the following template: (Personal attack removed)
 * 2) Listen to fellow editors, assuming good faith.
 * 3) Seek consensus rather than continually repeating the same point.
 * 4) Always work to find common ground rather than ways to support your, and only your point.
 * 5) Do not make edits to the page that would contravene these discussions. Essentially, any issue in dispute, once resolved, may then be changed on the article page. Trying to argue on the page during this discussion would contravene these proceedings.

Rules adopted 3/25/10 The mediator reserves the right to:
 * 1) cut short any discussion that starts to wander across multiple issues, or that rehashes old grievances.
 * 2) force compromises by fiat where there is stolid disagreement on trivial issues
 * 3) enforce a one strike civility rule, where civility is used in a narrow sense which prohibits all commentary about other editors that might possibly be interpreted as pejorative, in my best estimation. basically this means I will tolerate one mild incivility over any three day period, and if you commit two, I will bench you for three days - no posting on this page or any related page until I give the go ahead.

Stay clear, stay focused, stay concise, and do not comment on other editors if you wish to continue to participate in this mediation.

Acceptance of Groundrules
Please signify your agreement to the above groundrules by typing * Agree ~ below.


 * Agree Ramdrake (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree David.Kane (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Captain Occam (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Aryaman  (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree DJ (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree T34CH (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Wapondaponda (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Techno Faye Kane 05:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree Ludwigs 2  06:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree Aprock (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree Alun (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree mikemikev (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree chinpaya (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree --OpenFuture (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree chinpaya (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree Dr.TMRoberts (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree ·Maunus· ƛ · 11:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Current agreements
what am I missing in this list? -- Ludwigs 2 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Race/intelligence link - The article will discuss the sources that show there is currently no established genetic link/correlation between race and intelligence, note that the research is inconclusive and ongoing, and give a brief summary of the 'Genes and Intelligence' article (or use other sources) as necessary to give proper balance to genetics-based research. it is understood that this resolved may be subject to clarification as we flesh out the article and sources. mikemikev (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a few suggestions.

1: ✅The hereditarian hypothesis is not “fringe”, either by Wikipedia’s standards or any other standard. As has been mentioned before, this point is a little different from the point that research into race and intelligence is not “fringe”, and ought to be mentioned separately.

2: I think the following points, regarding the social vs. genetic meanings of race, ought to also be included:

This is the same list of points that we’ve been discussing for at least a month, and it’s pretty clear by now that just about everyone agrees with it. The one exception to this is the third point, which hasn’t been in this list before, but is a summary of something that almost all users here have stated they agree with in some form. I’m hoping it won’t be controversial to include point #3 here, but if it is, I guess it’s not a big deal if we leave it off for now. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅All current research on race in relation to IQ scores is based in SIRE information.
 * ✅Some research shows that race (defined by SIRE) correlates highly with certain genetic markers (markers which are obviously inherited, but which are chosen because they are highly informative of biogeographical ancestry.)
 * ✅Research suggests that some genes whose distributions vary between races affect the distribution of phenotypic traits. Obvious examples are skin and eye color; additional examples include blood type, lactase persistence, sensitivity to alcohol, and degree of risk for certain diseases.  However, the functions of the majority of these genes remain unknown or poorly understood.
 * ✅Research suggests that 40-70% of the variation in IQ scores within the same population owes to genetic factors. A few specific genes have been identified as likely candidates, but none has been conclusively shown to do so.
 * ✅There is no definitive research (as yet) that speaks to whether the genes that affect intelligence in individuals are part of the cluster of genes mentioned above.


 * I concur with Occam, particularly on the need for his first point. My choice of wording would be as follows: The research of so-called "hereditarians" is not "fringe" science, and should not be presented as such in the article. This follows directly from our agreement that the best representative of the mainstream view is the APA report, which has no qualms citing the non-controversial findings of Jensen and Lynn as authorities in their field, and does so frequently (cf. "Sternberg's Theory" §2; "Choice Reaction Time" §1; "Schooling" §4; "Group Differences" §1; "African Americans" §1; etc.). -- Aryaman (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don’t think I agree with using the word “research” in this context. The reason Ludwig’s need to summarize these points originally came up was because certain users were under the assumption that we were agreed these people’s research wasn’t “fringe”, but that their conclusions still might be.  Part of what we need to clarify here is that what we’re saying isn’t “fringe” includes not only individual studies (that is, research) but also the hereditarian hypothesis itself. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How does "work" strike you? Or do you specifically want "conclusions" used here? -- Aryaman (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * alright, what I've done is created a separate box for proposed resolved issues. As other editors check in we can move them from one box to the other.  I've used 'hereditarian viewpoint' rather then 'research', but we can piddle with the words.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwig, your wording for this sounds fine to me. But considering how long we’ve spent resolving some of these points already, as well as the fact that you’ve said you don’t want us to waste any more time rehashing old disputes that have already been resolved, I’m not sure what the point is in waiting for other editors to express their opinions about these points before moving them into the “resolved” box.  If other editors have sufficiently expressed their opinions about these points in the discussions during which they were resolved initially, isn’t asking users to express their opinion about them again just an invitation to re-open the dispute about them? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just prefer not to appear too hasty about it. of course, if someone objects we can always move them back out again, but lets give it the rest of the day for people to comment if they so choose.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

An additional point everyone either has been or should be able to agree with:


 * ✅The 1995 APA report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, though somewhat dated, is a fair presentation of what can be considered the "mainstream" academic view on the issue of race and intelligence. The conclusion reached in this report is that no one knows what causes the one standard deviation differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites, and that both the environmental model and the hereditarian model suffer from a lack of direct empirical support. -- Aryaman (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the boxes. as always, let me know if there are any problems, or anything I've missed. -- Ludwigs 2 08:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Terms of continued mediation
You have 2 weeks to show some progress. After that, I will have to close this case. You're in a talk-talk-talk loop, and familiarity breeds contempt. I haven't been paying attention to this, but I just rewatched it. I see TechnoFaye calling SlRubenstein a troll, and general anger all around. Please stop personal attacks, and be civil even if you have to grit your teeth through it. Things are bad enough already. If you continue to insist, I will close this case and you'll basically have the same discussion happening on the article's talk page.

Finally, there's been some concern about representation of viewpoints during this arduous process. If a good outcome happens, bear in mind that edits to the article do not automatically have consensus just because they were discussed here, because not all the "major players" are having a say -- I don't blame them. MedCab is open-ended, and mediators can opt to continue a case even if people drop out or don't participate. So prepare for a likely round 2(^n) in any event. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Despite what some users are claiming at AN/I, we haven’t “pushed away” any editors who used to be involved in this article. Some of us have gone out of our ways to try and get more of the people who originally signed into this case to continue participating in it, particularly Alun and Mathsci.  (I’m not sure what’s happened with Ramdrake, but I suspect he has real-life issues that are preventing his continued participation at Wikipedia.)  But both Alun and Mathsci seem to be actively avoiding participation here, even though Mathsci at least is still paying close enough attention to this case to have very strong opinions about what he doesn’t like in it.


 * I can understand why it wouldn’t qualify as consensus if a large body of users holding a certain viewpoint were being excluded from the discussion, or weren’t able to participate in it for reasons beyond their control. But what we have here is a few users who are voluntarily excluding themselves from the discussion, despite our efforts to the contrary, and who now may end up claiming that the outcome isn’t acceptable because their opinions weren’t considered.  Well, if they care about the outcome and want their opinions represented in it, shouldn’t they be presenting those opinions in the mediation the way everyone else has been doing?


 * If things end up going the way you’re suggesting they might, what this sounds like it means is that there would be a few users aren’t interested in working towards consensus at all (since reaching consensus is the purpose of a mediation case), and would rather just block any efforts to change the article by unilaterally rejecting whatever outcome the rest of us can agree on after we’ve spent several months reaching that agreement. If this actually does end up happening, doesn’t it pretty clearly violate the spirit of how Wikipedia is supposed to work, as well as policies such as the “Little or no interest in working collaboratively” section of Not here to build an encyclopedia and the “Does not engage in consensus building” section of Disruptive_editing?  And if so, how could this be an acceptable reason to reject the outcome of mediation? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some elaboration from Xavexgoem regarding "some progress". Apparently we have very different ideas about what constitutes progress: despite our accomplishments, particularly over the last 3 weeks (the resolution of several key points and the production of an outline to be used for our first revision), uninvolved editors continue to berate the mediation as being a waste of time. If making concrete steps towards a major revision is not considered "progress", and we're being threatened with discontinuation if we do not evidence "some progress" within two weeks, I'm quite eager to know just what constitutes "progress" in the eyes of the MedCab. -- Aryaman (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The history section
I have written extra material for the first segment of the history section, using as the initial secondary source the section on "Race Differences in Intelligence" in this textbook:



Ludy Benjamin is one of the foremost historians of psychology. A second segment will follow. Mathsci (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. You're misrepresenting the fact that current consensus is agnosticism, and that, if anything an approximately 50% genetic etiology probably has more support among experts than 100% environmental. I prefer David's history, without your changes. mikemikev (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem, this is just a summary of what the source says. It does not say at all what you claim it says. It is additional material, not an alternative. It is just the first part of the additional history. The rest is more complicated to write and will use further sources. Unless you can find fault with this source, which is written by a distinguished historian of psychology, what point is there in you simply writing WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Unfortunately your way is not the way wikipedia articles are edited. If you have a problem with either Ludy Benjamin or Graham Richards, or their publsihers, please say so. The book by Benjamin has had excellent reviews from what I can tell. Since this is additional material and properly sourced, might it possible for you to find a more constructive way of discussing content in future? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is relevant to show that the race intelligence debate has its roots in scientific racism and the eugenics theories of the early twentieth century - that is an important part of why the debate is so contentious. It is also relevant to mention that race intelligence research is almost entirely based in the US. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The race intelligence debate has been going on since time immemorial. Take a look at Historical definitions of race. Researchers are not just from the US (Rushton, probably the most prominent current researcher, is Canadian/British) and they use data from all over the world. mikemikev (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused as to how describing empirical data that passed peer review can be scientific racism. Stating that a group mean difference exists on IQ test scores is empirical fact-- not racism. Stating that RT differences exist across races and that these differences map on to IQ differences is empirical fact-- not racism. Data are neutral; only the explanation for the data can be racist. If I claim these differences are real but due to massive test bias and poorer environments for minorities, is that racist? If one claimed the difference is due to the inherent inferiority of the minority as part of god's great plan-- well, that's probably racist. But, just describing empirical peer-reviewed data cannot be racist. Whether claiming part of the difference is genetic may or may not be racist (i.e., what if it's true?).Bpesta22 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing that modern peer reviewed studies of correlations between race and intelligence is scientific racism (or that describing those studies is racism)- I am saying that it is relevant to contextualise this research into the tradition of eugenics and pseudo scientific staments of inherent inferiority of certain racial groups from which it originated - because this context is exactly the reason that it is so controversial today.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus once again puts his finger on the key point: putting views in context. BPesta says, "I'm a bit confused as to how describing empirical data that passed peer review can be scientific racism." Bryan, - and I am speaking to you editor to editor - there is no need for confusion. We are not saying that these studies are scientific racism. We are saying that one view holds that these studies are valid scientific research and another view holds that they are scientific racism." We are notsaying anything as such about the research.  We are providing the views that are out there.  Now, if one of us personally disagrees with one viee, or even does not understand one view, well, what can I say?  Everyone has their own opinion.  We do have to strive to present each view accurately and as clearly as possible, so if you do not understand that view maybe you can point out places where more information would make our account clearer.  But whether any of us personally understands a view or likes it, well, that just is not relevant.  Using that as a standard for what we include in this article will only ensure that the article violates WP:NPOV. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Still mulling this over and happy to comply with whatever rules wiki uses. But-- perhaps I am biased-- reading this history section gives one the impression that it's a foregone conclusion that Jensen et al. are raving loons motivated by racism. At the very least, it makes it seem like the whole area is junk science, even if the environmental hypothesis is completely true.


 * I'm guessing one could easily find books / articles, etc. claiming the very worst about people who do research in this area (again this reminds me of the Gottfredson article I linked to somewhere here). I'm trying to strike a balance in my mind between giving these guys too much credit versus letting them be dismissed outright as cranks, since there is now about 100 years of data on this gap. For example, I much prefer the Hunt criticisms to the Nisbett ones. I've seen two examples here of Nisbett's arguments and have not been impressed (understood that my opinion doesn't matter for what the final draft is; just expressing my opinion).


 * Slru-- sorry for shortening your name as Slu, and thanks for your comment re my editing question. Bpesta22 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * eta, don't know if this is consistent with Wiki rules, but in my mind, the historysection should help clarify for the reader why the questions researchers are asking today are what they are (versus other questions). Examples: no one's really debating whether g can be measured from an IQ score; or whether IQ tests are culturally biased (in the psychometric sense). Instead, researchers are using IQ scores as proxies for g and then via statistics seeing what covaries with g and the race gap.


 * So, mentioning the Fergusen study-- never heard of it-- doesn't seem like a helpful addition. Things that I think influenced where we are now: Binet starting this whole IQ testing thing. The army discovering the utility of iq (and perhaps mention any racist uses here). The whole immigration controversy; Spearman of course; the intractability of the gap, as revealed by things like head start. Jensen's 1969? article; Griggs v. Duke Power, and the data college profs have amassed at least indirectly in response to that ruling.


 * All jmo. At this point, feel free to yell at me if I keep screwing up my editing!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpesta22 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * D'oh; forgot to sign;) Bpesta22 (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several Wikipedia articles dealing with the various aspects of IQ, g, etc. It is certainly a good idea to summarize and link to some of them here, but covering the entire history of IQ research here is beyond the scope of this article. A.Prock (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's very nice to see wikipedians expressing their personal views, but that's not how wikipedia articles are written. I am continuing to prepare a version of the rest of the history as I've said above. Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is like criticizing modern medicine because back in the day, doctors used leaches to treat disease. How very Gouldian. Bpesta22 (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

BPesta, I do not mind your abbreviating my name. On a purely editorial matter, I do have one request - polease be more attentive to how you out-dent your comments, so that they are clearly set apart from other people's comments. e.g. I just refactored this section so that you are always one space out from me, as your comment followed mine (then AProck is two spaces out etc. Also, could you sign imediately after your last words - just to take up less space ... if you do not mindSlrubenstein   |  Talk 23:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, I have three comment in response to your comments and also MathSci's edits. Math Sci, would you consider these specific suggestions to consider in your current editing, please? (1) I think your suggestion "eta, don't know if this is consistent with Wiki rules, but in my mind, the historysection should help clarify for the reader why the questions researchers are asking today are what they are (versus other questions)." is very constructive. MathSci, if you could organize your history so that at last a good portion of it is a history of changing research questions, with explicit markers (i.e. subsections highlighting new research questions) I think that this would make the section much much easier for lay-people to read, and would also make it very clear how the history relates to the topic and finally, organizing it this way clarifies ho and why your approach resolves some NPOV concerns

(2) Second, I agree that we need to be careful about the relevance of earlier racism. Is the point that scientists are biased by their own culture, and that if a culture is biased scientisats will share that bias? Or is the point an irony, that scientists why thought that IQ testing would lead to a meritocracy (and thus end racism) ironically had the opposite effect? The point I want to make right here is this: the question facing any historian is, how far back do you go? Attitudes towards race that dominate world culture today have their origins in the 16th century, do we start there? No. I think in addition to a link to the article on racism we need to have very clear criteria for when we begin the history. Here is my advice, to try to resolve the difference of opinion between MathSci and BPesta: discus the criteria for deciding when to begin. That is, do not debate when actually to start the history, do not argue over how far back. Instead discuss what principles can help us decide how far back to go. I bet if you discuss it at this more abstract/methodological level, you can reach an agreement, and then it will be easier to write the section without controversy.

(3a) finally, I think it is very important in this section to distinguish between accusations of junk science and racist science. My understanding is this: for many, the real problem with Rushton and Lynn is that they are bad scientists; they are conceptualizing the question inappropriately and using the wrong methods. "Racism" becomes a way either to explain why they would be so sloppy, or to explain why some people fund sloppy science. But "bad science" is the real criticism, and racism is a secondary matter. Am I wrong?

(3b) I admit I can imagine another view, that after the revelation of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and other stuff (like the Union of Concerned Scientists, who were concerned with the ethical responsibilities of physcists who hlped design the atomic bomb) and the formation of legally mandated "Institutional Review Boards" at US universities (and Ethics Committies in the UK), there is this belief that science cannot be ethically disinterested and scientists must consider the ethics of their research, including the consequences and potential for harm to the research subjects. This can lead to a whole other way of telling this story. In short, I am still not clear on which of these two main narratives applies in this case and I would ask MathSci to clarify: is it one, the other, both together, or one at one point, and the other at another point? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mikemikev's concerns about Mathsci's proposal. It seems to be written with the specific intention of describing the hereditarian position as unfavorably as possible, particularly the last two paragraphs of it.  Although the current history section isn't perfect, it's considerably more neutral than the revision that Mathsci is suggesting. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are at least 5 editors with serious concerns about this new section. But do note that this mediation will probably end soon, with this discussion being frozen. We will probably continue the discussion here: . Just an FYI for all concerned. David.Kane (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problems with Mathsci's version can be mended by simply changing a few wordings (I agree that much of it is not neutrally framed) and adding mention of some other studies on the other side of the fence. ·Maunus· ƛ · 09:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * David, I am not expressing serious conmcerns aout the new section. I am trying to give Mikemikev and Captain Occam and others a constructive way for them to help MathSci do a better job.  If they do not like my suggestions, fine (though I would welcome an explanation as to why).  Otherwise I am glad to see Matchsci continue adding his relevant and sourced content. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * E.g. I think Maunus's contributions are real improvements and show just how effective collaborative editing can work, building on and improving the work of MathSci. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The history section II (Shockley and Jensen)
This is the second segment of what the summary of the history. The third will probably and its aftermath treat the Bell Curve and the fourth the work of Rushton and Lynn. The last paragraph above would probably be merged into the following account of the revival of hereditarianism (1965-1980). The two sources, already mentioned on this page, are:


 * William Tucker, The funding of scientific racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund
 * Adrian Wooldridge, Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England c.1860-c.1990

Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to who made the criticisms, and provide actual citations? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, each point gets a fairly long paragraph in Wooldridge. In fact I was just going to add something to point 2 above about Burt's twin experiments. Mathsci (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This summary looks good to me, except for one thing: the five criticisms of hereditarianism listed at the end of it aren’t neutrally worded.  For example, saying “Bane and Jenks showed that there was not much correlation between IQ and income” implies that the truth is that there is not much correlation between the two, while according to the APA report (which we’ve agreed should be the basis for this article’s perspective) IQ correlates with income pretty significantly.  If you’re going to use this summary, I have two expectations about it:


 * 1: These five criticisms should be more neutrally worded.


 * 2: It should be made clear that some of these criticisms are no longer considered valid by the psychometric community. (Particularly the criticisms that IQ is not strongly heritable, that it is not a good measure of mental ability, and that it doesn’t correlate significantly with income.)  Since we’ve agreed to base our article on the APA statement, and the APA regards these three criticisms as unfounded, our article should also.


 * If you change these two things, I’ll be satisfied with your summary as far as content is concerned. I also think it might be longer than necessary, but since we’ll probably be adding more content to the rest of the article also, I don’t have as strong of an opinion about whether it needs to be made shorter. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * quick comment: If we're going to mention Lewontin, we should also mention that some think his argument is a fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy Bpesta22 (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to this - as long as we also provide a summary of Witherspoon DJ, Wooding S, Rogers AR, et al. 2007 "Genetic similarities within and between human populations," Genetics 176(1): 351-359 - which raise questions about Edward's argument based on a more detailed analysis. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Each of the five points was expanded at Slrubenstein's request to include all he names in the source. There's no problem changing the wording which was an attempt to summarise several sentences. However, any alternative wording should be chosen so that there is no need to cite research from 2007 or for that matter to suggest that Lewontin were correct, just that he had raised objections and thers were in agreement. After all I don't think an account of the history should enter into any detailed technical discussion of scientific matters. These are best left to elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The history section III
Here is a brief version of this material - there should be "main article" links to Flynn effect and The Bell Curve. All that needs adding now is a short section on Rushton-Jensen and Lynn.

Mathsci (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The history section IV
Here is the final section for the history.

Mathsci (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is reasonable, but is Rushton from England? -Bpesta22 (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Born in England. Spent his teens in Canada.  Went back to England for his university education. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

mediation closure?
It seems to me that this article has gone past the point of needing a specific venue for moderated discussion, so I'm raising the question of closing the mediation. There are a few ongoing discussions, obviously, but I can refactor those over to the article talk page. I'm adding two subsections below, in that regard: one a straw poll on the issue, and another section for discussing which discussions should be closed here and moved to article talk.

Unless there is a strong consensus that mediation needs to remain open, you can expect that I will close it and move relevant material this evening. -- Ludwigs 2 15:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll on mediation closure
Do you think we are ready to close this and move completely back to normal editing? use a tick (✅} to say we should close and a cross (} to say not, and if not, please give a brief reason for wanting to keep the mediation open. -- Ludwigs 2 15:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for two reasons. The current version still has NPOV problems, which David Kane has still not addressed (in one case, deleting useful information with the explanation that "the numbers speak for themselves" which certainly is an example of the POV pushing that MatchSci was concerned with. I agree this has been a long mediation and I also agree we have made great progress but I would say we should give it at least a few more days.  Or at most, I think we should agree on a closure date.  We could either vote to close in say one week.  Or we can vote to close if at any time 72 hours has passed without any posts to this page, or something like that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. While we've made a lot of progress in this mediation case, there are several things that still need to be resolved and that will probably be pretty difficult to resolve if we close the mediation case before they are. In addition to the dispute over David.Kane's newest revisions that Slrubenstein mentioned, another major one is that we still need to resolve the discussion over the "Significance" section. The previous time that we discussed this section, Aprock was the only user who had a problem with it, and he didn't provide a detailed response to any of my and Varoon Arya's arguments for including it. But Ludwig made a decision that rather than trying to resolve this right then, we would resolve it after we'd made the first few rounds of revisions to the article. Since resolving this was something he was intending to do as part of the mediation case, and it still hasn't been resolved yet, closing the mediation case would be inappropriate at this point. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, one other thing I’ve mentioned a few times is that before this mediation case is closed, I think we ought to make a “FAQ” for the talk page detailing some of what we’ve resolved in the mediation. (The meaning of “race” in this context, what is and isn’t “fringe”, etc.)  Most other articles about controversial topics have FAQs like this, and I think it would be very beneficial to this article’s long-term stability for it to have one also. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

✅ - Myself, Wordsmith, and PhilKnight do not think MedCab can maintain this much longer. Mediation can of course still continue, but it won't be under the auspices of any process. Consequently, the AN/I threads and claims to WP:OWN, etc, will appear to have more merit for dissenters. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear: the status of this cased will be marked closed at MedCab in approx. 7 hours. You can still use this page, but a message will appear on the top saying that it's continuance here is for the sake of convenience, and isn't actually a case under MedCab. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * what does that mean exactly? i.e. what is the consequences of mediation ending? (and also what are the reasons for it?)·Maunus· ƛ · 17:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm only speaking for the mediation cabal, not the mediation itself. The consequence of this ending is potential chaos, and the consequence for this continuing is Ludwigs vs. MathSci, which has proven to be a major liability for the cabal (3 ANI threads). THE CABAL HAS SPOKEN! Xavexgoem (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

✅ Support. We should just transfer/copy the discussions here to Talk:Race and intelligence. One pleasing sign just recently has been the constructive reactions to potentially some of the more problematic parts of the history page. That seems to be a positive sign that editing can return to normal. Could an adminitsrator please move Archive 0 of this talk page to somewhere more immediately accessible, just for future reference? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

✅ Support. I think that this mediation has been very wildly successful. Just compare the version of the article we have now with the version that we started with! I acknowledge the reasonable concerns expressed by both Captain Occam and Slrubenstein above but hope that we can deal with them in the context of normal editing. I will also note that MedCab is about to kick us out, so we might as well go gracefully. Once again, mad props to Ludwig for being an excellent mediator. David.Kane (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

✅ Support. Things seem to be working in the usual BRT style for the time being. The only real danger of closing mediation is having a few SPAs begin to engage in edit wars. While this is a concern, I think dealing with those issues as they occur should suffice for the time being. A.Prock (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

neutral. In terms of content, this mediation should not be described as a success or complete because edit warring is currently underway, something which I had previously discussed but that was not thought of as important. However this mediation had some success in calming the polarized atmosphere. During the 5 months of mediation, there were few edit wars, and there were attempts by both sides to reach agreements. On one hand mediation cannot continue indefinitely, and OTOH, unmediated editing is likely to result in an unstable article. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Unless there's a broad consensus that we need to keep the mediation going, I think it would be better to close it out. There has been enough drama-trauma surrounding this already, and I am unwilling to go to bat for the mediation in ANI or MedCab unless there is something resembling a general will that I should do so. Occam, slrubenstein - would it work to move this over to article talk, but try to keep some of the mediation principles going informally with respect to these two discussion? I'm happy to help out with that, either as an informal mediator or a normal editor, or if you prefer you could ask Xavexgoem (or another admin) if he was willing to keep an eye on those two threads. what do you think? -- Ludwigs 2 00:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I am flexible on this. If Ludwig, Occam and Slrubenstein want to continue mediation, I am all for it. We have made a ton of progress. But my sense is that MedCab is going to close us off no matter what. We can always restart in a month or two. David.Kane (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * well, all things considered, I don't think there's sufficient consensus to continue the mediation at this point, and I think we have a stable base from which to continue developing the article. with that in mind I'm going to close it.  This should ease some tensions, and will allow me to step in and work as a normal editor to try to develop the article (I will probably be more useful in that role than as a mediator anyway). let's give it a couple of weeks of normal editing and see what happens - you can always begin a new mediation process if you think it's warranted, but I have faith things will settle out quickly.


 * I will set up an FAQ on the article talk as soon as I am done closing the mediation.


 * Xavexgoem, I'll leave a note in your talk about transferring over discussions and merging histories. I'm not sure which you want me to handle and which you want to handle yourself.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ludwigs, no mediator does the job without pissing everyone off at some point. Am I correct in understanding that you will ensure that all of this mediation discussion will be made available in future through the talk page (and its archives) for the article? Steveozone (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't do that effectively myself (not being a sysop), but I've left a note for Xavexgoem, and between he and I it will get taken care of. probably tomorrow; I think he (like most people) sleeps more than I do.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I slept through this whole thing myself; my parents would be ashamed, it must be in my genes ;). Just making sure, let me know if there's something I can do to help. Steveozone (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwig, if the mediation case is going to close, I would certainly appreciate the creation of a FAQ and us continuing to follow some of the principles of mediation on the talk page. But seeing what’s happened to the article in the past few hours has only strengthened my opinion that making the article stable will be almost impossible if we end the mediation at this point.  We now have multiple simultaneous edit wars going on, including an effort to revert all of David.Kane’s recent changes to the article, and you no longer have any actual authority to prevent this.  So if other users choose to ignore what you have to say, what ends up going on the article will be determined only by who can form the most effective  tag team.


 * If this really is what other users want, then I guess there’s nothing I can do about that. But I don’t think there’s any way I could think it’s a good idea.


 * I already moved an FAQ onto article talk. as to what's happened recently - patience.  I expected something like this to happen; it's normal, and like all things in the universe it will change.  it's important to keep one eye on the bigger picture.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you’re right that this will change. The current state of discussion about the article is more or less the state that it existed in from 2007 until the mediation case started in late 2009, so I don’t consider it a good sign for it to be immediately returning to this state after mediation is finished.


 * Also, a question about your FAQ: Are you going to include either of the two points that are still listed under “currently proposed as resolved”? Now that the mediation case is over, I think it’s pretty obvious that we won’t be finishing the discussion (which was part of the mediation) that was intended to determine whether these points should be considered resolved or not.  Consensus appeared to favor both of them pretty strongly, so I think they can be added to the FAQ, but it’s up to you. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

sections to be moved to article talk
There are currently active discussions on the lead, the history section, and the significance section here on the mediation page. which of these should be moved to article talk, and are there any others that should be moved? when I move them, I will copy over the text as is, archive the discussion here, and leave a link pointing to the copied discussion in article talk. -- Ludwigs 2 15:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you can copy all the history sections over, keeping them in 4 separate parts. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can merge the histories of the pages, too. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC) If Ludwigs is on IRC, I would greatly appreciate if he joined #wikipedia-medcab on freenode so I can discuss the logistics of this whole thing
 * Oops! Can't merge them proper without steward assistance; talk page has > 5000 edits. I was so wanting to do that, too. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
Mediation page is 500kb long with about 64 sections. Editing is becoming cumbersome, and the page takes a long time to load. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * it's probably best to move discussion over to article talk at this point, regardless, since the mediation is closed. I'll be moving threads over in the next few hours.  is there a particular thread that you want to make sure gets moved?  -- Ludwigs 2  15:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)