Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence/Archive 6

Proposed outline
This is mostly based on Aryman's outline, which had relatively broad approval in the discussion above. I have made the following changes to it (based on other editors comments, and my own discretion - those editors will be mentioned in brackets). -- Ludwigs 2 08:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Changes Questions Suggestions let's take a day or two to debate some of the fine points of the outline, but I'd like to give David the go-ahead to start revising on sunday or monday.
 * 1) [via A.Prock] I changed the environmental interpretations description to read "all of the difference in test scores between groups can be accounted for by appealing primarily or exclusively to environmental factors" instead of "by appealing to environmental factors alone". Mostly I did this for balance with the section on the Hereditarian approach (I don't think either camp is absolutist about the issue, except amongst a few hard-liners).  please correct me if I am wrong.
 * 2) {multiple, sort of] changed 'caste-like discrimination' to 'caste-like minorities'. this seems to be the more conventional buzz-word; that is my only intention.  please change that back if you desire.
 * 3) [Wapondaponda] changed 'Socioeconomic status' to 'Socioeconomic environment'
 * 4) [Wapondaponda, Slrubenstein] added to Data gathering methods the line "This section should focus on SIRE as the most common variable for race and IQ (or some other psychometric score) as the most common variable for intelligence."
 * 5) [Wapondaponda] Changed "Group differences in intelligence" to "Group differences in measures of intelligence".
 * 6) [Aryman] stubified the 'Significance' section in the outline. let's simply leave it as a header, and set up a section for discussing it specifically.
 * 1) [via Faye] Faye mentioned a recent summary of 30 years research in the APA report, as well as some recent work in the HJournal Intelligence.  has anyone investigated these?
 * 1) Size - don't worry about size for the moment.  try to keep the sections in Variables potentially affecting intelligence in groups short, but if the article becomes over-long we can start discussing trimming or content-forking section s.
 * 2) keep discussion of the Flynn effect very short - there is an entire article on it we can link to
 * 3) keep the lead stubby for now.  after this first revision we will need to review the work, and we can discuss the details of the lead then.

please place your comments below. -- Ludwigs 2 08:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

comments on outline

 * Support: I have no objections to the outline as proposed by Ludwigs, and would be thrilled if David could start revising the article this weekend. Regarding the question: I believe Faye was referring to Jensen & Rushton's 2005 Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability, which was published by the APA in their journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. To make sure there is no confusion: this is not the report we commonly refer to as "the APA report" - that moniker has been chosen to apply to the 1995 Neisser et al. work Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. -- Aryaman (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: I can't identify any problems with this outline. mikemikev (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: Some problems will probably be identified after it is implemented, but it's worth trying now. --DJ (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reject: If you want to include a header for the "Significance" section and hash out the details whether and what to include later, I'm fine with that. But if that's the plan, then it needs to be in the outline.  When the outline is changed to reflect the suggested compromise, I'll change my position to support. A.Prock (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * can you be more specific? the section Significance of group IQ differences is still in the outline (last section of Group differences in measures of intelligence, with a note to stubify pending further discussion).  Or was there another point here that I'm missing?  -- Ludwigs 2  15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry this wasn't clear, pronouns are hard. In this case it refers to the specifics of the compromise, specifically that whether and what to include has not been finalized.  If you like, I can edit it to make it clear. A.Prock (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, please do edit it in if that's easiest. I guess I misunderstood the compromise that was worked out above.  it would be good (just for the sake of clarity) if you could add a diff to the compromise you're referring to, just so that we can all look at what you're seeing, or at least tell us roughly where it is in which section.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tentative Support: Assuming the changes to the outline are fine, I support the outline. However, I would feel better about the support if there was a broader base of support.  I worry that any product produced from the outline above will not be robust unless editors like slrubenstein, alun, etc... are also willing to back it.  It appears that there are broader concerns about this mediation, and that if it doesn't become more inclusive, all the effort here will be for naught. A.Prock (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, and agree. I expect slr will be along to comment (I'll leave a note on his talk, and alun's, just to try to encourage that), but please keep in mind that I see this as a two stage process.  If we can get at least partial support for this, we can get David.Kane to edit it in, and then I will drop notes to all of the mediation participants that a new draft has been made and we are starting a review process on this page.  I'm counting on two assumptions:
 * That DK will do a decent, neutral, faithful job of fleshing out the outline in article space, and
 * That editors who have not wanted to participate in the current arguments about basic structures will be more inclined to offer critiques, assessments, additions, and revisions to an established draft. most people find it easier to comment on a given than to argue over an abstraction.
 * I don't expect (and never expected) this outline to reach 100% consensus, but I think if we can put up something that's in the 70%-80% range, it will make the job of sorting out the remaining disagreements much simpler, since people will have specific sections and points to refer to. -- Ludwigs 2  04:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't think we need to wait on other editors to begin redrafting. But having their support would mean a lot when it comes to defending updating the article to the new version.  A.Prock (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Aprock, can you please make it clear exactly what you think David.Kane should be putting into the article under the “significance” heading? Would it be a summary that’s a few sentences long, a note saying something like “this section is in need of expansion”, or would the section be left off entirely until we can reach a consensus about its structure?  Since the compromise Ludwig suggested was that this section would start out as a “stub”, leaving it out entirely would be rejecting this compromise, and I won’t accept that.  However, I would accept either of the first two options as a temporary solution for the article’s first draft. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * According to this, Xavexgoem (who apparently is still listed as our official mediator) is now closing this mediation case because of the discussion that Mathsci’s started in the AN/I thread.  I suspect that by now it’s too late to prevent him doing this, although other users are welcome to attempt it if they want to.


 * I hope the four months we’ve spent on this case haven’t gone to waste. Whether or not they have depends on whether we’re able to make use of the things we’ve resolved already, in terms of both the article outline and the general resolved points that Ludwig has listed at the top of the page.  Will this be enough to stabilize the article?  I don’t know, but it’s pretty much our only chance at it at this stage. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just silliness - he's not listed as mediator, has not discussed the issue in talk, and has absolutely no grounds to close a MedCab case uilaterally. I've reopened it and left a note in his talk - if he persists at it, then I'll take him back to ANI.


 * Please keep in mind MedCab is a volunteer system, not a bureaucracy. So long as you guys are willing to engage in mediation, and willing to have me mediate, there's not a whole lot anyone outside can do about it. The minute you decide to close it, or ask me to step down as mediator, of course, then those things will happen.  The efforts of others to make this painful and complicated only work to the extent that you all allow it to work.


 * My understanding here is that A.Prock just wanted some guarantee that the section would be listed in the outline and article. Whether that means a heading with no content or a brief one-line statement will appear in the article we can leave up to DK; the upshot is that we include a placeholder that is not developed, so that we can discuss the matter in greater detail.  -- Ludwigs 2  10:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If that’s really what Aprock meant, then I’m fine with this outline as the first draft, and I think we’re ready to begin editing the article. I would have preferred to hear this from Aprock himself, but after looking around a bit it seems that we now have a time limit of two weeks before this mediation case is shut down by an external decision, so I guess I shouldn’t delay our progress with the article in any way that can be avoided.

So in other words:

Support, assuming that your explanation of Aprock’s meaning is accurate.

I just hope we can resolve the rest of our questions about this article before the two-week time limit expires. Even though we’ve resolved a lot, there still are a few more points left to resolve, such as the structure of the “significance” section. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If by significance you mean practical significance then re-read the "effect size" stuff I posted. ES is all about practical significance. Over and under-representation of minorities on many variables that are important to well-being can be calculated rather accurately by appeal to ES and bell curves.

Bpesta22 (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I already agree with you about this. I’m one of the users who’s been wanting the article to include information about the practical significance of the IQ difference; the person who has a problem with this being included is Aprock.


 * If you agree with the rest of us that this information should be included in the article, I’d suggest that you take this up with Aprock whenever we resume discussing the section of the article that would talk about this line of data. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sending this out for editing into mainspace. I think this outline has a sufficient level of approval to begin editing it into mainspace. I'll copy it as is over to David.Kane's talk page and he can begin work on it. I'll post back when I get some idea of the time frame invloved. -- Ludwigs 2 16:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just hope we can resolve the question of the “significance” section’s structure before the two-week time limit has expired. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Although the outline is fine with me in its current state, I don’t think I can support or reject it until I know whether or not Aprock is going to modify it, and if so in what way. After he’s made his changes and I’ve had a chance to look at them, I’ll be able to give my opinion about it in its modified form.


 * More generally, it seems kind of inappropriate to me how much we’re all having to bend over backward because of Aprock’s problems with the “significance” section, especially after we’ve already had an in-depth discussion about that section, and he’s been either unwilling or unable to justify his problems with the section in that discussion. Will we need to repeat this same discussion again in the future?  And if our next discussion about it ends the same way that the previous one did (with Aprock changing the subject whenever one of us presses him to support his arguments about this section), does that mean we’ll have to exclude this section from the article based on the unsubstantiated objections of a single editor?


 * I know I’m being pessimistic about this, but Aprock keeps giving me the impression that he’s not actually interested in working towards a compromise here. I’ll be able to express a stronger opinion about this outline after I’ve been able to see that the changes he’s demanding aren’t something really drastic, such as that this section be left out entirely. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Occam: I've hidden the above, and I am warning you officially (as mediator) about civility. Do not make comments about other editors.  You may give your support for the current version (which is what I sense you want to do) and you may withdraw it later if a change is made which you disagree with, but in either case you will base your decision on the text itself and nothing more.  If you have any questions about this, please place them on my talk page.


 * Consensus discussions can only occur where there is an assumption of good faith. I understand that there are a lot of tensions on this page, but we will all make that assumption (even if we don't believe it) for the continuing discussion.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All right, we can ignore most of what I brought up in that comment, but I’d still rather not give my support to this outline at a time when I’m worried I might have to withdraw it later. I’ll give my opinion about it after I’ve seen how it ends up getting modified, assuming that it does. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted a few paragraphs of support in that complaint thread linked above (both pro Ludwig and technofaye) but I must have screwed something up as it seem to not have posted. I can retype it, if you all think that would be helpful (I think closing this now is stupid, and it seems like we're close to fleshing out the outline).

BP

Bpesta22 (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you point me to them, I'll rescue them for you - I'm not sure which 'complaint thread' you're talking about, and I'm not sure if your comments will be there or got lost in the shuffle. up to you if it's easier to retype or to point, I'm good either way.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Review of 4/1 draft
''META: Guys, perhaps we should sign our contributions at the end of each coherent point instead of at the end of a long speech, so others can reply to individual points without breaking up someone else's message into disjointed, unsigned pieces. This also prevents the edit conflicts which plague anyone editing for more than 30 seconds.' Techno Faye Kane  21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

General
This article, as written, directly contradicts current mainstream opinion in the matter as published in the main academic journal on the subject and a letter of mainstream opinion signed by 52 published, authoritative experts in this specific field. [redacted] It is not merely biased, it is propaganda. It so OBVIOUSLY pushes one POV (the politically-correct one) that I doubt anyone would seriously deny bias. They will of course deny it anyway, pro forma.

As an example, look at the list of factors.


 * What's at the top? Nutrition. But every expert agrees that when you control for nutrition, the gap is unchanged. For example, malnourished Asians still score higher than whites. Yet you put this FIRST IN THE LIST.


 * The smoking-gun of brain size as an explanation is placed at the bottom even though it is presented as a true explanation in several recent articles in peer-reviewed journals. The only recent statement denying this explanation by anyone even remotely credible is in a popular book by Nisbett, who has published nothing on the subject in any academic journal.    The explanation of why brain size matters is placed at the bottom too.

[redacted] Opinion: The reason that virtually no one denies publicly that brain size explains the gap is probably because denying it would involve acknowledging that on average, blacks have smaller brains -- even thought this is very well-established and is not even considered controversial in the field. Techno Faye Kane 21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't anticipate anyone reading anything into the order in which the variables appear, e.g. which one comes first and which one comes last. If it were possible, I'd order them horizontally. But then I suppose "left-to-right" issues would emerge. Seriously, though, I think we can wait to rearrange these once the whole section has been fleshed out. -- Aryaman  (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ANOTHER CONCERN: The scientific issues are not black and white. They're black, white and Asian. I think it's important to keep that in mind, particularly since the Asian dominance of IQ scores not only refutes the charge of the research being "white supremacist", but more importantly demonstrates that the IQ difference between races is REAL. Dr. Rushton stated that more formally:


 * Most seriously, one has to consider Nisbett’s exclusion of so much of the data on East Asians, which provided evidence of a three-step racial gradient in IQ and brain size from Blacks to Whites to East Asians. A focus on three racial groups taken together obviously provides researchers with increased opportunity to test their hypotheses about group differences. In many cases, diacritical comparisons of East Asians and Whites versus Blacks and Whites, allow the roles of genetics and environment to be unconfounded as, for example, in the case of malnutrition and later adopted children. Techno Faye Kane  05:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Faye in that the data on Asians is just as important, and should be included wherever possible. -- Aryaman (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ONE MORE NOTE: I think that Dr. Pesta should review the final article and wherever he says ""Uhhh, no WAY!", we should alter it. For instance, statements describing what beliefs are mainstream is one example of where the disease of POV might infect this article via the vector of "consensus". Techno Faye Kane  05:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dr. Pesta is an editor with specialized knowledge - in other words, he's a resource, not a determining factor. The article will reflect what is written in reliable sources, and while I expect that Bryan is (professionally) more familiar with relevant sources than most of the editors here, he is not a source in this article himself. -- Ludwigs 2  05:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TF that there's enough data on Asian IQ that it really needs to be included here. It indeed helps to rule out simplistic explanations like the researchers are racist (unless one then assumes a conspiracy theory wherein the racists are using the higher mean Asian IQ temporarily to divert attention away from their arguments re black versus white). Also, any explanation for the difference needs to explain the three-way pattern.

I'm interested in peer-reviewing the complete product but I will wait til it's produced. Bpesta22 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you suggest a good citation for Asian, white, black IQ? Needs to be in the peer-reviewed literature. Thanks. David.Kane (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rushton and Jensen; see page 240

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf Bpesta22 (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Intro

 * The article should begin with a statement that the data shows an IQ gap.  That's what the article is ABOUT. History should be the LAST item. Techno Faye Kane 21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Race and intelligence involves debate in the academic literature over the links,if any, between race and intelligence." "If any" contradicts the overwhelming mainstream opinion that there IS a link. Techno Faye Kane  21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "At the heart of the issue is the observation that the members of racial groups tend to cluster around different averages on tests of cognitive ability."  [redacted] Deliberate obfuscation.  It should read "IQ tests show significantly different average scores in different races". Techno Faye Kane  21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This does NOT belong in the intro: "Some scholars regard the topic as scientifically meaningless based on their interpretation of the meanings and significance of race and intelligence." That belongs in a much lower section on interpretations, and should be accompanied by the statement that this is a very minority opinion among experts. Techno Faye Kane  21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Others argue that the social implications are too important to forego research. " There doesn't need to be an explanation of why scientific research is "okay", PARTICULARLY not in the intro. Techno Faye Kane 21:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Some likewise question whether it is possible to scientifically address the question in a way that is ethical." [redacted] How much more evidence is needed to conclude that this is a biased introduction??   Techno Faye Kane
 * I would like it documented that, in the above, a sentence was deleted by the biased moderator, rendering my last point unintelligible.  The deleted text objected as  POV the inclusion of a statement in the intro indicating (albeit cryptically) that it is wrong to even consider the Hereditarian model because it's the product of white supremacists. Since the deletion tends to indicate that this moderation is "rigged" such that the POV statement will be in the intro no matter what, I would also point out that:
 * No one has stated in any formal venue that the researchers in this field should be investigated and sanctioned for unethical scientific conduct, nor is anyone even remotely likely to
 * No such disclaimer of the environmentalist model is included in the intro
 * Given the number of prestigious universities conducting this research and the unassailable impartiality of the academic journals in which the research is published, it is VERY inappropriate to include anywhere a statement that even talking about the subject of this article is somehow "evil", or that if a genetic link exists, the truth should be deliberately withheld from the public (e.g., Gould).
 * This deletion further substantiates a future assertion that the current moderation is biased, POV, and compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. Techno Faye Kane  05:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will incorporate some of this. What specific racial averages would you suggest and what article would you use for a citation? David.Kane (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you not cite ANY number I give you from ANY source, but that all statements in the article be agreed as true by everyone here [redacted] (except perhaps one guy who demonstrated the subject of this article so well that his picture should be in it. He and I are really very much alike though: he's so stupid that he acts crazy, and I'm so crazy that I act stupid).


 * Anyway, consensus was the purpose of my "list of statements" we could agree on (or argue) individually--you know, the one the biased moderator deleted. So the intro could say something like "Estimates of the IQ gap vary depending on which subgroup is tested as well as on possible bias by whoever said it, but the gap is reported by reputable scientists to be anywhere from 15 to 40 points wide and is most frequently cited as one standard deviation, which is 20 points-- an IQ of 80."  See, that statement both tells the truth AND should not be controversial among anyone with even a tangential knowledge of the issue, which includes all of us.  Well, except one of us.


 * In the statistically improbable case that you decide to be the first editor on this team to take me seriously and use any of my statements, I will be happy to provide citations. Since the statement is true, they're very easy to find.  Techno Faye Kane  04:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * David, I’d suggest using the APA report, except that it doesn’t specifically state what each group’s average is—it just states the size of the difference between the averages, and for us to cite this while inferring the averages themselves from it might be WP:SYNTH.


 * What would you think of citing this to the 1997 version of Mainstream Science on Intelligence that was published in the journal Intelligence? It’s obviously passed peer review for that journal, and has the backing of a much larger body of experts than most other papers we could cite from that (or any other) journal.  This paper lists the average IQ of whites as 100, the average of blacks as 85, and the average of Hispanics as around hallways between that of blacks and whites.  The only downside of citing this paper is that it doesn’t state the average IQ of Asians, so we might need to find a different source if we need to include that number also. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest waiting to worry about the lead until the body of the article begins to take shape. I find that a good way to start working on the lead is to summarize each section of the article in one sentence, stick them together into a paragraph and see how they read. -- Aryaman (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

History
This belongs at the end. It is FAR less important than the current debate, both scientifically as well as in terms of what the reader is interested in when he comes here. Techno Faye Kane 21:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't feel that I have the authority to change the order of the outline. But, for what it is worth, I agree with you! We can address this after I am done using the outline I was given. David.Kane (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerns
Here are some of my concerns about this mediation, I echo Slrubenstein's comments on the ANI, since Ramdrake, Alun and T34CH aren't participating in the mediation, it has become less and less of a mediation between disputing parties. I don't see any progress and very little in terms of agreement between the disputing parties. If any agreement and consensus exists in this mediation, it is between like minded editors and not between disputing parties. Could anyone point to an explicit agreement or consensus between myself and either Occam Varoon, Mikemikev or even TechnoFaye. We may have agreed on non-actionable issues, but not on any single proposal. The mediator In my interactions with the mediator, Ludwigs, I have found no bias in his one-to-one interactions with myself or with other editors. I think he has been consistent and dedicated to this mediation. He has considered all viewpoints in his decisions. However, I do have a number of concerns. The three most important decisions in this mediation have been All three of these decisions were favorable to supporters of the "genetic hypothesis". The question is not whether Ludwigs decisions have been biased, but whether they are deliberately or unknowingly biased. The fact that the three most important decisions have gone in favor of the genetic camp, clearly shows that this mediation has been one-way traffic and not really a mediation. It may be, that in order to placate those who opposed these proposals, Ludwigs has offered them a few crumbs, and leftovers, but he has still delivered the main course to the hereditarian crew who are seemingly quite happy about the mediation. Just to restate my position, Wapondaponda (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The fringe debate
 * The data-centric article
 * The outline.
 * I disagree with the current statement "The hereditarian hypothesis is not “fringe”, either by Wikipedia’s standards or any other standard". There are standards by which the hereditarian hypothesis would be considered fringe or outside of the mainstream.
 * I disagree with the data-centric article, at least as proposed in this mediation, because it gives undue weight to the hereditarian position, which is a minority/fringe position. This issue of weight has not been addressed
 * I disagree with the outline, because it is once again biased in favor of the hereditarian position and it was designed with the intent of giving validity to the hereditarian hypothesis.


 * Wapondaponda: Noted, and as you probably know I am not a fan of the so-called genetic hypothesis myself (that's just my personal opinion, and it has no bearing on the mediation since I explicitly gave up the right to have an opinion when I volunteered to mediate). However, progress needs to be made, and I am counting on this draft of the article to bring back editors who have withdrawn form the discussion and attract new editors to the discussion as part of the review process.  Arthur Rubin has already showed up, and once the article begins to be edited in I will send notes to all of the participants, and post notifications at wp:FT/N and wp:NPOV/N to elicit a few extra outside opinions (with the caveat that they obey mediation restrictions on discussion).  We'll see what happens.


 * I will say, that I think the decision about the so-called genetic hypothesis not being fringe seems appropriate to me. The more extreme positions of that approach may be fringe (I'm sure we'll have some commentary on that point) but the general idea appears with enough frequency in the scholarly literature that it would be inappropriate under NPOV to dismiss the whole range of research that deals with it as fringe.  What we have now is more a matter of balancing sources than of excluding the idea from the article entirely.  But let's save that discussion until we have the draft edited in and can look at it in its entirety.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, the mediation result was not that the genetic hypothesis was not fringe, it was that the hypothesis was not fringe, but that certain conclusions are minority and should be presented with great care. This is part of the problem with the Significance section that is still under discussion.  The proposed template for that section drew in great part from authors who hold controversial minority conclusions.  Right now I'm sort of left as a last man standing on a sinking ship here.   If past participants cannot be convinced to rejoin mediation and at the very least comment on the outline, it seems like it's going to be very difficult to move forward with effective editing.  I'm not saying that shouldn't happen, but I really don't want someone to spend hours and hours going over sources and copy just to have the whole thing yanked. A.Prock (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, if you’re going to claim that the reason any of these three topics was decided in a way that you disagree with is because of Ludwig showing bias (intentional or unintentional) to one of the two positions about this topic, then I think you ought to re-read the discussions that resulted in these decisions. If you do, I think it’ll be clear that none of them were based on either favoritism towards one of the two groups, or even just a majority opinion.

In the case of the data-centric approach, this approach was approved by everyone in the mediation except you, including users such as Ramdrake, Aprock and Slrubenstein who favor the 100% environmental explanation for the IQ difference. Choosing this proposal over your own proposal was not a matter of favoring the “hereditarian” position over the “environmental” one; it was a matter of choosing the approach that the majority of users taking both perspectives were able to agree on, rather than the one that a single user was pressing for. Your claim that the data-centric approach will give undue weight to the hereditarian position is also quite strange—it will give more weight than the existing version of the article to the data itself, which is an idea that seems difficult to argue with since the data is something that both positions agree on, and they differ only in how they interpret it. But what has anyone here said to suggest that it will give more space to the hereditarian model than the existing article does?

In the case of whether the hereditarian hypothesis is “fringe” or not, this is not something that can be resolved based on the preferences of editors the way the article’s structure can. Wikipedia has a specific definition of what constitutes a fringe theory, and either this theory fits its definition or it doesn’t, regardless of what any of us think. Another relevant point is the criteria for determining consensus in a discussion, which does not depend on the agreement of 100% of the users involved in that discussion, but on the points raised in that discussion and whether or not they’ve been addressed. Whichever way you look at the debate we had over the WP:FRINGE issue, there’s only one conclusions it can be considered to have reached: Varoon Arya carefully explained how in all respects this theory did not meet Wikipedia’s definition of a fringe theory, and all users who supported the 100% environmental perspective either agreed with him or had nothing to say in response.

You belong to the latter category. Even though you were active in the mediation during and after that debate, you’ve never attempted to address VA’s explanation of how Wikipedia policy does not allow us to treat this hypothesis as a fringe theory. Despite the fact that you personally don’t like this decision, your lack of any response to the points it was based on is in itself a tacit admission that you have no argument against this interpretation of Wikipedia policy. In a situation like this one, there’s only one appropriate interpretation of which way consensus has gone, regardless of who we have as a mediator.

The reason all of us have had so much trouble coming to agreements with you isn’t because we aren’t willing to compromise; the compromises we’ve made with Ramdrake, Slrubenstein and Aprock should be enough to show that we are. If it’s true that you’ve never agreed with us about anything, it’s been because of a combination of two things. One is that you’ve very rarely been willing to engage in discussions that could result in compromise, which would require listening to the other side, and being prepared to back down about certain points if your argument for what you want is shown to be flawed. And the other reason is that you seem very reluctant to accept the outcome of anything we’ve decided already, even if it’s been clearly shown that it’s the only possible outcome consistent with Wikipedia policy. If you’re unwilling to accept these decisions on a personal level, that’s your own prerogative, but we can only cater to your preferences if those preferences are consistent with the goals of Wikipedia.

--Captain Occam (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I never said that a data centric article should be written. I said that I like the idea of presenting data, but that we had to take great care that cherry picking did not occur.A.Prock (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don’t think that disagrees with what I’ve said. I said that the data-centric approach had your approval, meaning you didn’t have a problem with it, even though you still had some concerns about potential problems that you wanted to make sure we avoided. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair. Assuming that the current outline is a "go" with all currently involved parties, I am very interested in having a working draft.  I'm a bit hesitant about the two week time line, but assuming we can agree to continue to work constructively after that window has passed, I'm hopeful that any issues that need to be resolved can be done in mainspace after the draft has been written and reviewed.  I don't know that it'll be be perfect, but I have high hopes that it'll be better than what's there now. A.Prock (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree with any editor on anything, provided sufficient reason can be given in support of any objection s/he may raise or of any course of action s/he may suggest. I agree with Muntuwandi in that I would not choose the phrase "The hereditarian hypothesis is not “fringe”, either by Wikipedia’s standards or any other standard" to summarize the resolution of the "fringe" issue, and I agree with the reasoning given. I suggested a rewording, and Ludwigs modified the statement yet again to reflect his view of the overall consensus on the matter. If editors provide sufficient reason for changing the current resolution, I'm sure Ludwigs will modify the statement accordingly. -- Aryaman (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * what rewording would you suggest? I am certainly willing to modify any of our agreements as consensus about them changes, so we don't have a problem there - they are agreements, and need to be such that  all people agree with them.


 * P.s. I've refactored two paragraphs in Occam's post above, and asked him to remove some other material: stuff that is too focused on other editors. just an FYI. -- Ludwigs 2

Not to worry, I am not too bothered by hard direct talk, as long as it is about activities within Wikipedia. Occam, could you provide links to where Slrubenstein and Ramdrake explicitly agreed with the data-centric model. I didn't see their opinions in the straw-poll. Out of the editors who are not part of the "hereditarian group", only A.Prock and myself participated. Mediation Cabal states: ''The Mediation Cabal is a bunch of volunteers providing unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia. We do not impose sanctions or make judgments. We are just ordinary Wikipedians who help facilitate communication and help parties reach an agreement.'' It is my understanding, that the Mediator's role is not to help create a new article, but rather to help those parties that disagree to agree or make comprises. For mediation to work, the potential for an agreement between disputing parties must exist, at the same time some obstacle would exist that prevents this agreement from taking place. It is the mediator's role to try to eliminate this obstacle in order to facilitate agreements between the disputing parties. The mediator has done his job, if he or she has tried to understand both sides of the dispute and made efforts to make both sides understand each others' point of view. The mediation is a success if disputing parties reach an agreement. I think the mediator and many parties in this mediation have focused on creating a new article, not on getting agreements. Ludwigs states, ''I will say, that I think the decision about the so-called genetic hypothesis not being fringe seems appropriate to me. The more extreme positions of that approach may be fringe (I'm sure we'll have some commentary on that point) but the general idea appears with enough frequency in the scholarly literature that it would be inappropriate under NPOV to dismiss the whole range of research that deals with it as fringe.'' This is a reasonable assessment, but isn't the mediator passing judgment. The mediator is entitled to his own opinion, and being an editor like anyone else can express his opinions. But the mediator shouldn't impose decisions or opinions. In order for the fringe statement to pass it should have individuals from both sides of the dispute voluntarily agreeing with the statement. The mediator stated that there was no consensus for a data-centric article, but that the writer should go with a data-centric article anyway. Once again the mediator has suggested a course of action that lacks voluntary agreement from the disputing parties. The mediator chose to go with one outline over another, but gave no reason for doing so. Once again this feels like passing judgment. AFAIK, there is no still no voluntary agreement from disputing parties concerning the outline. From my perspective the above issues have not been resolved and therefore I object to the current direction the mediation is taking. This includes whatever David Kane is writing. I agree with Occam in that unanimity is not a requirement for consensus, so my objections may not be important. However, the fact there is little explicit support for the current proceedings from other editors not in the "hereditarian group" remains an issue. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, W, I'm sorry to say, but due to unfortunate circumstances elsewhere I was obligated to change my mediation style. I would have happily let the discussion go on a bit longer to try to get a solid consensus on the outline, but things being what they are, it became necessary to start taking action.  I took the outline version that seemed to have the most consensus, added elements from the other outline to compensate for material that was missing, tried to accommodate all of the expressed opinions that I could (and deferred agreement on material - like the significance section - where there was still contention), and ran with it.  I am now counting on the Review and Revision process of the draft to carry the article the remainder of the way to full consensus.


 * In short, I pushed on a semi-consensus for the outline, because if I hadn't the mediation would have been closed without consideration and I would have been publicly pilloried for no damned good reason. no offense to anyone, but screw that.


 * however, I do recognize that your outline drew the short end of the stick here, and that is not as fair as I would prefer. I'm hoping we can salvage a full consensus now through a review process, so what I would like is if you would read over the material that DK is editing in and start listing out the things that are wrong with it in the 'Review' section below.  This has the advantage of keeping us out of philosophical debates (we can talk about how particular sources are or are not fringe, rather than getting tangled up in the far more complicated question of whether ideas are fringe), and it will give you the advantage of being the primary voice (since I assume that the people who support the outline fully will not be needing to make many critiques).  You and I both know that the article will not become stable unless your concerns are addressed adequately, and so the best thing for the article at this moment is for you to express your concerns as clearly and specifically as possible so that we can work our revisions that accommodate them.  will that work for you?  -- Ludwigs 2  23:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci recently made a comment reflecting one of his central concerns regarding this article/mediation over at AN/I, i.e. that it is "built on a faulty premise". It's worth bringing up here because other editors might share this concern. As I understood it, the reasoning behind Mathsci's concern is as follows:

"There is no evidence whatsoever that any departments in major universities where there is specialisation in psychometry (eg the Centre for Psychometry in the University of Cambridge) spend any time at all producing research in this area."

This surprised me, because I remembered reading that James R. Flynn is a Distinguished Associate at Cambridge's Psychometrics Centre. So, I checked up on their website, and found that, of the six points listed in summary of their areas of Research & Development, two read:


 * The development of multilingual and multinational versions of psychometric tests that are able to address problems presented by differential item functioning across different groups.
 * Research into the implications of the Flynn Effect for understanding how genes and environment interact in their impact on cognitive abilities and personality.

For a research department which spends "no time at all producing research in this area", Cambridge's Psychometrics Centre appears to me to be doing a very poor job of it. But I didn't attend Cambridge. What the hell do I know? So, I took a look Cambridge's publications list. Unfortunately, the situation here is even less clear. Case in point: David J. Bartholomew's Measuring Intelligence: Facts and Fallacies published by Cambridge in 2004, in which he summarily states:

"The fact that groups differ in average IQ is not, of itself, a source of great debate or division. The real bone of contention arises when it seems to point to differences in underlying mental ability. Does the black/white IQ difference in the United States, for example, indicate, in whole or part, a real difference originating in the genes or can it be wholly accounted for by environmental factors? The foregoing discussion should have made it clear that, in strict logic, no definite answer can be given to that question. It will always remain a possibility that there is some environmental factor which is so confounded with race that it cannot be distinguished from it. (pg. 122)"

I'm relieved to see a good deal of congruence between Bartholomew's summary and the view of the APA as I understand it. But I'm bothered by the fact that Cambridge is publishing academic works discussing race and intelligence at such length when they are supposed to have no interest in this area at all. I've misunderstood something, obviously.

[redacted] I don't expect Mathsci to reply here - as he's said many times, he can't be bothered. But seeing as he is technically part of this mediation, and this concern of his does apply to this mediation, I thought it fair to mention this concern and discuss it here with other concerned editors, provided other editors can point me in the right direction. -- Aryaman (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the words "Race and intelligence" do not occur in their statement of purpose. The article at present talks about a debate in the academic world. This is not happening in the University of Cambridge or any other major university as far as I can tell. The Centre for Psychometry has put forward concrete research proposals, supported by British government funds, to investigate various aspects of psychometry and their direct applications in the real world, including the private sector. As far as I remember there is a page explaining how they provide resources for external users. Nicholas Mackintosh, since his retirement from the Department of Experimental Psychology, appears to have recruited a number of well-established international researchers as visiting senior associates at the Centre of Psychometry.  Suggesting that there is some kind of ongoing controversy driving research there is just WP:OR. (Just as a point of information, in real life as an academic in the University of Cambridge, I have met members of the Department of Experimental Psychology, the parent institute of the Centre of Psychometry.) I find it inappropriate to make indirect circumstantial inferences about a possible "debate in the academic world"; there has been a debate in the popular media (eg the Channel 4 programme in the autumn). Certainly no research on that topic is funded by the UK government: Richard Lynn, a considerably less distinguished British academic than Nicholas Mackintosh, has had to rely for funding on the right wing Pioneer Fund to support his research after retirement. I think the the same might apply to Rushton and Jensen. Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I also request that Varoon Arya refactor the last paragraph of his statement above, which I only noticed after posting my reply. He must have read my statements about being on wikibreak while teaching in Cambridge (please see for example the quote box in bold upper case on User talk:Xavexgoem), Mathsci (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I have refactored the personal parts of that paragraph -- Ludwigs 2 17:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If, say, James R. Flynn of the University of Otago and Cambridge's Psychometrics Centre and Arthur Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley disagree over the the potential causes of the racial IQ gap, and if these experts and many more like them publish their conflicting views in well-respected academic journals, how does this not qualify as "academic debate"? You appear to object to the article characterizing the subject as one of academic controversy. There is no dearth of publications (original research, literature reviews, journal articles and book reviews) which clearly indicate that there is a real and palpable division in the academic community regarding this issue. Experts on both sides are highly respected and regularly cited in their field. How can we not draw the conclusion that this is an academic debate? Or is there some other term which would be more accurate here? Do you have a suggestion regarding an improvement on how to describe the situation in neutral terms?
 * Also, I really do not know what Mathsci would like me to "refactor" in my previous comment. It was not in reference to any comment on Xavexgoem's talkpage. If he would explain how he feels offended or otherwise wronged by the comment, I'll gladly modify it. -- Aryaman (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He's referring to him being away, so he couldn't edit. I shouldn't speak for him, but now is a good time to answer what I mean by "progress", please forgive the tangent. Progress in mediation is when two parties on opposite sides of the dispute start working together. This is a start, I hope. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. Well, I've known about his "Cambridge wiki-break" thing for some time. I believe he mentioned it when the last break began, then mentioned it again on AN/I on March 25, then again on March 27, and - now I see - again on your talkpage on March 30, and then again on March 31, and again here today at the mediation. But I wasn't trying to construe his being on wikibreak as some kind of tacit agreement on his part regarding everything which happened during his absence. I was referring to his previous statements regarding his general lack of faith in the mediation, and his apparent certainty that nothing good can come of it. If that's changed, then I'm glad to hear it. If he would prefer, I can strike the part I'm guessing offends him. -- Aryaman (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a courtesy. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

-> Again, Varoon Arya, this seems like original research and synthesis. You are assembling a small set of individuals and making a huge claim. The simple fact is that the topic "race and intelligence" is not studied in any major universities. Individuals like Nicholas Mackintosh and James Nesbitt might comment in book reviews or popular books on the research of the small group of privately funded researchers around Rushton, Jensen and Lynn. However, it would be exceedingly undue and misleading to describe that as a "ongoing debate in academia". Almost all the research on psychometry involves quite different things. The Pioneer group might invoke some of aspects of this mainstream research in their own writings, but that is quite another thing. The Pioneer group is on the fringes of academia, if it is in academia at all.

Just to make my point more clearly, the Flynn effect is a mainstream piece of scientific research which stands on its own merits and does not seem controversial. It is a very general statement in psychometry. It isn't classified as part of the non-existent academic subject of race and intelligence. As I wrote at the beginning of mediation, requested originally by Ramdrake, endlessly debating issues like this, which do not rely on written sources, is entirely the wrong way to proceed in editing wikipedia articles. Why pretend that what has been a debate in the media and amongst policy makers has been going on in the academic world? That is an obvious fallacy and distortion. Most respected academics wouldn't touch this topic with a barge pole.

I have another issue related to this point. The article Mainstream Science on Intelligence was extensively rewritten by you to remove all criticisms. When you wrote it, you were aware of a critical letter to a journal by leading anthroplogists discussed by me on the R&I talk page. Neutral editing would have involved including in the article a reference to that and other criticism. That is not how the article reads. It is not an academic article but a letter to the WSJ by a self-chosen group of individuals, some receiving support from the Pioneer Fund. To use such a letter to a newspaper as support for the existence of ongoing debate in academia on "race and intelligence" would be equally invalid (I don't know whether that is or was your intention). The letter was drafted by a well-known advisor to policy makers in the USA. It belongs to the political and media sphere despite its claim to represent "mainstream science". As a research scientist myself, in the university world academic mainstream science is represented by institutions like the National Science Foundation, the Royal Society and the CNRS, not by a self-chosen group of signatories of a letter to the WSJ.

But again this kind of talk page debate does not seem helpful. It is a misuse of this page as a WP:FORUM. Writing wikipedia articles depends solely on locating the best secondary sources directly related the topic. The task of wikipedians is then accurately to summarise those sources in the article, using inline citations, particularly when the corresponding statements are controversial. Using primary sources, such as "data", is against policy. It seems to be happening here at the moment [redacted] and is another way of POV-pushing within the article. In other words, when there is a clear mainstream point of view, that should be made abundantly clear in the article, particularly the lede. Not doing so contradicts WP:NPOV. In this case it would amount to a group of editors selecting the "facts" themselves (i,e. the truth) and then letting the reader make up his/her own mind about which theory - hereditarian or evolutionary - is more convincing as an explanation of those facts.

At the moment the current article looks like a "pick and mix" stall at a sweet shop: should I buy environmental or should I buy hereditarian? (Quite off-topic but seasonal, I recommend Marks and Spencer's delicious "speckled eggs", particularly for the young.) Mathsci (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I would like to request that editors keep their comments on-topic and focused on one issue at a time. Wide-sweeping criticisms covering several points at once contribute to the unnecessarily long replies which give the impression that this mediation is stuck in a "talk-talk-talk" cycle. Let's take one issue at a time and resolve it before moving on to the next issue wherever and whenever possible.


 * Second, I would like to request that editors keep their comments focused on this article. Any criticisms an editor may have regarding either another article or my personal editing behaviour are welcome on the appropriate talkpage, and will be dealt with accordingly.


 * To address the remainder of Mathsci's comments: I don't intend on making any claim other than that there is academic debate on the causation of the racial IQ gap. I don't see this as a controversial claim. In fact, I'd say the existence of this debate is taken for granted in most if not all publications on the subject. Bartholomew's book Measuring Intelligence, mentioned above, is just one example. We could mention several others, such as Race and intelligence (2002), edited by Jefferson M. Fish (decidedly pro-environmental) or Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability (2005), by Jensen & Rushton (decidedly pro-hereditarian) as high-profile, regularly cited peer-reviewed works which either assume the reader's familiarity with this debate or instruct him in the same. The statement "There is academic debate on the causation of the racial IQ gap" or some variation thereof is verifiable by reliable sources, so I don't understand how doing so can be rejected as a violation of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Taking a random but perfectly acceptable reference work, Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity & Culture (Bolaffi et al., 2003: Sage Publications), in the article Race and IQ, we find the following:


 * "Although prejudice and stereotyping concerning the superiority of one race over another exist in many countries, the academic debate on the connection between intelligence and race, especially as measured through IQ, has been most vigorous in the USA and the UK. (pg. 250)"


 * On the other hand, I cannot verify the statement "There is no academic debate on the causation of the racial IQ gap". If you can, please provide the citations.


 * Whether the debate is fuelled by academic or political interests is both difficult to establish and of secondary importance in my opinion, as its controversial points are discussed in academic journals, such as those of the APA. Hence, I don't have a problem with referring to it as an academic debate. If you would prefer that the article describe this as a public debate carried out by academics, I would not necessarily object, though I fail to see a meaningful difference between a "public debate carried out by academics" and an "academic debate". If you do, I'd appreciate your clarifying the utility of such a distinction to the rest of us.


 * I'm not trying to talk past you here, Mathsci. And I'm not trying to involve you in an endless loop of discussion. If I'm misunderstanding your objection, I apologize. But you've argued that (1) serious academic institutions spend no time producing research in this area, and that (2) there is no academic debate on the issue. I disagree with both of these points, and I've provided material which I feel justifies my position. I'd appreciate if you would take my concerns seriously for a change and meet them on equal terms. -- Aryaman (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite Complete (?)
(A version of this comment also appears on the article talk page.)

I have finished my two days (plus two hours) of work on the rewrite. Comments:


 * Thanks to all editors for allowing my the freedom to make so many dramatic changes.
 * I did the best I could but, obviously, the article still needs a lot of work. My main failure was in not rewriting the environmental and heriditarian interpretation sections. Right now, they are just a collection of unconnected comments, copy/pasted from the previous version. There are several other editors involved in this article (DJ, Aprock, Occam, MathSci) who could do a great job with those sections. I hope they will be bold!
 * The main improvements, I think, are: First, I used the outline that arose from the mediation. I played no part in writing that outline, nor do I particularly like it, but Wikipedia is all about consensus. Second, I dramatically decreased the length of the article. WP:SIZE recommends 30-50K for an article size, so my cutting was extensive. Third, I tried to significantly clean up the references and other junk. Needless to say, there is still much more that could be done.

I will leave it to other editors to judge whether or not this version, taken as a whole, is superior to the previous one. I look to the mediator for discussion about where we go from here.David.Kane (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll make some time tomorrow to review and provide constructive feedback. A.Prock (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting Article from March 30 to April 1
I will be rewriting the article from 8:00 AM EDT March 30 until 8:00 AM EDT April 1. Comments:

1) I have explained twice over the last few months ( and ), I am happy to have anyone else but me do this. No one else has volunteered. So, it looks like I am the one. Fel free to criticize, but do keep in mind that I did not seek out this role.

2) My only requirement, given that I am about to spend 2 days of my life on this project, is that the version that I come up with serve as the basis for future changes. (Obviously, any editor can change any aspect of what I write. But no editor can say, "I don't like this version, so there is no consensus, so I revert to the version of January 30, 2009." If you disagree with that plan, speak up now. No one has complained about this prerequisite when I have brought it up before.)

3) As I have mentioned before, I am not a fan of the data-centric approach nor of this outline. Indeed, I purposely made zero comments about it. That said, I am a big believer in building consensus, so I will do my best with what is there.

4) Request to Ludwig: Would you mind archiving everything from the talk page except the outline (and any votes of support for that outline) and this comment? I think that this would clean things up in a helpful fashion.

5) Request to everyone else: Please make any suggestions, comments, additions you like to the outline now. I will not start up until tomorrow morning.

6) Request to all: Please allow me the freedom to give it my best shot over the next two days. If you don't like what you see then: a) Please wait till the end. perhaps I will fix it. b) Make a comment/suggestion on the talk page. But please note that I will probably not have the time to reply to such suggestions given all the work that I will be doing on the article but that I will be reading everything that is written.

My plan is to do my best for two days and then step back from the debate. If everyone loves the article that I produce, then great! If not, then I will leave it to others to decide the best ways to improve it going forward.

Wish me luck! David.Kane (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I will not commit not to revert to the version of January 30, 2008, but I hope your edits will provide a reasonable step toward removing absurd statements sourced only to fringe sources. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Arthur: Could you point to any "fringe sources" that the article currently cites? My current plan is to (almost) only cite articles in the peer-reviewed academic literature. Do you have any problems with that? Which specific "absurd statements" would you like to see removed? My hope is that all editors will like my new version, so specific feedback is much appreciated. David.Kane (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the "agreement", Dr. Pesta (well, his name is spelled that way at least once) is the sole source for most of it. We need some evidence that he's not WP:FRINGE.  I hadn't seen any when I dropped out of editing this article, and I still haven't seen any.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Arthur: the currently plan is to let David do a neutral rewrite based on the outline given here (in the section above), and then open a review discussion to deal with specific problems.  The outline is probably not perfect, and there will certainly be things that need to be revised. I would ask you to promise not to revert anything on the article out of hand, but to bring the objections up here where we can discuss the problem and reach some consensus on it.


 * Please note: even though you are not signed on as a participant in this mediation, you'll need to abide by the fairly strict discussion rules I've laid out, as does everyone else in the mediation. One of these rules is that there is a strict prohibition against making unnecessary comments about other editors in the process. Brian Pesta is not a source, he is an expert in the material assisting in the editing process.  You may certainly check out his credentials, and you may certainly disagree with his statements, but please refrain from labeling him or his opinions as 'fringe' or making any other comments that might be interpreted as derogatory.  focus on the material solely.  I'm going to ask you to refactor those comments from your post above - can you do that please?  -- Ludwigs 2  20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * P.s. I just noticed the problematic statement was a separate paragraph, so I have refactored it myself. -- Ludwigs 2  20:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And here we go! If uninvolved editors start reverting my edits, I hope that editors involved in this mediation will revert them. David.Kane (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the initial draft going to be done in mainspace? I really think we should draft and review first. A.Prock (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. David.Kane (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A.Prock. we only have 12 days left, so a bit of boldness is called for.  putting the article in mainspace should guarantee that we get some good feedback, fairly quickly, and that should allow us to work out any flaws in the article in short order.  at least that's my hope...  -- Ludwigs 2  17:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Having conferred with Xavexgoem, I am going to insist that the tentative version of the new article be edited on a subpage of the mediation page in accordance with normal wikipedia editing procedures. Meanwhile the article should be reverted to its state before the changes by David.Kane. Ludwigs2's argument about the time available is completely irrelevant. We need to be able to compare both versions easily in future discussions. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Is Xavexgoem a party to this mediation? Not that I can see. So, his opinion, while valuable, is no more valuable than those of the 19 other editors who have agreed to the mediation ground rules. 2) "normal wikipedia editing procedures" allow, but do not require, the procedure that I am following. That is why the inuse and underconstruction templates exist. 3) You can easily see how the article looked before I started by checking the history. 4) In any event, I will be done in 36 hours, at which point other editors can change whatever they like. David.Kane (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To pre-empt, if anyone uses #1 as a strawman, I will cry sad, sad tears. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Xavexgoem simply asked me to repeat the request I had made on his talk page, which is what I've done. There's no problem with editing the article on a subpage. However, in mainspace the article will be visible before other editors have decided that it is OK. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will continue to edit the article in the main page. That is my preference and, as best I can tell, was a result of the mediation process. If you object, please feel free to bring your complaints to the mediator. Given all the work that I am putting into this --- work that no one else was willing to do --- wouldn't you think that my preferences as to where to do the editing deserve some respect? David.Kane (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that is that before today, you had only made 420 content edits. That indicates that you're probably not very experienced in editing, particularly not big articles. I think I've exceeded that number just on one of the science articles I've edited. Mathsci (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You judge the quality of other editors on the basis of the number of edits? Interesting. 2) It will be tough for you to have an informed opinion on this mediation unless you follow the discussion closely. 3) I suspect that you missed the fact that I (and others) proposed other editors for this task (where are you DJ?!), but, alas, no one else but me had the time to do it. I was the only volunteer. 4) I trust that your next comment will thank me for the work that I have done on this article already and the work that I will be doing tomorrow. David.Kane (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "However, in mainspace the article will be visible before other editors have decided that it is OK."


 * Even though the new version of the article will be visible in mainspace before all of us have approved it, we’ve all already approved the detailed outline of its structure that’s been posted above. As long as David.Kane edits the article in a way that’s faithful to this outline (which I trust that he will), all of us who’ve approved the outline are unlikely to have any major problems with the new version of the article that’s based on it. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't approved it yet. I am not a single purpose account. Xavexgoem has already said that it is important that mainstream editors like me play a role in this article.Consensus is unfortunately not gauged by strength of numbers. I hope that's OK with you, Captain Occam. Mathsci (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you intend to make a point here about there being a problem with SPAs participating in this mediation, or that you don’t think we have consensus about certain things, you need to be more specific than this. Just saying “I am not a single purpose account” and “Consensus is unfortunately not gauged by strength of numbers” doesn’t make it at all clear what the point is in mentioning these things.


 * The outline is posted above, and Ludwig asked for your opinion about it two days ago, so if you’re willing to provide your opinion about it now I’m sure he’ll appreciate that. Something you should keep in mind, though, is that this outline already has the support of around ten users, including users such as Aprock and Slrubenstein who support the 100% environmental explanation for the IQ difference, and David.Kane is already in the process of editing the article based on this outline, so at this point it’s too late to second-guess our decision to use it.  Something else we’ve also agreed on is that the new version of the article David.Kane is currently writing will be its default version from this point forward, so if you have any problems with this version, the way to deal with them is by bringing them up in the discussion about the article’s new version.  There are around twelve of us in this mediation, though, so if you choose to do that please don’t expect your opinions to carry more weight than anyone else’s. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to reiterate that I think the drafting and reviewing should not be done in main space. This seems like a fairly reasonable way of doing things, and I don't understand why it's meeting with such resistance. Having stubs and material that has not been reviewed by most of the mediators seems to go against what mediation is about. This is especially true since many of the editors had strong concerns about weight, content, and bias issues. It really seems like the process is moving in a direction that will essentially nullify the work of mediation. A.Prock (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Any particular sections that you think we are missing? I am looking to make as many people happy as possible, so I am eager to incorporate any specific feedback/suggestions that you have right now. So far, only Faye has made substantive comments on the draft as it evolves. (And I will be incorporating some of her suggestions tomorrow, although not the ones that I think lots of other editors would object to.) David.Kane (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I think at this point the best thing to do is allow David.Kane to finish what he's doing. if there's a serious worry at the end, it is a matter of a couple of minutes' work to move the page to a subpage and reassert the old version.  Frankly, editing the article into mainspace seemed like a good idea in the face of complaints about how horrible the (then current) article was - I'm not certain what's changed, and since I have no doubts that the version DK is working on is better than that version (even if it's not perfect), I'm not certain why this is a worry.


 * let's let him finish, and we'll assess the situation as soon as he is done. there is no need to think about it right at this particular moment, and trying to do something about it will interrupt his editing flow.  in the meantime, I think our energies would be better spent discussing what revisions need to be made to the article, rather than worrying over minor details like this.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @ David: If you're going to use the material that Faye posted below to any extent, please do not include anything that strays too far from the current outline. Points in the review section need to be discussed and reach some consensus before they can go into the article.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood. I want use material from Faye, AProck or anyone else that meaningfully strays from the current outline. But, consistent with that, I hope to incorporate suggestions from everyone. I want people to like this new version! David.Kane (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have some suggestions also, but I was intending to save them for when David is finished with the first draft of the article, since I don’t know how much of what I’d be mentioning is stuff that he was already intending to change anyway. It isn’t a problem if I wait until then with my suggestions, is it? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all. My main goal was to be most responsive to editors like Faye and Aprock who have been most critical of the current outline. David.Kane (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please let me know when the initial draft is done, and I will review it. A.Prock (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should give Dr. Pesta (and perhaps Dr. Roberts, if available) the chance to review David's draft and make comments and/or suggestions before we begin any discussion regarding changes. -- Aryaman (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that there were going to be a couple specific mediation reviewers who were going to review the article. I've been asked to do that, and I think Dr. Pesta has. A.Prock (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwig, should I wait until Dr. Pesta has had a chance to comment on the new article before I offer my own suggestions about it? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do as you see fit; I don't see that it makes a huge difference. I mean, it might be better to wait (I assume the reviewers will give solidly-grounded comments that will serve as starting points for revision discussions), but I don'[t think it will harm anything if you want to make comments earlier.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My review
My comments: Obviously you’re under no obligation to use them. If you do, feel free to polish up the writing. I usually like to rewrite stuff many times before I am happy with how it reads, and I don’t have time to do that here. I will add to this as I get time to review each section.

INTRO I think you need a more introductory sentence: “R&I involves debate over the cause of the ubiquitous finding that self reports of race (SIRE) co-vary (often strongly) with scores on Intelligence (IQ) tests.”

Then, I would keep the brief statement on the three way race pattern (report means, as you do) and mention that the data have been reported and replicated ad naseum (especially the black-white difference) going back to World War I. “Although no one disputes the fact that IQ scores differ across SIRE, the cause of these differences is currently unknown. Various hypotheses have been proposed, ranging from the invalidity of both IQ and race as scientific constructs (cites), to completely environmental explanations (cites), to those that posit a genetic basis for at least some part of the gap (cites).

As discussed below, the issue is as important as it is controversial. The purpose of this stub is to review the data on SIRE and IQ, and the evidence for and against various explanations researchers have proposed to explain the gap. I think the “scientifically meaningless” section, as it reads now, should be changed or go in some other area—it’s not really introductory in nature. It could be the very next section (one where terms are defined. What is an IQ score; what is race, as measured in this research, etc?).

HISTORY

This needs fleshing out. One could mention Gould’s archaic criticisms of IQ tests used in immigration and the military in the early and mid 1900s. If you do mention this, not everyone agrees that Gould’s caricature is accurate. I could provide some rebuttal citations.

The more modern era began with Jensen’s 1968 (?) article, and carried on with the Bell Curve, Mismeasure, the APA statement, and now many of the more recent popular books on the topic. More modern research also uses other measures of intelligence (beside the paper and pencil IQ test), including elementary cognitive tasks and various measures of brain size and function. One thing that’s noteworthy, throughout all this, many academics have retreated to their Ivory towers to do research read mostly only by other people in field. It’s this research, really, that defines what the field knows and doesn’t (It’s this research that needs to be explained).



The “group differences in measures of intelligence” section seems redundant and appears to be hanging by itself. Perhaps delete it and go right to the data-gathering section? If this is meant to be an upper-level heading for an outline, then I think it needs a short paragraph describing all of the lower-level heading points that will be discussed in the section.

More later.

p.s. I will have time to discuss reactions to my thoughts here, but not until I am done with reviewing it, so please be patient.

Bpesta22 (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Review of initial draft
First, I would like to say that overall the draft seems to be an improvement over the previous steady state. It's certainly not perfect, and some of the sections need to be fully written, but in general the size and scope of the article seems much more manageable, the information is more direct, and there isn't any strong leaning one way or the other.

Second, I'm running short on time today, so I haven't gotten a chance to check every reference, or finely parse every word. In that sense I reserve the right to give more comments both high level and low level.

Specific comments:
 * The specific scores mentioned in the lede should be removed. They are wrong, constantly changing, are not adjusted for SES, and don't serve the article well.  The lede should prefer general statements like, "Asains have generally have higher than average IQ scores, while black americans general have lower than average IQ scores.
 * The history section seems small, but it's not clear that expanding it significantly serves the article well. It would be nice if there were some kind of sub article here which went over some of the history, but it's not really important.
 * There is no mention of how racial information is gathered (usually self reported)
 * There is a statement in the Intelligence test score results about the predictive validity. This probably needs to be sourced by multiple sources, or sourced in the context of IQ alone.
 * Self-defined should probably be self-identified,
 * The worldwide section doesn't seem particularly related to race
 * The Flynn effect section should include a summary of the mainstream explanation, although I do see that below in the article.
 * In the variables potentially.. sections, where possible a range of IQ effect should be included.
 * I really like the rough length of the interpretations section. Keeping those sections in the 500-700 word length seems like a good idea.

I'd like to thank David.Kane for working on this. There is still a lot of work to be done, but overall this is much better place to work from than the previous version.

From my perspective, I think the best way to proceed would be for David.Kane to incorporate the reviews as he sees fits. If he doesn't have time for that, I would certainly support nominating another editor to incorporate review feedback. According to the artificial timeline, we've got more than a week to improve what is there before grim hand of WP descends. I think it would be great if we could recruit as many of the editors signed up for mediation to review and or comment on the current version, especially relative to the steady state that the article was in previously. A.Prock (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

David: Thanks for your work here. You did a fine job. Take my comments with a grain of salt as the draft would likely need major revisions no matter who wrote it. I did not like the data gathering section, and so I suggest this. The writing needs polishing and citations have to be added:

Data gathering methods

Many types of IQ tests exist, and test items range from vocabulary to number series to measures of choice reaction time. Most “cognitive abilities tests” (e.g., the ASVAB; SAT; GRE; GMAT) also serve as good proxies for intelligence. Researchers often use scores from these tasks interchangeably as “IQ scores.”

The key measure in this research, however, is the inter-correlation among IQ test scores or test items. In general, people doing well on one type of item/test tend to do well on all types of items/tests, even very dissimilar ones (this is known in the literature as the “positive manifold”). The inter-correlation among test items can be calculated statistically, and this measure is considered to be Spearman’s g (general mental ability).

Research on SIRE and IQ scores has focused almost exclusively on race differences in g. Spearman’s hypothesis, for example, predicts that the size of the race gap will co-vary with how g-loaded a mental task is. This hypothesis has been born out repeatedly in the academic literature.

Independent of race, IQ test scores correlate moderately-to-strongly with performance in similar life tasks (high school and college grade point averages, and years of education). The correlation with some real-world results is less strong. For example, while the correlation between IQ and job performance is about .50, IQ is only moderately correlated with income and wealth (r = .33), and even less so with negative social outcomes like teenage pregnancy rates (r = -.19) and juvenile delinquency (r = -.19). However, when IQ scores are aggregated among groups of people (e.g., the 50 U.S. states, or 108 nations worldwide), correlations tend to increase significantly. Whereas IQ predicts teenage pregnancy rates among individuals at only r = -.19; the correlation aggregated across the 50 US states becomes r = -.71.

A fair summary of the predictive validity of IQ test scores is:

•	IQ scores measure many, but not all of the qualities that people mean by intelligent or smart (for example, IQ does not measure creativity, wisdom, or personality). •	IQ scores are fairly stable over much of a person's life. •	IQ tests are predictive of school and job performance, to a degree that does not significantly vary by socio-economic status or racial-ethnic background. •	For people living in the prevailing conditions of the developed world, cognitive ability is substantially heritable, and while the impact of family environment on the IQ of children is substantial, after adolescence this effect becomes difficult to detect.

Bpesta22 (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

My suggestions
Now that Dr. Pesta has offered his review about this, I guess I’ll offer mine also. I’d like to start by pointing out that I agree with him and Aprock that overall, this version of the article is an improvement, and I appreciate the time David.Kane has put into it. However, it definitely has the potential to be improved further.

I also agree with all of Dr. Pesta’s comments, particularly about fleshing out the “history” section and going into more detail about IQ’s predictive validity for groups. I’m assuming that the latter would be going in the “significance” section, so that’s something we ought to resume discussing soon.

I’ll list the rest of my suggestions in decreasing order of importance:

1: The most important problem I see with this article is that it leaves off several lines of data that those of us who supported Varoon Arya’s outline intended for the article to cover. This isn’t really David’s fault, since I know revising the article would have been easier if the outline itself had made it clear where these lines of data were intended to go. He would have needed to read the entire “eventual page structure” discussion in order to see where these things were intended to go. I can summarize it, though:


 * The relationship between within-group heritability and between-group heritability—this is arguably the most important line of data in the whole debate, and probably ought to be introduced early on. The “environmental explanations” section already explains how it’s possible for between-group heritability to be higher than within-group heritability, but it doesn’t explain the limitation that the relationship between these two types of heritability places on possible X-factors.  One explanation of this is in this paper by Nevan Sesardic; James Flynn also discusses this data in Race, IQ and Jensen.


 * Neuropsychology—This ought to include information like neural density and glucose efficiency, as well as mental chronometry / reaction time.


 * Spearman’s hypothesis—Varoon Arya’s intention was that this would be covered in the “history” section.


 * Structural equation modeling, regression among siblings, and Galton’s Law of Ancestral Hereditry—these are all pretty closely-related, so they could possibly go in the same section, although I’m not sure which of them. The “genetics” section might be what makes the most sense, since gene-environment architecture is what these methods are testing.

2: A lot of the lines of data that are covered in the article are described in so little detail that readers aren’t presented with any information about what the data actually is, or how it relates to the topics of race and IQ. I know length is a consideration here, but so is making the article informative. Here are a few examples of what I’m talking about:

''Education has a complicated relationship with intelligence; it is both a dependent and independent variable. On the one hand, those who did better on intelligence tests in their childhood tend to have a lower drop out rate, and complete more years of school, therefore making intelligence a predictive factor of how well someone will succeed in schooling. However, on the other hand, education has been shown to improve a person’s performance on these intelligence tests, from a very young age.''

Okay, but what’s the data about how quality of education varies between races, and how much this affects IQ?

''Several studies performed without the use of DNA-based ancestry estimation attempted to correlate estimates of African or European ancestry with IQ. These studies have been variously regarded as inconclusive, supportive of an environmental interpretation, or supportive of a hereditarian interpretation. These studies are generally criticized for using unreliable methods to estimate ancestry and for their small sample sizes.''

Again, what are the actual results from these studies? The point of using a data-centric interpretation is that we present the actual results, rather than just saying how people interpreted them.

These are two examples of the problem, but it exists for almost all of the lines of data discussed here. The “health and nutrition”, “physiology” and “genetics” sections don’t discuss any of the data about whether and to what extent these traits vary between races, and the “discrimination” section doesn’t mention how discrimination can affect IQ. I think our goal for this article ought to be that it should explain how each of these lines of data play into the larger debate over the cause of the IQ difference, rather than just mentioning (as the current article does) that these lines of data exist.

As I said, the current version of article is better than the one we had a few months ago, because the earlier version didn’t even mention the existence of a lot of this data. But there’s still a lot of room for improvement here.

3: My last suggestion, other than the fact that we still need to add the “significance” section, is that both the “environmental interpretations” and “hereditarian interpretations” sections ought to include the most popular arguments for both of these positions. For example, one of the most oft-cited arguments for the environmental position is that white and mixed-race children performed about equally on cognitive tests in the Eyferth study, but the article doesn’t mention this study at all. Similarly, one of the most commonly-mentioned arguments in favor of the hereditarian position is that it’s able to make specific and testable predictions about the results of studies, such as that the IQ gap would shrink only slightly when SES is adjusted for and that the size of the IQ difference would correlate with the size of ancestry difference in racial admixture studies, whereas the environmental model generally can’t make these sorts of predictions without proposing a specific environmental factor as a cause. I know this is another place where length is an issue, but I also think explaining the arguments for each position is at least as important as the lengthy explanations for within-group and between-group heritability that are currently presented in both of these sections, which probably ought to go much earlier in the “group differences in in measures of intelligence” section anyway.

In any case, I don’t think we should be afraid to make the article a little longer in order to accommodate some of this data. In its present state it’s only 44 KB; we could probably make it as much as twice as long without it being a problem.

Again, thanks for all the work you’ve put into this article already, David, and I hope you won’t mind making some of these additional changes. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Added physiology data
Because:
 * The existing article says that brain size is strongly correlated with IQ, but it never says that there is a brain size difference.
 * This contribution is half the length of the previous version I posted.
 * It is sourced by multiple citations for each statement
 * The sources are peer-reviewed, serious academic journals
 * This is mainstream expert opinion, per Dr. P., who said:
 * All experts are not equal. If one accepts that Intelligence is the premier journal in the field (it is the only journal solely devoted to this topic) then the best experts are those who publish regularly in this journal. These people are devoting their academic lives to studying this topic; they hands down know it better than anyone else. "Science's" view on IQ is best represented by them, and not some other field. '[Intelligence journal] is the definition of mainstream opinion.

I'm not putting my contribution on the discussion page first because:
 * The fact of a brain-size anomaly is referred to in Intelligence (see my citations).
 * Ludwig said that if this is sourced, it can go in
 * David has completed the rewrite and many others are now editing the article.
 * 'Others have asserted their right to edit without getting Ludwig's permission.
 * The last time I added this data, ludwig deleted it from the article, claiming nonconsensus and told me to discuss it on the talk page. So I opened 'a discussion that was very civil and had many people discussing this issue. But instead of replying or waiting for others to reply, he deleted the discussion he told me to begin.  He also deleted an earlier active discussion of including the brain size data.

YOU CAN'T DELETE A SOURCED, NPOV CONTRIBUTION WITHOUT SAYING WHY HERE. I agree with rubenstein:
 * The only question we should have about any future edits to the article are the same ones we would ask of any edit to any article: is it compliant with NPOV, V, RS, and NOR? Is it written in an appropriate style? Is it encyclopedic? If someone objects to an edit on the basis of one of these criteria, they should take it to the article talk page per Wikipedia policy.

I also agree with mathsci:
 * if i am not allowed to even provide a complementary proven fact to a subchapter then there is no hope. the whole "discussion" is a charade.

I even agree with Ludwig, who said to wanaponda:
 * the general idea appears with enough frequency in the scholarly literature that it would be inappropriate under NPOV to dismiss the whole range of research that deals with it as fringe.

Now, this time, let's have a discussion about whether this data should be included. If my sourced, Pesta-approved contribution AND my attempt to discuss it are deleted again, I'm making a formal complaint at WP:ANI, which I believe is legitimate since the moderator is doing it. Techno Faye Kane 17:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is my own lack of experience with Wikipedia, but I find this statement by MathSci to be confusing and, perhaps, threatening.

The mediation committee chaired by set the deadline which is now in just over a week. Attempts to prolong mediation beyond a week could possibly lead to editing restrictions.

0) Is this a true statement? Did the mediation committee, in some sort of formal vote, decide that our mediation had to end? I don't think so. I think that a single editor decided, without seeking input from all the participants in the mediation, that the mediation should end. Am I wrong?

1) Since both MathSci and Xavexgoem have been involved in the debate over this article, I would expect them to recuse themselves from any decisions made by a higher authority like the mediation committee. Am I incorrect that this would be standard practice?

2) There is nothing in WP:M which suggests that a mediation process can or should be ended by fiat. If the vast majority (all?) of the participants in the mediation feel that progress is being made, then why would anyone seek to end the process?

3) Even if the formal mediation process were to end, I (and, I hope) others will continue to make this article better. In doing so, we will need to work together, compromise and so on. It sure seems like the current process, with Ludwig acting as an honest broker, has helped to facilitate that. So, is there any problem with us working that way in the future (assuming that we, as the group of active editors involved in the article) want to?

4) Is MathSci really threatening me/us with imposing editing restrictions? Just what actions on my part would lead to such restrictions? David.Kane (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. Mathsci is not an administrator, and can't restrict anyone.  I told Xavexgoem (who is associated with the Mediation Committee - a very different group than the Mediation Cabal, which is where we are), that if there was no progress on this article in two weeks (8 days now) that I would raise the issue of closing the mediation myself, and in fact I will raise that issue at the appropriate time, because if we can't get the article into some decent shape by then (given where we stand) then closing the mediation might be a good idea.  Frankly, my hope is (as you said) that we can get the article to a point where further discussion can continue on the talk page without troubles, so let's aim for that.  But no one is going to close the mediation if there is consensus among the mediation participants that it is making progress and should continue, no one is going to suffer editing restrictions, and the whole side-dispute is a tempest in a teapot that you (and the rest of us) should politely ignore.


 * I'm closing this discussion now to prevent it from becoming a distraction. -- Ludwigs 2  15:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think DJ or David Kane adding to the article or making those changes that A.Prock and Bryan Pesta agree on is an excellent next step, along with Varoon Arya's proposal to tweak MathSci's improved introduction. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks as if David Kane did a great job in the first round. I've tried to skim all of the comments here and they look excellent. I don't have enough time to serve the role, but I encourage the continued practice of a single primary editor making changes on the basis of talk page contributions. Perhaps the dedicated editor can rotate more quickly through the pool of active contributors.
 * There are many small things I would tweak about the article and some of the proposals, but nothing that warrants interrupting the current process (e.g., the Eyferth study is conspicuously missing.) --DJ (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Interpretations
Presently the section on interpretations was not rewritten by David Kane. All other sections and subsections in the article have no more than three paragraphs and all but one have either one or two paragraphs. For consistency, I suggest the same should apply to the interpretations subsections. To do so, we would need to determine the most important arguments for the environmental and hereditarian interpretations and summarize them in 1-2 paragraphs. This is a possible outline

Interpretations
 * Environment only
 * Genetic only
 * Mixed models
 * Unknown
 * Environmental interpretations
 * Most important argument - environmental factors are uncontroversially known to influence IQ. Known factors include health, education and socioeconomic environment
 * Criticism - Hereditarians argue that controlling for environmental factors reduces but does not eliminate the BW gap
 * Response to criticism - Environmentalists argue that it is not possible to control for all environmental factors. For example the environmental cause of the Flynn effect has not been specifically identified
 * Hereditarian interpretations
 * Most important argument- The BW gap has persisted over a number a generations. Hereditarians suggest that because the BW gap has persisted over a number of generations, the specific factor that causes this gap must be heritable, and thus genetic.
 * Criticism-Known environmental disparities, have also persisted over several generations and may be the cause of the gap
 * Awaiting resolution-Knowledge of specific genes that influence the variation of IQ among healthy individuals
 * Unknown
 * Official statements.

Wapondaponda (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have some issues:

Environmental interpretations

* Most important argument - environmental factors are uncontroversially known to influence IQ. Known factors include health, education and socioeconomic environment

It's quite possible that the causality is wrong here. It could be that IQ causes health, education and environment. I personally believe it's bi-directional. I think people create their environments-- mostly-- and not vice versa.

This is true of "shared environments," especially, in my world view. Non-shared stuff is likely a bigger influence (your excellent teachers; my lead poisoning). But, this interpretation is empty as an explanation for the gap in that the burden's on environmentalists to show that when variables(s) are controlled the gap is explained. So far, that's not been done. Granted "the environment" is complex, but kitchen sink variables have been controlled repeatedly and no factor x's have yet to emerge.

Criticism - Hereditarians argue that controlling for environmental factors reduces but does not eliminate the BW gap * Response to criticism - Environmentalists argue that it is not possible to control for all environmental factors. For example the environmental cause of the Flynn effect has not been specifically identified

The Flynn effect, as far as I know, has never been shown to co-vary with the gap (nor is it a g effect). It cannot be the explanation if it affects all races equally and is independent of g.

But, I do agree the burden is also on the gene people to define race scientifically / genetically and then show it explains the gap. That has not been done. That to me is the strongest criticism of the race people.

Bpesta22 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're quite wrong here. If you need citations which clearly describe environmental factors directly affecting IQ, let me know.  It seems odd that you wouldn't be familiar with this result. A.Prock (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You have data showing a direct effect of environment on IQ (with the direction of the cause untangled) which when controlled explains the gap?

184.59.172.151 (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We could include Bpesta's point as a criticism of the environmental interpretation, which is environmental variables are both dependent and independent variables, something which David Kane has already mentioned in the education section. But that still doesn't change the fact that environment does influence IQ scores, with the only controversy being to what extent. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ideas from old version of article
You may be able to get some ideas from the old version of the article/s, which are now on the Psychology Wiki. --Horse wiz (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That page was copied on February 22 2006 and seems to be here in the edit history . Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We've already spent some time discussing ideas we could get from another earlier version of the article, from December of 2006: . DJ's proposed "significance of group IQ differences" section appears to have been based on a similar section in the December 2006 article.


 * By the way, Horse wiz: if you're going to participate here you ought to sign into the mediation. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for restarting mediation
Seeing that the mediation is in limbo, I have made the following proposal, which if implemented, might help restore confidence to the mediation. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The mediator Ludwigs must agree to only implement changes that have the explicit agreement of disputing parties. If there is no agreement, there can be no changes, at least from within this mediation. If Ludwigs cannot fulfill these obligations, he should excuse himself as mediator, because the role of the mediator is to facilitate communication between disputing parties, and not to pass judgment.
 * The article race and intelligence should be reverted to the pre-mediation version, and the recent changes by David Kane moved to a draft or subpage. As these changes do not have the consensus of disputing parties, we are under no obligation to use them. However, we may use some, all or none of David Kane's draft depending on the outcome of the mediation.


 * Wapondaponda: I am always eager to reach consensus but I confess to confusion about your comment above. Could you answer three questions?
 * Why do you claim that "the mediation is in limbo?" As best I can tell, the mediation has made more progress in the last three weeks than it had in the previous four months.
 * Although I am not an experienced editor, I think that Ludwig has done an excellent job as mediator. What specific things do you think he could have done better? One way one can easily see that he is being fair is that he has been just as much attacked from one side as the other.
 * Do you really believe that the article as it stands now is worse than its state a week ago? What specifics would you cite? As you can see from my changes, I have made dozens of improvements in all sorts of small ways: more accurate citations, better phrasing, and so on. As best I can tell, no editor has argued that the article now (as flawed as it may be) is worse than the article a week ago. If you doubt that claim, perhaps a formal poll would be useful.


 * Of course, I am in favor of making the article even better. I look forward to detailed comments from Aprock, BPesta and others. David.Kane (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about the politics of wiki, or how mediation works, but I'm getting the impression that some who haven't posted here in weeks (or much since I started) are trying to de-rail this.


 * Bpesta22 (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dr Pesta, I think that’s accurate. And something else I think it’s important to point out is that consensus isn’t a vote, nor does it depend on the agreement of 100% of the users involved.  The outline which the current article was based on had the approval of me, Aprock, Varoon Arya, DJ, mikemikev, Slrubenstein, David.Kane, Dr. Pesta, and possibly TechnoFaye.  (I’m not sure what her opinion about it is.)  The only people who’ve strongly objected to the new version of the article are you and Mathsci.  More importantly, in all of the discussions we’ve had about what should go in the article, nobody has attempted to argue with the explanations that were presented about how the outline we ended up using was what’s most consistent with Wikipedia policy.


 * It’s the outcome of discussions like these that determine consensus. When at least seven users disagree with something and only two users disagree, and nobody has attempted to respond to the seven users’ explanation for why their plan about what should go in the article is what’s most consistent with Wikipedia policy, then that qualifies as consensus even if it doesn’t have the approval of 100% of the users involved. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * let me say, just for clarity, that I will agree to the first point without reservation. it has been my intention all along that we use this review period to establish agreements on revisions, and I have asked (and still ask) that all mediation participants find consensus here before editing changes into the article.  I'm not going to edit anything into the article myself, and I will ask people who do edit the article to self-revert and bring the changes up here in mediation if that seems necessary.  I'm not going to police the article any more than that, mind you - I expect that everyone involved will be respectful of the other participants and do the right thing (I assume that anyone who edits the article is doing it because they feel the other editors would agree to the change, and that once I or someone else points out that there isn't an agreement, they will be happy to undo it and bring it here).


 * I'll add that I have a more detailed understanding of 'facilitate communication': to my mind, my role is to guard the discussion to keep it calm, cool, and level-headed, and to offer suggestions about ways to get past entrenched disagreements. but I don't think you'd disagree with that.


 * To your other point... that is something that you and the other participants should discuss and come to some consensus about.  Personally, I think it would be easier and more sensible simply to take what we have (which is based in at least a partial consensus) and develop it to get a better consensus.  reverting to the older version would not be an improvement to the article, and it is generally speaking better to advance than retreat in situations like this.  but (as I said) that is something to be discussed amongst yourselves until you have reached some agreement on the matter.  I'll follow your collective lead on the matter.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

@David, as I have mentioned before, in a mediation, progress is not measured by the consensus of already like minded editors, it is measured by the consensus of disputing parties. If you have been following, I have disputed many of the suggestions that you are currently implementing from as far back as February. The only thing that has happened is that those in opposition have seen there numbers decrease, and those in favor have had their numbers increase. Mediation is not necessary for Captain Occam, Varoon and TechnoFaye etc to come to an agreement. If they were the only ones watching the article, there would be no Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence. @Bpesta, As for derailing this mediation, there are no deadlines on wikipedia. If this mediation is to be a real mediation, and not a straw man, it needs the support from those those on the other side of the dispute. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Muntuwandi, I’ve already addressed most of these points more than once, both here and at AN/I. At least half of the users who originally disagreed with me and Varoon Arya don’t anymore, which is a significant accomplishment; you and Mathsci are the only people who still have significant problems with what’s been decided about this article.  And I’ve also explained how consensus is defined in situations like this, and that it’s based on more than just the fact that at least 80% of the users involved in this article now approve of the changes being made to it.  (Although having 80% approval certainly doesn’t hurt.)


 * If you want to change anything, you’ll need to do more than just keep repeating the same points again and again. You’ll have to acknowledge what other people are saying in response, address their points, and be prepared to compromise if your own position is shown to be flawed.  This is what most the rest of us have been doing in this mediation case, and I think it’s the largest reason why Aprock and Slrubenstein have been able to agree with me and VA about so many more things than you have.  IDIDNTHEARTHAT is an important principle here. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you specifically give examples of where Aprock and Slrubenstein have made explicit agreements with you and VA, regarding the current proposals. The last I checked, Slrubenstein had made the same complaint at the ANI, that the mediation was no longer a mediation because many editors were no longer participating. I certainly don't enjoy repeating this, but the reason I keep bringing this up, is that you have not demonstrated any concrete< evidence of agreement between disputing parties. At present, I definitely agree with you that objections to the current direction the mediation is taking are in the minority, and some objections are only coming from one individual (me). So if this was a talk page dispute, you would be justified in ignoring my objections. But informal mediation is different as its goal is find agreements between disputing parties and not to rubber stamp proposals made by pre-existing alliances. I am willing to work with other editors and reach compromises, but only if any contributions or suggestions are given a fair shake, and not simply ignored because editors realize they have numbers on their side. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What I’m referring to from Slrubenstein was mostly in the “Eventual page structure” discussion. When VA posted his outline proposal, Slrubenstein commented on it “I want to thank David Kane for the hard and thoughtful work he has put into this, I think it is a positive step.”  VA corrected him about who was responsible for the outline: “Slrubenstein: I hope your approval won't change when you find out that I was the one who wrote the outline you're referring to.”  Slrubenstein responded to VA letting him know that he approved of this structure for the article ether way: “Nope, I like it just as much and apologize for not giving credit where credit is due.”  (I’ve left off parts of their comments where they were discussing content-related stuff, which I don’t think is relevant since the purpose of quoting this is just to show that Slrubenstein approved of the article structure, but I’m mentioning this so you don’t accuse me of quote mining.)


 * Aprock has been a bit more demanding, and I’m not sure if I’ll be able to find a comment or pair of comments from him where he’s stated his approval of the structure we’re using as explicitly as Slrubenstein has. But Aprock’s willingness to compromise is something that I think can be seen from his conduct in the entire “Eventual page structure” discussion:  When VA initially posted his outline, Aprock had a fairly long list of objections to it, and as he and VA discussed the best way to satisfy his requirements, his list of objections gradually dwindled until the only serious problem he had with the article was the “significance” section that we haven’t added yet.  The best indication of Aprock’s eventual attitude about the rest of the article is probably this comment, in which he agreed with my statement that he didn’t have a problem with using the data-centric structure that VA had proposed, and said that he also approved of creating a draft of the article using that approach in the mainspace.


 * I think that my and VA’s willingness to compromise with Aprock, and eventually get his approval for the new version of the article, is a good indicator that the reason for your continued disagreement with us isn’t because of a problem on our end. If you could have discussed your objections to VA’s outline (or anything else you’ve disagreed with) in a reasonable manner the same way that Aprock did, I’m quite certain that we would have been willing to compromise with you the same way that we did with him.  You’re still welcome to do this, if you want to.  But reaching a compromise with the rest of us will require some effort from you, and if you aren’t willing to put forth that effort, that isn’t the rest of our fault and it also isn’t a reason to close or restart the mediation case. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mediation started because of differences between two sizeable groups of editors and was initially suggested by Ramdrake. One group appears to have become disaffected with mediation, now drawing into its six month, and is currently barely represented. Mediation has not succeeded in reconciling the viewpoints of the two groups and cannot claim at present to represent consensus. Now there are signs of the same kinds of problem with advocacy that beset other articles on the fringes of science, like cold fusion.

Mathsci (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could Captain Occam please refactor his last sentence which contravenes WP:NPA? Mediation will terminate in just over a week, so there's little point in making personal remarks like this.


 * Mathsci: What evidence do you have that one "group" has become "disaffected with mediation?" First, there is more than one "group" represented here. Do you really think that, say, I and Faye are in the same "group?" I disagree with 90% of her suggestions! Do you think that I and T34CH are in different groups? I was the primary editor who ran with his suggestion to turn the article into a simple disambiguation page. I think you are misunderstanding/under-estimating the group dynamics that are going on. Just what "group" do you think is "barely represented?" As best I can tell, every major position that was represented at the start of the process is represented now.


 * Also, according to WP:M: "Mediation is intended to achieve a way for people to keep working happily together and build better articles, while growing from the mutual exchange." And that is exactly what we have accomplished! The article we have now is much better than the article we started with. No one (contrary opinions welcome!) has disagree with that claim. Do you?


 * Who says that "Mediation will terminate in just over a week?" As best I can tell from WP:M, the length of mediation is not for a single individual to decide. I think that this is a group judgment or, perhaps, one for the mediator. So, to Ludwig, perhaps it would be useful to have a poll about whether or not mediation should continue. David.Kane (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * David.Kane (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Slrubenstein thinks that is the case and he has far more experience than most people participating here. For that matter, so do I.
 * Using Bpesta22 as an "expert" advisor is a no-no unless he justifies everything he claims using sources. If I edit articles in my area of expertise, I still have to rely on sources. The same applies to Slrubenstein, whose own area of expertise has not so far been disclosed on wikipedia but which informs his comments.
 * I have in fact conferred with a member of ArbCom about the current mediation process. That member, a former mediator, is also in agreement. Although debating has taken place at length on these pages, it has also been pointed out that nothing discussed here is binding; nor are the current set of edits to the article. There was also concern at the number of WP:SPAs editing here.
 * One thing that could happen is a formal mediation by MedCom which would be a completely different procedure.
 * Another possibility is an ArbCom case if this current stage of mediation is used to influence unduly ordinary edits to the article in a week's time.
 * The mediation committee chaired by  set the deadline which is now in just over a week.  Attempts to prolong mediation beyond a week could possibly lead to editing restrictions. Mathsci (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wapondaponda: You write: "I have disputed many of the suggestions that you are currently implementing from as far back as February." Me too! Read my opening statement. The path that we have gone down was not my first choice for how to make progress, nor was it my second choice. But mediation success is not measure by me (or you) getting 100% of what we want. It is measured by improvement in article quality. Do you dispute that the article that we have now is better than the article we had before?


 * "those in opposition have seen there numbers decrease." Really? Not that I have seen. Do you count me in the opposition? I do not like the idea of a data-centric article. I do not like the outline that VA came up with. But I recognize that mediation is a give-and-take process and that I need to, in good faith, compromise with my fellow editors. All I ask is that the editors that I disagree with with, like Faye and VA, consider my comments and reply to my arguments. With the aid of a skilled mediation like Ludwig, progress is possible.


 * "it needs the support from those those on the other side of the dispute." And it has that! Since I disagree with 90% of her edits, I think that I am on the "other side" of the dispute from Faye and, yet, we are both participating in the process. I believe that, say, Occam and Aprock, have significant disagreements as well. And they are both participating too.
 * David.Kane (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * “Who says that ‘Mediation will terminate in just over a week?’”


 * Ludwig and Xaxexgoem agreed around a week ago that if mediation hadn’t made any noticeable progress within two weeks, Ludwig would agree that mediation for this article was hopeless and close the mediation case. I think by most standards we have been making progress, though, both in terms of improving the article itself and in terms of me and VA reaching compromises with Aprock and Slrubenstein in some areas where they’d previously disagreed with us.  Since lack of progress was the condition for closure that Ludwig agreed to, I don’t think we should conclude that mediation will necessarily be ending in just another week. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the rub: Anyone who is involved in a mediation may at any time during that mediation decide that they no longer wish to participate. The weakness of the mediation process is that it assumes (in good faith, naturally) that participants will continue with the mediation even if the results are not in perfect harmony with their personal preferences. Obviously, this is not always the case. Here's how to subvert the collaborative process in two easy steps: if you can't convince others of the correctness of your views with logic or evidence, call a mediation in the attempt to gather the support of like-minded editors who will help you brow-beat your opposition into giving up. If this doesn't work, or if the mediation attracts the attention of editors who, for whatever reason, agree with your opposition, declare the mediation biased and request that it be shut down ASAP. It's that easy. -- Aryaman (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize in advance for adding a lot of quotes, but I think it is necessary to establish who has and who hasn't been willing to compromise.Yes Slrubenstein did make those comments, but they are taken out of context, though I cannot say whether this is cherry picking or unintentional. Slrubenstein made those comments before I posted my suggestions and analysis of VA's outline and before A.Prock made his comments about the outline. This is what Slr later stated
 * I later posted an analysis of Varoon's outline, I gave credit where credit was due describing it as "detailed and well thought out" . However Varoon's response to one of my chief concerns was "I have a hard time taking this seriously ".
 * Varoon later stated that "There are several things I don't like about Muntuwandi's proposed outline, though he only had time to analyze one of them. VA was concerned that SES may have a genetic component and thus shouldn't be treated as an environmental variable. I understood his criticism and responded by suggesting that socioeconomic status be changed to socioeconomic environment.
 * Captain Occam later stated regarding the ommission of regression subheadings
 * Just as a side note, regression isn't included in David Kane's version, so it's not clear whether the opposition is directed at the author or outline.
 * Slrubenstein and A.Prock responded by stating
 * I fully with these last two statements. I was under the impression, based on the principle that more heads are better than one, that we participants would come up with an outline by consensus. Unfortunately, the discussion was polarized, and we were given the impression that we have to choose only one between two outlines. I hope these quotes will provide context and will help independent users to understand who is willing, and who is unwilling to cooperate with editors of from the "other side". Wapondaponda (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a side note, regression isn't included in David Kane's version, so it's not clear whether the opposition is directed at the author or outline.
 * Slrubenstein and A.Prock responded by stating
 * I fully with these last two statements. I was under the impression, based on the principle that more heads are better than one, that we participants would come up with an outline by consensus. Unfortunately, the discussion was polarized, and we were given the impression that we have to choose only one between two outlines. I hope these quotes will provide context and will help independent users to understand who is willing, and who is unwilling to cooperate with editors of from the "other side". Wapondaponda (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully with these last two statements. I was under the impression, based on the principle that more heads are better than one, that we participants would come up with an outline by consensus. Unfortunately, the discussion was polarized, and we were given the impression that we have to choose only one between two outlines. I hope these quotes will provide context and will help independent users to understand who is willing, and who is unwilling to cooperate with editors of from the "other side". Wapondaponda (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully with these last two statements. I was under the impression, based on the principle that more heads are better than one, that we participants would come up with an outline by consensus. Unfortunately, the discussion was polarized, and we were given the impression that we have to choose only one between two outlines. I hope these quotes will provide context and will help independent users to understand who is willing, and who is unwilling to cooperate with editors of from the "other side". Wapondaponda (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wapondaponda, I think that you are making a reasonable point here. I would have liked to have seen more effort, by everyone, into fleshing out the outline in more detail. I would have liked to have seen everyone work more collaboratively toward reaching consensus on the outline. As you know, I was not a fan of this outline and played zero role in its creation. But wouldn't you agree that the process over the last month, however flawed, has generated an article that we all agree is better, on the whole, to the one that it replaced? Once we can agree on that, I am happy to move forward and try to improve the article in whatever ways you, MathSci, Faye (and anyone else who feels that their views have not been given full weight in the last month) would propose. David.Kane (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not happy with this conversation. As far as I can see, it is a distraction from the task of building the article, and not useful to the article in any way, shape, or form. There is no point in rehashing past issues when we have more pressing problems facing us.

Wapondaponda, Mathsci - please contribute concrete suggestions for revising the draft, or specific concerns or complaints about the draft as it is that you would like to see addressed. Until you do so, and until you make a decent effort towards working with the current article, the topics of moving the draft to a subpage or restarting discussions about the outline are strictly off-limits; I will archive any further discussions of that nature. We can revisit the issues if-and-when it becomes clear that there is a need to.

I am not going to allow the process of improving the article to be sidetracked by an extended conversation that has no value to the encyclopedia or the article whatsoever. Help it move forward, don't help it move forward; that is your choice. We are not going to move backwards. -- Ludwigs 2 15:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wapondaponda: Fair enough your comments re consensus. My confusion stems from the fact that reality isn't determined by consensus vote-- neither really is science. Scientists don't change their minds or world views (or accept that the body of knowledge in their areas are indeed facts) by voting on it. Rather, one needs so much data on x that denying x would be absurd. The level of data required increases massively when x is controversial.

But, we have massive data on x. It would be absurd to deny x. The explanation for x is hotly debated, and so all sides should be presented. Wiki should aim to present a balanced treatment of all this (constrained by what experts in the field currently see as answered / unanswered issues). It seems like that's what's being done here. Kudoos to Ludwig and most all participants for keeping this level headed. I've had these debates online for about 20 years now. It could be partly a recency effect but I cannot remember the last time I have discussed this where all participants argued the points versus attacked each other. That has been remarkable here, based on my experience elsewhere.

Given the time constraints on this project, I hope to read the new outline today or tomorrow and provide peer review. Bpesta22 (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwigs, I have no intention of dragging this out indefinitely, there are other interesting articles that need attention. I have a specific concern. You have allowed Occam and co. to steam roll over other editors, and to basically say, because we are more than you, what you say doesn't matter. In light of this, how can we trust any future concerns will be given due consideration. By favoring one side, you have contributed to an atmosphere of distrust, which is likely to harm future efforts at reaching a consensus. I would like very much to get back to discussing content, but I have concerns about the current process. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If memory serves, no one objected to Ludwig as mediator. I agree that Ludwig is not the world's perfect mediator. Are you aware of someone else who is willing to mediate? If so, by all means, have them speak up. I am sure that we would be happy to consider the services of a different mediator. If no one else has volunteered to mediate, then we will have to do the best we can with Ludwig. And, for the record, I don't feel that I, at least, am either a part of "Occam and co" or that I have been "steam roll[ed]" by them. David.Kane (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Wapondaponda: I have favored neither side (and if I were going to favor a side, it would not be the genetic side). I simply pushed the process into action using the best consensus available at the time, because I got pushed.  Had your version of the outline been the one with the most support at that time, I would have behaved exactly the same way with respect to it.  Circumstances beyond my control...


 * If you make suggestion for revisions/improvements to the article, I will make absolutely sure that they do not get 'steamrolled' (to use your term), and I will make sure that any valid, substantive concerns you have get addressed. My only interest in this matter is that is that we develop a stable article, and developing a stable article means making the revisions necessary to at least marginally satisfy the concerns on all sides.  No version of this article is going to be fully satisfying to everyone, obviously, but if I can reach a point where pretty much everyone says "well, I'm not thrilled by it, but it's good enough", then I think we will have a stable article.  is that acceptable?


 * @ David.Kane:  -- Ludwigs 2  17:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs is right: We should be putting this energy into the article, not into tangential discussion. Let me say this, and I'll I promise to ignore the remainder of this discussion:


 * For the record: the outline I proposed is not my personally preferred version of the article. I wrote it attempting to accommodate the views of as many editors as possible. If I had complete control of the article, it would look very, very different (i.e. about 500 words and based almost exclusively on the APA report). I assume the same could be said for other editors, including Occam, DJ, David.Kane, TechnoFaye, Mikemikev, and all the other editors some here are trying to lump together as a cabal united in "pushing a POV". We have all disagreed with each other in the past, and we still disagree with each other on various issues related to this article. We all bring a personal vision of what the article should look like with us to the mediation, and no two authors have exactly the same "ideal article" in mind. The strange thing is, we're on the verge of being punished for being able to underplay our differences for the good of the mediation and the article.


 * It may seem like I have not accommodated the views of certain editors enough. But there's a reason for that. Take my most recent exchange with Mathsci, for example: I honestly tried to address a concern of his, hoping to involve him again in the mediation. I provided justified arguments as to why I disagree with the objection he raised, and invited him to respond. But, for reasons I can only guess at (I'm willing to assume he either forgot or was met with more pressing matters), the discussion died, an the point remains unresolved. This has happened more times than I care to recall in this mediation: points are addressed, yet the discussion dies with no resolution. A week or so later the editor brings up the exact same objection as though no one has attempted to address it. Point the editor to the unresolved discussion, and request that he either respond accordingly or stop holding up everyone else, and you're "uncivil", "pushy", and/or "unnecessarily argumentative". Thus it goes round and round, ad nauseum. How can we break this cycle? An editor has to show those who are of a different opinion how they can convince him to change his mind. In the discussion with Mathsci, I provided a reliable source to support my description of this issue as a subject of academic debate. I also told him how he could persuade me to at least consider changing my mind, i.e. to provide a source - ideally with an even greater degree of reliability (though a recent tertiary source by a respected publisher of academic literature is hard to trump) - which supports his claim, i.e. that calling this an academic debate is wrong, and thus that doing so would be a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH violation. As a general rule, if an editor can't suggest a way to falsify his own point of view, then chances are his point of view leans heavily towards pseudo-science and/or is a matter of personal faith rather than a judgement based on reason and/or reliable evidence.


 * I consider myself a reasonable person, and despite all the bullshit floating around this place (not necessarily this mediation), I'm still willing to help improve the article. Let's please work on doing that and stop all the procedural crap. And Mathsci: The above comment is not a personal attack, it's an example being used to illustrate a larger and far more important point. Please show magnanimity and accept it in good faith rather than asking me to "refactor" it because it refers to you personally. -- Aryaman (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Aryaman: I accept that your post is in good faith, but I'd still ask you to go back and refactor some of the more pointed comments (I'm thinking of things like the line "all the other editors some here are trying to lump together as a cabal..." I really would like, as much as possible, to keep to a 'no comments about other editors' rule, at least wherever such a comment might be viewed as an interpretation of that editor's behavior.  interpreting other people's behavior is unavoidable, of course, but where you need to do so, please make interpretations in the spirit of wp:AGF.

In the case you mentioned, for instance, all you need to do is offer a reminder. they make an argument, you respond with a source, and if they don't respond you may assume (in goof faith) that they have accepted your point as is. If they then make the same argument again, simply say something like: "I'm sorry, I thought you had agreed with this point above, when I presented this source - (source X). are you saying now that you disagree?" That way, if they have forgotten the source they can say 'Oh, yeah...', or if they missed your reply above and still disagree, then they can respond to the point now. There's no need to re-argue the point - assume that other editors are responsible and responsive, but human (and so error-prone), and just point them back to missed material when and where you have to. if it becomes a protracted problem, let me know, but I suspect it's just a matter of keeping track of the mass of material on the page. -- Ludwigs 2 19:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Over-editing
For the long-term stability of the article, I still believe it is important to discuss procedural issues. As Mathsci has pointed out, we are now in the sixth calendar month of this mediation. Many of us are getting burned out by this mediation. However, it seems that some editors may have an insatiable appetite for the minutiae of this topic. We still have some problems. Many editors have praised David Kane's version. I am particularly pleased that the article is not too long. But some editors may be unhappy about this because they believe a lot has been left out. So it looks like we are in for an extended dispute. My specific concern is over-editing and over-discussing. The R&I talk page has over 74 archive pages. Pretty much whatever has been discussed in this mediation, has been discussed before in some way. Furthermore, since R&I is a highly controversial article, many discussions are heated often deteriorating into incivility, sarcasm and personal attacks. I think most neutrals would agree that an extended dispute would be unproductive. It is totally inappropriate if this article continues to consume all or much of our wiki-time in the future. There has been frequent discussions of single purpose editing and article ownership. I am of the opinion that one or two super-dedicated editors can effectively set the pace of discussion simply by trying to make controversial edits, and in the process, drag a several other editors into a lengthy dispute. When the mediation ends in about a week, disputes will move back to the talk page. The R&I article should be considered a chronic problem and should be managed as such. I would place R&I in the Wikipedia's top ten most controversial articles, thus it shouldn't be treated like any other article. Consequently, I definitely see the need for procedural or administrative intervention, not to enforce a POV, but to stabilize the revision history. So here are a couple of suggestions, On content, we have three choices The interpretations section is pretty much what existed before and is out of sync with the rest of the article, I would suggest summarizing each of the sub-sections to no more than two average sized paragraphs. Whatever version that is selected at the end of the mediation, the article needs some administrative intervention. Either the article could be placed on probation, or the article needs to be fully protected. Unless there is a paradigm shifting event that takes place, there is no need to urgently edit anything into the article. If there is anything missing from the article, we can simply place links to publications that contain the missing information in the "Further information" or "External links" subsections. Finally topic bans should remain an option if single purpose editing or article ownership becomes a problem. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Revert to pre-mediation version
 * 2) Accept David Kane's current revision
 * 3) Improve on David Kane's current revision in the last week of mediation


 * I have two points, and one warning to make here:
 * we discussed reverting to a previous version in this mediation. however, we could reach no agreement about what version to revert to (the discussion was polarized around two different versions with no sign of compromise from either side). Since you go on to suggest that we accept and revise DK's version in points 2 and 3, we might as well just leave it in place and develop it.  there is no rush, and wikipedia will not suffer from having an underdeveloped article here for a week or so (particularly not considering it had a decrepit article in place for months on end)
 * I have no problem with whatever you want to do with this article in terms of probation - that is your business, since my only purpose here is as a mediator. however, the terms of that will have to be determined by administrators through some process I am not aware of, and I prefer not to focus any of the mediation page to a discussion of it.  Feel free to start that process if you know what it is; let others know if their input is needed.
 * Finally: Wapondaponda, I am beginning to get the distinct impression that you are stonewalling . I have asked all editors here repeatedly to cease with procedural claims and begin contributing productive revisions.  You have failed to act on either count, and I am no longer willing to give you the benefit of the doubt about it.  You are hereby on notice that until you have made some productive suggestions for revisions or engaged in discussion about improving the draft, I will consider archiving your other contributions.  If you are not helping to develop the article, then I will not allow you to disrupt that development with an endless stream of meta-commentary.  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy - make an article, not an argument. -- Ludwigs 2  05:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs, please assume good faith, I don't understand why you are so against discussions concerning procedure. Wikipedia works because of both procedure and content. If we have been in mediation since November, it is perfectly justified to reflect on the last 6 months when looking to the future. I want to make specific contributions to David Kane's version, but at the same time, it is inappropriate if we continue haggling for another 6 months. That is my only concern. I have already suggested summarizing the interpretations section, so you are wrong to accuse me of stonewalling. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, I retract that comment, since you have made contributions (I've struck it out above). Fair enough.


 * The reason I an 'so against' procedural issues at the moment is that in the last week editors have spent (easily) 20 times as much effort on procedural issues (here, at ANI, on my talk page, on administrator's talk pages) as they have actually building the article. That is unacceptable.  There are no procedural issues that I can see that have a pressing need to be addressed at this instant; there is an article to build. Do you see my point?  procedure has become a major impediment to article construction on this page, and that is not the place or purpose of procedure, so I am quashing it completely until something arises that requires a procedural intervention. -- Ludwigs 2  16:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Something has come up that may require procedural intervention. TechnoFaye has included a section on brain size in the R&I article diff. However there is no consensus in this mediation for the addition of such material. Groundrule 5 of this mediations states "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." TechnoFaye is still part of this mediation. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that. I left a note in her talk to refactor and introduce the material here.  If she doesn't do so by this afternoon (let's give her a few hours, in case she's gone offline), I'll do it myself.  I'm not sure why she did that - we've already had a kerfluffle over this same passage.  but...  is that an ok solution, or do you suggest I take more immediate action?  -- Ludwigs 2  18:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * P.s. It seems that A.Prock went and reverted Faye's addition. in consideration of that, I am opening a new section on Faye's behalf below, with the proposed text.  Please review and comment.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. The mediation isn't over yet, but we are already experiencing some mini-edit wars. Not a good sign for the future. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revision to lead

 * I don't like the lede or the new article at all. Every sentence is full of WP:WEASEL words. Although it's not great, if I had to summarise the probable content of the article, I'd write something like:

Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

On the whole, I like Mathsci's summary. There are a few minor details which I would like to modify and/or tweak, though, and I'd be more than willing to discuss those with Mathsci and other editors in the hopes of ironing out a good lead to the article. This section, however, is probably not the best place to do that. As soon as Ludwigs gives the green light, I'd be ready to make some minor suggestions on this. -- Aryaman (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since I wasn't at all happy with the current lede  and other users might have dismissed that as a negative criticism, I just wrote the sort of thing I expect to see from my own experience as a wikipedia editor. (I have made a lot of edits  - about 250 - to Europe, a much more viewed article, including small tweaks to its lede, often with the express purpose of keeping the article neutral and pre-empting controversy. Most of the problems have arisen with border issues, etc, linked to Eastern Europe and Turkey, standard problem areas on wikipedia.)


 * You're quite right that what I wrote would need a little tweaking: being hastily written, it's not perfect. It is more or less what the article has been about for the whole time I've been monitoring it. The historical perspective/context/timeline is extremely important: that is the main novelty in my summary. I also think it's important to avoid technical language in the lede, since it probably will not be clear to the average reader. I prefer a precise statement about academia rather that "Some scholars regard the topic as scientifically meaningless because race and/or intelligence are suspect constructs", which is WP:WEASEL ("some scholars") and involves misleading circumlocution ("suspect constructs"). Mathsci (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I like Matchsci's summary too. As long as Varoon Arya can tweak it in a way that others (A.Prock, Bryan Pesta, Muntuwandi, David Kane) are okay with, I am all for his tweaking, and putting it in the article.  Note: I do nott hink that David Kane's current introduction is bad and I hope that much of what he wrote could be retained as a transition to th rest of the article, or somewhere else in the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Following Varoon Arya and Slrubenstein's comments, if the editors that Slrubenstein mentions and others are in agreement, I would suggest placing what I wrote in the lede with the desired modifications by Varoon Arya, which at this stage I would leave entirely up to him. This could provide a suitable means for gently closing mediation and gradually resuming normal editing in mainspace. Mathsci (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(mediator note - I have refactored bpesta's comments here from where he placed it at the end of the document, and reindented appropriately)-- Ludwigs 2 17:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh crap, I may have screwed up placement of my last comment, or it may be posted more than once; or not at all. So, here it is again-- feel free to delete it elsewhere if I posted to a wrong section:


 * My suggested edits-- only for accuracy, not for readability/writing style:


 * Since the introduction of intelligence tests in the early twentieth century and their use by the US army, policy makers, EDUCATORS and AMERICAN INDUSTRY the connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in the media and populist literature. Historically IQ tests in the US revealed disparities between different population groups, with the average score for African Americans being SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than that of White Americans; WHEREAS Asian Americans seem to score significantly higher.


 * In the academic world, however, there are no simplistic (CONSENSUS is a better word, whether the explanation is simplistic or complex doesn't seem to matter if it's accurate) definitions of either race or intelligence: the study of population groups is carried out by anthropologists and sociologists; the genetic mechanism of heritability is studied by biologists; and the general theory of intelligence testing is subsumed within the subject of PSYCHOLOGY.


 * Many factors have been put forward to explain the gap in IQ scores, which has changed systematically over the years (IT's BEEN fairly stable at 1 sd for about 100 yearS). It is generally accepted that environmental factors affect individual IQ scores, AND MAY EXPLAIN THE RACE GAP ENTIRELY.


 * What has sparked the most recent debate has been the controversial claim by a group of PSYCHOLOGISTS, including Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, that there is a PARTLY genetic basis for the lower IQ scores and that accordingly certain races ON AVERAGE are inherently more OR LESS intelligent than others. This claim has not been accepted within mainstream science," AND UNTIL the biology and genetics of race (assuming they even exist) can be established, there is no direct way to test this hypothesis, although various indirect lines of evidence have been proposed by proponents of the partly-genetic model. Bpesta22 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with many of these changes. Psychometry is the specific part of academic psychology that treats intelligence tests and is the ocrrect wikilink. Policy makers should be retained along with industrialists, because, as far as I understand it, at times US education policy has been influenced by this debate (post Jensen). Mathsci (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggested version by Varoon Arya

In the following, I have followed Mathsci's original suggestion in the main, though I have also taken BPesta's suggestion into consideration. I've tried to reduce the text down to what is absolutely necessary. I hope the reasons for both my changes (e.g. "populist literature" (?) > "popular science") and my omissions (e.g. removal of the list of which disciplines do what) are sufficiently transparent to everyone so as not to require a detailed explanation. If not, however, I can provide such upon request. I expect additional changes to be made, and I would appreciate them most if they were undertaken by editors who have not yet voiced their opinion on this matter. UPDATE: I have modified the text to accommodate objections raised by Mathsci, David.Kane and Captain Occam below.

-- Aryaman (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Please comment on the revision to the lead proposed above. Give a yes, no, or almost, and indicate (briefly) what if anything needs to be changed in it. If there is a general thumbs up from the other participants (the three who noted their agreement above do not need to do so again) then we can edit it in. -- Ludwigs 2 15:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, can we wait until Arya has tweaked it? He has expressed a desire to make some changes, and mathsci recognizes the need for some improvement; I think we'd all be better off being polled on what MathSci and Varoon agree with. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, sure. let's leave the poll here, but other editors are asked to wait until aryaman has finished his tweaking.  (ary - if you make a new copy rather than working directly on Mathsci's text, please place the copy just above this straw poll).  -- Ludwigs 2  16:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment The editing of wikipedia articles is never decided by poll, but by the quality of edits. Here is no exception. People should not vote but make constructive suggestions: that is the usual way that wikipedia is edited (given its peculiar editing rules). As this article gradually returns in the next few days to being edited normally in mainspace and mediation is brought to a close, we should use the normal procedures for editing articles. At the moment editors previously assumed to have polarized viewpoints are now in agreement. I find this outcome extremely positive - and surprising :) Please, let's make the most of it! Mathsci (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what Varoon Arya has suggested above. I have a few small suggestions. The second sentence in the second paragraph needs a little more work. Also, from what I understand, the gap has narrowed and IQ scores have systematically increased across the board (what I wrote was partially a reference to the Flynn effect). I think this should be conveyed in the lede. I omitted to mention anything about worldwide measurements. This is more complex because in Africa for example. as far as I understand it, there have been very few systematic or extensive measurements (there have been case studies by Nicholas Mackintosh and Robert Sternberg on small groups, but these were not aimed at testing any hypothesis about possible links between race and intelligence). I'll try to find a way to formulate this - others might be able to suggest a suitably cautious sentence. Mathsci (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured that's what you were referring to, but according to the APA, while the achievement gap has narrowed appreciably, a narrowing in the IQ gap has not been sufficiently demonstrated. The Flynn Effect works pretty much across the board. -- Aryaman (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also in the last sentence "popular media" should replace popular press (there have been TV programmes in the UK). The theories of Jensen, Rushton and Lynn have not so far been widely accepted in academia, i.e. mainstream science. "Disapproval" is a WP:WEASEL word: it suggests that the theories are correct but unpopular, which is not the case in academia. In fact the statistical methods and selective gathering of data have been repeatedly criticized by academics: that is a quite a different thing from disapproval. Mathsci (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (written before DJ's post below) I was referring to the fact that, rather than being simply "not accepted", the views of Jensen, etc. have been rather vehemently disapproved of as "bad/racist science". How about we compromise: "This claim has has not been accepted by the wider academic community and has been met with widespread disapproval the popular media." Would that be acceptable to you? -- Aryaman (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is fine by me. Mathsci (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I would consider refactoring the last paragraph. The following is also true and captures a wider range of scholarly opinion: many psychometricians and behavioral geneticists believe that high heritability of IQ within groups coupled with the failure of environmental factors to account for the average IQ differences between groups lends plausibility to a genetic contribution to IQ difference between groups.  As to the extent of agreement with that hypothesis among scholars in a position to make an informed assessment, I don't think we can say. --DJ (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Evidence and opinion for a narrowing of the black-white IQ gap is mixed. Flynn and Murray say it has narrowed. Jensen and Rushton say it has not. Flynn suggests it is continually narrowing and Murray says the narrowing stopped for cohorts born after the 1970s. The achievement gap narrowing is pretty clear, but the cohort issue still applies. --DJ (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with these suggestions. It is inappropriate to refer to Jensen, Rushton or Lynn for a statement about "many behavioural geneticists". These authors are psychologists, two of them retired. How can they be relied on to make statements either about biologists or indeed other psychometricians? "Many" is a WP:WEASEL word; some would be more accurate in both cases and this kind of assertion in the lede would then be a case of WP:UNDUE. As for point (2), it's not up to us to evaluate this kind of thing on wikipedia talk pages, That is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Find a good secondary source such as Richard Nisbett that discusses this point in detail rather than trying to prove it yourself here. That kind of discussion is exactly what has emphatically to be avoided when editing Race and intelligence. Remember: secondary sources. Mathsci (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed - Jensen and Rushton are good sources on psychology, not genetics. If we can just keep this distinction clear, I think we will have made good progress. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Aryaman. I like your version and think the lede is good to go. Bpesta22 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that VAs lede is OK, but in order to be clearly better than mine, I would like to see some things fixed. I have not thought hard enough about just how they should be fixed to have an informed opinion.

Of course, I am not an objective judge of the current lead and I agree with many of the criticism made about it above by MathSci and others. David.Kane (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The first words on the lead should be race and intelligence. At the very least, WP:BETTER states that "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence."
 * "both popular science and the media" is a flawed phrase because almost none of the article covers either popular science or the media. (Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the meaning of popular science in this context?) The vast majority of the citations are to the peer-reviewed academic literature.
 * One of the previous critiques of the article was its excessive US focus. I like to think that this has been fixed, at least some, since we know have a much higher percentage of the citations and discussion devoted to IQ scores in countries outside of the US. I think that this is a good thing and I hope to emphasize that more in the future. But then why is this new lead so US focused? Why refer/link to just African Americans and Asian Americans? I believe that all sides agree that this is a global phenomenon. I think that this is the biggest flaw with VAs draft.
 * I think the last two paragraphs are solid.


 * We could rearrange the first sentence to read:
 * "The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and the media since the inception of intelligence testing in the early twentieth century, particularly in the United States."


 * Or maybe simply:
 * "Race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and the media since the inception of intelligence testing in the early twentieth century, particularly in the United States."


 * Though, the second option would be more an attempt to appease MoS conventions rather than good prose, IMO.


 * I think Mathsci feels strongly about using "popular science" or something equivalent, and I think I understand his point: books like Jensen's The g Factor, H&M's The Bell Curve, or Fish's Race and Intelligence are works which attempt to communicate the science to the interested layman, and are not necessarily to be seen as contributions to the academic discussion. At the same time, David also has a point: a good deal of this discussion takes place in journal articles, and the article cites quite a bit of this kind of literature. I don't think it's responsible editing to ignore the fact that there is academic debate, i.e. debate among academics which takes place in scholarly journals - and if "popular science" gives the impression of ignoring such debate, then we definitely need to change it. I'd appreciate suggestions as to how we could rephrase/reword this to address both sets of concerns.


 * The specific mention of the US in the first sentence can be sourced specifically, in nearly the same wording. The source I have in mind specifically states "in the US and the UK", and I did consider adding this to the sentence (in fact, I'm still wondering whether or not this should be done). I agree that the second sentence might make the paragraph too US-centric. Would anyone object to adding a third sentence to the tune of:
 * "Similar findings have been reported for related populations around the world, though these are generally considered far less reliable due to the difficulty inherent in the cross-cultural comparison of intelligence test scores."


 * (That's not the most beautiful sentence I've ever written, but I think you get what I'm aiming at.) -- Aryaman (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer for the start of the lede, "The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in the media and popular science, ever since the inception of intelligence tests in the early twentieth century and their use by the US army, industrialists, policy makers and educationalists." I think it's definitely important to keep the last part which clarifies how IQ tests have been used, at least in the US.
 * I would prefer for the last paaragraph to read, "Far more controversial is the claim advanced by several psychologists, including Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, that a significant portion of the racial IQ gap is not explained by appeals to any known environmental factors, and that this portion has an ultimately genetic origin. The same group has more recently made similar claims about population groups elsewhere in the world, notably in Africa, sometimes even when test scores have only been available for relatively small samples. These claims have not been accepted by the wider academic community and have been met with widespread disapproval in the popular media." The use of "less reliable" and the anthropological aspect (Kalahari bushmen) does not really need to be spelled out or mentioned in the lede.


 * I hope this is OK. Mathsci (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I'm fine with VA's version of the outline except for the last paragraph:

"Far more controversial is the claim advanced by several psychologists, including Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, that a significant portion of the racial IQ gap is not explained by appeals to any known environmental factors, and that this portion has an ultimately genetic origin. This claim has not been accepted by the wider academic community and has been met with widespread disapproval in the popular media."

This implies that the wider academic community has not accepted either the idea that the IQ gap is partly genetic or the idea that no currently known environmental factors are enough to explain it. This is probably true in the first case, but it's not true in the second--for example, the APA report mentions that nobody has yet provided a well-supported explanation of its cause. In this respect, Jensen and Rushton are in agreement with the APA.

I would suggest changing the last two paragraphs say something like this:

"There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia, and the discussion of their connection involves the results of multiple disciplines, including biology, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. Many factors possessing the potential to influence the development of intelligence have been advanced as possible causes of the racial IQ gap which, though subject to variation over time, has remained relatively stable since IQ testing began. It is generally agreed that environmental factors affect individual IQ scores, and it is widely assumed that most or all of the racial IQ gap is attributable to such factors, but no specific environmental factor been has identified as a definitive cause."

"The current consensus among researchers who study the racial IQ gap is that data are insufficient to identify its cause. Far more controversial is the claim advanced by several psychologists, including Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, that a significant portion of the racial IQ gap has an ultimately genetic origin. This claim has not been accepted by the wider academic community and has been met with widespread disapproval in the popular media."

If you want to alter this phrasing to take other users' suggestions into consideration, that's fine with me also. The important thing is that we distinguish between the idea that no specific environmental factor has been identified that can clearly explain the IQ gap, which is the opinion of Jensen and Rushton as well as the APA; and the opinion that the gap is partly genetic, which is accepted by a much smaller group of people. Also, let's not forget about DJ's proposed lede. Perhaps we could get some ideas from that also. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Captain Occam's suggested changes to the second and third paragraph do not seem helpful and would mislead the reader.
 * The additional phrase at the end of the second paragraph is WP:UNDUE and WP:WEASEL "but no specific environmental factor been has identified as a definitive cause". This essentially negates the previous phrase by sowing considerable doubt in the reader's mind. This contravenes WP:NPOV.
 * In his third paragraph, the first sentence is inaccurate and misleading. There is not a significant number of researchers in academia who study the racial IQ gap, so it makes no sense to talk about a consensus. This sentence suggests something completely different and contravenes WP:NPOV. It seems again to be another phrase designed to sow doubt in the reader's mind about the statement "it is widely assumed that most or all of the racial IQ gap is attributable to such factors". (I think it is in Africa that commentators from many disciplines have pointed out the paucity of data. but that is a different issue already addressed by the sentence on possible global IQ gaps.)
 * The group of psychologists led by Jensen, Rushton and Lynn does indeed state that some races are inherently more or less intelligent than others (Lynn goes further to suggest that policy makers ignore this at their peril). I see no reason to remove that statement which is an accurate summary of what they have been claiming.
 * Mathsci (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * “The additional phrase at the end of the second paragraph is WP:UNDUE and WP:WEASEL "but no specific environmental factor been has identified as a definitive cause". This essentially negates the previous phrase by sowing considerable doubt in the reader's mind. This contravenes WP:NPOV.”


 * As has been pointed out many times in this mediation, the current consensus about this topic among researchers who study it is agnosticism: that the cause of the IQ difference can’t be identified, because both genetic and environmental factors lack support. As mentioned earlier, this is the position taken by the APA, and we’ve also all agreed that the article should be modeled after the APA statement in terms of the position it takes.  Since this will be the overall position taken by the article, there’s no danger in emphasizing it too strongly.  There is, however, a danger of not emphasizing it strongly enough.


 * “In his third paragraph, the first sentence is inaccurate and misleading. There is not a significant number of researchers in academia who study the racial IQ gap, so it makes no sense to talk about a consensus. This sentence suggests something completely different and contravenes WP:NPOV. It seems again to be another phrase designed to sow doubt in the reader's mind about the statement "it is widely assumed that most or all of the racial IQ gap is attributable to such factors". (I think it is in Africa that commentators from many disciplines have pointed out the paucity of data. but that is a different issue already addressed by the sentence on possible global IQ gaps.)”


 * This is something else we’ve already resolved previously. I recommend that you look at our list of resolved points at the top of this page, which include the fact that race and intelligence as a whole is not a “fringe” topic.  Varoon Arya has also explained this fact in great detail to you specifically, and you haven’t replied to his point about that.  Until you do, I don’t think there’s any point in attempting to discuss this anymore, particularly as Ludwig has asked us to not re-open discussions about points that have been resolved previously.


 * “The group of psychologists led by Jensen, Rushton and Lynn does indeed state that some races are inherently more or less intelligent than others (Lynn goes further to suggest that policy makers ignore this at their peril). I see no reason to remove that statement which is an accurate summary of what they have been claiming.”


 * That phrase wasn’t in Varoon Arya’s version of the lead that I’m commenting on, so your problems with it being removed should be directed at him rather than me. If you want to put this wording back in the lead, however, I think you also need to explain two things:
 * 1: How stating that “some races are inherently more or less intelligent than others” is any different in meaning than saying that the IQ gap is primarily genetic, other than just using wording that attempts to make this idea sound as offensive as possible.
 * 2: Where Arthur Jensen has actually used this phrase. (I’m not too concerned about Rushton and Lynn, since Jensen’s research and conclusions are what the hereditarian hypothesis about this is primarily founded on.  If Jensen himself has used this phrase, though, and you can justify it having a meaning than isn’t completely synonymous with saying that the IQ gap is primarily genetic, I suppose I won’t have a problem with the article using this phrase.) --Captain Occam (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * From what other editors have written here, your claim about consensus from prior discussion does not seem to be correct. This is the first time the lede is being discussed in detail during mediation, which will end fairly shortly. From what you have written, your position on the lede seems to be to represent the views of Jensen, Rushton and Lynn as positively as possible, which seems to contravene WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Returning to your points 1 and 2: If you don't have any objection to the phrase "some races are inherently more or less intelligent than others", which Varoon Arya dropped,  then we will leave it in. This incorporates the suggestion of Bryan Pesta.  It is extremely helpful to the reader and is mentioned by multiple commentators in books and book reviews (secondary sources). Who ever said it was a quote from Jensen?  Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have been WP:BOLD and incorporated Varoon Arya's lede into the article, where it can be edited directly. I have incorporated the suggestions of David.Kane, by inverting the order of the first sentence. I have included Bpesta22's suggestion about the use of the test by industrialists, adding also the US army, educationalists and policy makers. I have included a neutral version of the sentence about internationalization. I have NOT added the phrase "some races are inherently more or less intelligent than others". I suggest that changes to the lede now should be discussed not here, but on the talk page, so that users not involved in mediation can participate. Thanks, Mathsci (talk)

Occam has raised the point that the introduction should mention that the dominant position as summarized by the APA is one of agnosticism, e.g. that the cause of the IQ gap is not known, as well as that cultural/environmental explanations, though favourable, lack sufficient empirical support. The APA report makes specific mention of this twice:

"The cause of [the IQ] differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally based explanations of the Black/ White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available."

And again:

"The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential."

It is justified to interpret this as an important conclusion of the APA report, and it has been repeated in more recent work, such as that of Bartholomew (2004). I find it hard, therefore, to dismiss Occam's concern as POV-pushing. While the APA report distinguishes environmental explanations as either "plausible" or "appropriate", it clearly states that they are weak in the way of direct emprical support. I think the last sentence in the first paragraph of Occam's proposal summarizes this situation in neutral language.

I do object to the phrase "some races are inherently more or less intelligent that others" on the grounds that Jensen & Rushton distance themselves from such a claim. Talk of any "inherent features" of races - let alone intelligence - is entirely outdated, and does not reflect the hereditarian position. As they write: "Heritability describes what is the genetic contribution to individual differences in a particular population at a particular time, not what could be. If either the genetic or the environmental influences change (e.g., due to migration, greater educational opportunity, better nutrition), then the relative impact of genes and environment will change. Heritability has nothing to say about what should be. If a trait has a high heritability it does not mean that it cannot be changed. Environmental change is possible. [...] The fact that the heritability of IQ is between 0.50 and 0.80 does not mean that individual differences are fixed and permanent. It does tell us that some individuals are genetically predisposed to be more teachable, more trainable, and more capable of changing than others, under current conditions."

I dropped the phrase because I find it both unnecessary as well as incorrect and/or misleading.

I have made adjustments to the proposal according to various suggestions made above. -- Aryaman (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is presently, no mention in the article of the fact that the scores of all populations overlap significantly, and that individuals of all racial/ethnic categories can be found at any IQ level. Self-identified whites will be found at high, medium and low IQ levels, just as blacks, Asians or any other SIRE category, the only difference being the proportion of each SIRE category that is found in a particular IQ range. Though the overlap is implied by the 1 SD difference, I believe it is important to mention the overlap explicitly, possibly in the lede. An argument can be made, that if populations overlap in a trait, and the overlap is not trivial, then it becomes unethical to treat the different populations as separate entities.
 * Furthermore, since members of any ethnic group are found at all IQ levels, it implies that whatever it is that causes individual to belong to a particular ethnic group varies independently from what causes individuals to have a particular IQ score. IOW one cannot predict a person's IQ by knowing their race and one cannot predict a person's race by knowing their IQ. The current article dives straight into the fact that average scores differ between "races", when the reality is more complex than differences in group averages. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course this is a problem, but I think since only average scores are referred to in the lede, further clarification should occur in the main body of the article. I included the caveat about Africa for exactly those reasons. Varoon Arya has referred to cross-cultural problems in the lede and also there are the problems of poor data sets for much of Africa. Within any population group there are always significant numbers of people above the average; that should be clarified in the main text. Mathsci (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've followed Mathsci's lead and have continued to make additions to the lead itself, most notably to reflect Muntuwandi's concerns. Are we moving this discussion to the talkpage now? -- Aryaman (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems like the best idea. I approve of the clarification you inserted about the spectrum of scores requested by Muntwuwandi. Mathsci (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I note that David.Kane removed the names of Jensen, Rushton and Lynn from the lede without discussion. The controversy revolves around the work of these psychologists and their collaborators. There is no corresponding group of psychologists spending their time researching the environmental explanation of the racial IQ gap. That is why it is important to mention their names in the lede. If their names were not mentioned it would be absolutely necessary to write that only a limited number of psychologists have promoted this point of view. The unqualified phrase was an example of WP:UNDUE, so I have restored the names. Mathsci (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I note that MathSci made dramatic changes in the lede without allowing for even two days of discussion, and over Easter week-end at that! Why is a change that you made simply being bold but I change that I made ground for claims about edit warring? The previous version of the lead made clear that the heridatrian view was a minority one. David.Kane (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mathsci, David: comment on content, not editors. We are trying to build a page that will last indefinitely, so minor, temporary irregularities are nothing to get worked up about.  discuss the matter now, and everything will be fine.


 * and a belated happy easter! -- Ludwigs 2  14:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else have an opinion about whether the lede should mention that the IQ difference represents a real difference in mental ability, rather than being the result of test bias or a measurement artifact, and that this can be determined from the fact that IQ has the same predictive ability for all ethnic groups? This is something else pointed out by the APA, and it seems like it's a point of central enough importance to this topic that it ought to be one of the first things mentioned in the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)