Talk:Fertility and intelligence

Politically motivated entry

This article is clearly an attempt by an individual to deconstruct continual evidence proving that intelligence is negatively correlated to the will to be a parent. Before this I read an article, one among many, outlining research by Satoshi Kanazawa at the London School of Economics, explicitly showing a consistent correlation between lower intelligence and parenthood among women. One such article is here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2384787/Too-clever-mother-The-maternal-urge-decreases-QUARTER-15-extra-IQ-points.html With such blatant ignorance of both empiricle data and rational deduction by experts, any previous editor who chooses to focus on this subject at Wikipedia must be politically motivated. I suggest this article should be deleted, or comnpletely rewritten with regard to actual research, most of which does indeed prove a link, however controversial the ethical considerations may be. What utter nonsense this page currently is - so unqualified is the content that I may even return to it in future just for personal amusement. 'IQ correlates to Income' - what utter Toss! 'There is no conclusive evidence of a positive or negative correlation between human intelligence and fertility rate' - again, a quick Google search will succinctly prove otherwise. 2.110.239.227 (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The daily mail is blacklisted source on wikipedia, it cannot be cited as evidence as of right now

the link between income and intelligence is incredibly well documented WikiLover01 (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fertility and intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723173731/http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/late/dysg_sc.html to http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/late/dysg_sc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This page is eugenics advocacy, strictly against wikipedia TOS

This whole article is genuinely incredibly worrying, it routinely cites white supremacists and labels their ideas as "controversial" - euphemising their positions while obfuscating the fact all academic consensus and genetic evidence refutes the dysgenic positions and eugenic ideas. Wikipedia doesn't have an inbuilt report page button, but I will be making a series of edits to try to remove the worst of this. Partially because, regardless of the ethics of dysgenics, many of these awful racists aren't even warranted from a "credible source" perspective to be on this wikipedia. William Shockley was a physicist, I have edited him out because he had absolutely no expertise on this subject. If you wish to include him because his belief in eugenics became widely known, then that belongs in the History of eugenics page. Same applies to Weyl (physicist/mathematician again) and Possony (military strategist) - I've removed them both. Daniel Vining Jr was a demographer, he is the first entry that even possibly can be argued to comply with wikipedia's reputable source guidelines - but I highly highly doubt modern scholarly consensus validates the dysgenic position, however I would need to look into that personally before removing him. Likewise, Wikipedia as a whole has had the turf war about the Bell Curve already, it isn't a credible source - and cannot at all be cited except with many notes explaining why modern scientists disagree with it. I haven't removed that one though, because that's a big decision and I want to make sure other (non-eugenicist) editors agree its removal is warranted. I worry that I am engaging with this article in far better faith than it deserves. Fascism is a loser ideology, and I'm worried that this article comes dangerously close to perpetuating it.

WikiLover01 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:PROFRINGE / WP:OR

I have recently cut a number of WP:PROFRINGE and WP:OR statements from the article. Each of my 7 edits was accompanied by a specific edit summary. Donny Frost has now reverted twice to restore this material, with the edit summaries I don't see what's fringe here and explain why this is fringe on the talk page. I am of course happy to engage on the talk page, but the contested material must remain out until a consensus is achieved for inclusion, per WP:ONUS, and I would suggest that Danny Frost state what they object to about each of my edits. I will start off the conversation by noting that my largest edit [1] removed WP:FALSEBALANCE from the lead which gave equal prominence to "proponents of dysgenics" and their critics. In fact, the idea that human population groups are subject to dysgenic effects is a WP:FRINGE idea. Further, two of the sources that were cited there did not mention dysgenics at all, meaning that they were presented in a way that suggests WP:SYNTH. The third refers to "dysgenic fertility" as one of a set of "disproved hypotheses". Generalrelative (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a fact things are fringe if you say so? Donny Frost (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It's "fringe"? It's trivially obvious that that's at least possible. Honestly this project is a complete embarrassment with you censoring every article to your extreme left POV. Donny Frost (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Being "possible", whatever that means, is not enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. It needs to be considered in reliable sources. Neither Teasdale not Pietschnig seem to mention fertility, so the connection is WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative claims "the idea that human population groups are subject to dysgenic effects is a WP:FRINGE idea." Seems rather odd. This would imply that not a single desirable and heritable trait would be associated with lower fertility in any human population group. Where was the decision to label "dysgenic effects in human populations" as fringe idea made and on what basis? --2A00:23C5:E31B:4801:E9B9:6E10:89E9:4658 (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This is just mainstream science. Not for us to do original analysis here. See the sources cited at main article Dysgenics. Generalrelative (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources provided in the dysgenics article give no explanation as to why two studies you removed are not mainstream science. You have not provided any explanation as to what original research I have done. In fact, your claim about no genetic studies showing dysgenics based on two sources and removing much more widely cited sources published in much more prestigous publications is original research. Quantitative genetics is very much mainstream science, no?86.140.248.145 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)86.140.248.145 (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)