Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Inaccuracies in "criticism" section

The following passage contains several egregious inaccuracies:

He was trying to explain why, for example, in 1492 Eurasia was almost entirely populated by settled societies with governments, literacy, iron technology and standing armies, while the other continents were almost entirely populated by stone age tribes of hunter-gatherers.

The "other continents":

In 1492, Africa was mostly iron-age and contained numerous states and hierarchical Kingdoms (e.g. Mali empire, Benin Empire, Zulu Kingdoms, Great Zimbabwe) and was mostly inhabited by sedentary agriculturalists and sedentary (e.g. khoi-khoi), semi-nomadic and nomadic pastoralists (e.g. Massai), Aside from the Khoi-San Bushmen of the Kalahari and a few Pygmy societies (e.g. Mbuti, Baka, Twa) confined to the densest tropical forests of Central Africa. "Stone-age hunter-gatherers" were largely absent form the African continent at this date. The Americas, too were mostly agricultural, and several Mesoamerican and Andean states (Tarascan, Inca, Moche) worked copper, bronze, silver and gold and numerous alloys) Additionally, there was widedspread literacy Throughout Mesoamerica (Maya, Zapotec, and Mixtec writing systems) and Andean societies used quipu , which may or may not have been a true system of writing. Much of Amazonia was settled by large Chiefdoms practicing a form of agriculture based primarily on Cassava, Sweet Potatoes, Peach Palm and Acai Palm (Santarem, Marajo, Machiparo, Xingu). The Eastern woodlands of North America were agricultural and home to many Mississippian city-states and chiefdoms, while the southwestern areas were peopled by maize-based Pueblo societies who built many towns with stone and adobe architecture (e.g. Taos Pueblo, Mesa verde, Chaco Canyon). In 1491- hunter gatherers in the Americas were confined mostly to Patagonia, marginal areas of the Amazon Rainforest, the Arctic and Sub-arctic, parts of the Great Plains and the Northwest Pacific Coast. The only continent that was mostly settled by Hunter-gatherers in 1492 would have been Australia. In his book, Jared Diamond articulates these facts very clearly. Why this vague and utterly misleading statement about "other continents" was placed in the section of this article dealing with criticism is completely mystifying to me.

64.222.101.12 (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, most of africa was iron age thousands of years before 1492, at a very early age, possibly before Eurasia, that is the debate. Diamond never mentions the Mali empire, Benin empire. He rarily mentions any specific african state or empire. He seems to focus mainly on southern Africa, which seems to fit his theory. He just rambles about Zulu defeat by Afrikaaners under Dingane, who cease using Shaka's military technique. Those Afrikaaners did not dare occupy Zulu land. Not surprising Ceshwayo, Dingane's succesor, revived Shaka military tactics and defeated a far superior force than the Afrikaaners. It is amazing this work of half truths is pimped as science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.24.111 (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

all Sahelian empires(ghana later, mali, songhay, Kanembu) were literate with standing armies, about the same time literacy was spreading throughout eurasia. The spread of Islam in Africa, spread literacy, just like the spread of Christianity in Europe around the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.24.111 (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Domestication

From the Origin of Species, a quote that seems relevant:

If it has taken centuries or thousands of years to improve or modify most of our plants up to their present standard of usefulness to man, we can understand how it is that neither Australia, the Cape of Good Hope, nor any other region inhabited by quite uncivilised man, has afforded us a single plant worth culture. It is not that these countries, so rich in species, do not by a strange chance possess the aboriginal stocks of any useful plants, but that the native plants have not been improved by continued selection up to a standard of perfection comparable with that acquired by the plants in countries anciently civilised. --Gargletheape (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The quote is obsolete. Amazonia is one of the last places on earth populated by humans, yet it is one of the most biodiverse (including many species edible or useful to people). Ethnobotanists and archeologists (Denevan, Erickson, Balee) now believe that a great deal of this biodiversity is anthropogenic. Darwin was speculating at a time when we did not have enough data, and he was speculating on places he himself had not done extensive research. He was writing at a time when there had been practically no anthropological research on the "uncivilized" peoples to whom he refers; in the 20th cntury there has been a great deal of research on such groups and how they adapt to, and in the process modify, their natural environment, so we know better now. Better to consider the quote a hypothesis. It turns out to be wrong, but that doesn't diminish the power of Darwinian theory, so this particular mistaken speculation is not really very noteworthy. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, okay. I do think it's worth discussing in the text, including the studies you mention, since the view adopted by Diamond (that several dozen domesticable plant and animal species all happened to be found in some places not others) is a priori pretty weird, as the Darwin quote amply testifies to. --Gargletheape (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is literatureI have not read in a LONG time so I don't feel qualified to add to the article. I know in the Amazon Anna Roosevelt wrote a very accessible book called Parmana in which she argued that pre-Colombian Amazonian peoples cultivated corn in sufficient quantities to support large cities (in the several thousands - pretty large for pre-Colombian America!). The book made a big splash because before her many people thought that the population density of the Amazon is low because the rainforest ecology cannot support large populations of people. Her book argued - very persuasively - that in fact the rainforest could and did support very large populations in urban centers. The reason Amazonain population density is so low today is bcause of the "great dying" in which native peoples died by the millions from the spread of old world diseases (one thing Diamond gets right). I read the book a long time ago. i have not read these two articles, but I am guessing they cover some of the same ground:

• 2000 "The Lower Amazon: A Dynamic Human Habitat." In Imperfect Balance: Landscape Transformations in the Precolumbian Americas, D.L. Lentz, ed. Pp 455-491. New York: Columbia University Press.

• 1999 "The Development of Prehistoric Complex Societies: Amazonia, a Tropical Forest." In Complex Polities in the Ancient Tropical World, E.A. Bacus, L.J. Lucero, and J. Allen, eds. Pp. 13-34. Arlington: American Anthropological Association.

The debate over whether humans in Amazonia contribute to or inhibit biodiversity has mostly been debated by conservation ecologists, the main articles are:

• Chapin, Mac 2004 "A Challenge to Conservationists." World Watch November-December 2004 pp. 17-31. (probably available on-line, you can try googling it)

• World Watch 2005 From Readers (responses to ―A Challenge to Conservationists‖ by Mac Chapin). World Watch January-February 2005 pp. 5-20.

• Schwartzman, Stephen, Adriana Moreira, and Daniel Nepstad 2000 "Rethinking Tropical Forest Conservation: Perils in Parks." Conservation Biology 14(5): 1351-1357.

• Redford, Kent H. and Steven Sanderson 2000 "Extracting Humans from Nature." Conservation Biology 14(5):1362-1364.

• Schwartzman, Stephen, Daniel Nepstad, and Adriana Moreira 2000 "Arguing Tropical Forest Conservation: People verses Parks." Conservation Biology 14(5): 1358-1361.

Bill Balee is most famous for his book Footprints in the Forest; Wm. Denevan has written a LOT of articles, I am not sure where to begin but this is probably the best place:

• 1992 “The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492,” in Annals of The Association of American Geographers 82(3): 369-385.

This is all for Amazonia. Richard Lee wrote a book called !Kung-San about the peoples of the Kalahari and one thing he documents is they eat about half the food available to them. The implication is that their societies are small not because they lack sufficient food, but because they have cultural reasons for not wanting to form large, dense societies. Marshall Sahlins, drawing largely on data from Australia, makes a similar argument in his essay "the Original Affluent Society" in his book Stone Age Economics. I do not know if Diamond cites any of this literature (i do not have his book at hand) but frankly, if he doesn't cite it, it means he is under-informed about Australia, Namibia, and Amazonia. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't understand why you don't feel qualified to modify the article! I've heard of a few of these sources, but most are new to me, and I'll scan them when I am able. I think on the whole what you say coheres better with Darwin's intuitive view, that the distribution of domesticable species isn't peculiarly biased against non-Eurasian places, minus of course his 19th century biases about civilization etc. Diamond basically says biodiversity was one of the major limiting factors in what different peoples "did", or at least that's what I took from the book.--Gargletheape (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I do not have the articles on hand (or Roosevelt's book) and do not have time to reread them and to make meaningful conribution to the article I would need to have them at hand and b rereading them before editing. I do not think anyone who works in Amazonia think that biodiversity there in any way limited human endeavors, but I cannot provide specific quotes or citations. I appreciate your willingness to look for some of these articles and hoe others who watch this article and who have time might find it orth their while to try too. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No horses

Diamond points out that the Europeans had horses to domesticate, "native" Americans did not. What he fails to point out is that they did have horses 20,000 years ago when the "natives" first arrived. They ate them!

A bit reminiscent of someone killing their parents and trying for the court's sympathy because they are orphans! Need a WP:RELY citation to make this statement, which I do not have right now. Student7 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

This recent edit introduced:

While Diamond advocates the treatment of history as a science (p. 425) subject to the comparative method and experimentation, he stereotypes evidence for differences in IQ between peoples of different geographic origins as the work of "numerous white American psychologists" (p. 20) without reviewing research such as that synthesized by Linda Gottfredson and presented as the consensus view of Mainstream Science on Intelligence.

While such text would be great in an article written by a particular author (where this para would be the view of the author), it is not suitable here because it is an editor's commentary, that is, original research—not permitted. All information in an article here needs to be verifiable, and while the components of the text can be verified, the connection of them is known as WP:SYNTH—"synthesis", where an editor connects facts to suggest some conclusion. It's a while since I read the book, but I don't recall the issue of intelligence as being a significant part of the argument, apart from an attempt to show the errors in initial European views like "obviously we are smarter because they haven't even invented the wheel". If my recollection is correct, the commentary also has a WP:DUE problem. To support the above text, we would need a reliable source written by a relevant authority (e.g. not a geologist or a psychologist) which asserts that Diamond's argument is incorrect, and a significant reason for why Europeans successfully dominated other regions was due to their higher IQ.

One minor point: there is too much over-linking: we only link topics that are likely to provide information expanding on the topic of this article, and linking "history", "science", and other common terms dilutes the value of useful links. I hope to get a chance to join in the editing, but that is unlikely for a week or so, apart from routine stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Criticism section is undue

The criticism/response section is currently half of the article, while the reception section is three lines. The book has not generated enough controversy and criticism to warrant such extensive coverage. Does anyone have any specific suggestions of what should be kept, or better ways to summarize the criticism/response content? aprock (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, the section "The theory outlined" is anything but an outline, and should be cleaned up as well. aprock (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Aprock. The Criticism section is too large. It needs to be shortened. Omegastar (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Some opposing views removed

See this edit: [1]. Please explain why? The views are well-sourced and from different viewpoints. I hope we can work to have an encyclopedia that includes all views.Miradre (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's 99% original research. And the only legitimately termed "criticism" of Diamond's book was a mere passing mention in Templar, quote: "Diamond’s conceptualization contributes to some but not all of the big picture" which you embellished way out proportion. The rest is pure OR.

You must have had a rejuvenating hiatus given your whirlwind of activity today-in just over 4 hours, changes to over 20 articles-including coming up with 6 new references to craft the new race/intelligence section here within a span of 4 minutes. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Diamond is mentioned in the abstract of Templer's and Arikawa's papper. He is mentioned several times, not just once, in the body. How about only including this view? Of course also criticism of this paper. If you do no want to include alternative geographic theories here we could link to them in another article.Miradre (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Diamond's other "mentions" in Templer/Arikawa are simply in conjunction with brief and generic outline sketch of his thesis-there is no other criticism made of it or the book. I don't know what you mean by "alternative geographic theories". But the overall pattern I'm seeing suggests the question means, "if not here, is there someplace else can we squeeze in something about Lynn and Rushton's work?"

And I think it's ill-advised to come to wikipedia looking for homes for pet sources on any topic. It's looking at the problem backwards, because normally the topic of the article determines what sources are significant. It's backwards to look at it as, "I like these sources-where can we use them?" It's especially ill-advised now given the sanctions from arbcom are still in effect. (See findings 22.1.2, 22.1.3, 22.1.6, and 22.1.7 ) Professor marginalia (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Templer and Arikawa's paper states regarding Diamond's theory: "It is likely that the Diamond’s conceptualization contributes to some but not all of the big picture provided by the present findings and assorted research. It does not mesh well with the correlation of 0.62 between cranial capacity and distance from the equator reported by Beals et al. (1984). There is probably no one conceptual contribution that explains 100% of the present findings."

Regarding the other geographic theories (like challenging environment causing higher IQ or geography allowing high population density causing selection for higher IQ, in both cases causing more advanced societies) they are of course interesting alternatives to Diamond's geographic theory but if you do not want to include them here because Diamond is not explicitly mentioned (although Diamond is mentioned in Lynn's paper briefly) then I can accept that. But in order to let the reader know there are alternatives, how briefly mentioning that there are alternative geographic theories and providing a link to another page?Miradre (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Professor marginalia is totally correct. There should be no attempt to push R&I into every article on the flimsy basis that some point in the article is mentioned in an R&I tract. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Diamond wrote his book explicitly in part as a response to race and IQ arguments. So I think those he criticizes should be allowed to present a view according to NPOV.Miradre (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No, we will not be playing any reindeer games over this. Diamond gives even less attention to heritable theories of intelligence than Templer does to Diamond's thesis about geographic disparities. There's nothing in the book about cranial capacity, period, or of the theories of Richard Lynn-and nobody has said so any of these refs. 99.89.112.51 (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Diamond does not go into specifics. Neither does the response I gave before. But in the introduction Diamond clearly states that the book was in part a criticism of race and IQ theories. So a brief reply is in accordance with NPOV.Miradre (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Terms like "NPOV" have a specific meaning (see WP:NPOV) and are not a panacea to justify coatracking favorite theories into articles with some vague connection to the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no vague connection to the topic. Diamond's book was explicitly in part a criticism of race and IQ theories. Templer and Arikawa's paper explicitly mentions and criticizes Diamond's book in the abstract as well as in the body.Miradre (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your text is more about Templer and Arikawa and their views than the subject of this article. It is simply not helpful here. Not gaining consensus does not justify tags, so please add a justification soon. Johnuniq (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to remove the criticism of their study? We can also cut the description of their theory by giving a link to another article that describes? Then there will almost only be text about the book. Currently the article is not NPOV by excluding significant criticisms of the book.Miradre (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose this text: "Templer and Arikawa (2006) argued that while the book provides one explanation for differences in human accomplishments, it did not prove that this is a better explanation than explanations based on group differences in intelligence, which may in part be due to genetic factors. In fact, they argue, it is possible that several theories may be right and each one provide part of the answer to varying human accomplishments."Miradre (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, this is largely irrelevant or at best peripheral to the book. GG&S didn't address 'the alien civilization' theory of economic development either. Doesn't mean we should put 'the alien civilization' theory about how "while the book provides one explanation for differences in human accomplishments, it did not prove that aliens weren't actually responsible". Keep it out, remove tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have another article waiting. A review article of the book by Rushton. I will add it soon.Miradre (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have included Rushton's review because a) Diamond up front dismisses psychometric research so a rebuttal is on point b) there are several books which raise the point that different environments may select for different traits (not necessarily restricted to iq, but rule following, parental provisioning, docility), such as 'Before the Dawn' by Nicholas Wade and 'The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution' by Greg Cochran & Henry Harpending. Perhaps I should refer to those books instead of Rushton's review?PK019 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

References

NPOV dispute

See this edit: [2] There is no policy justification for removing this sourced review and criticism of the book.

Since the article now excludes critical, sourced views I will add an NPOV tag. Please explain reasons for the deletions of sourced criticisms.Miradre (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a non-notable fringe criticism. Does not merit inclusion. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a review by a notable researcher. The book was created in part to criticize IQ research so according to NPOV a response is appropriate.Miradre (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The book was created in part to criticize IQ research? Really? Can you provide a citation for that statement? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly stated in the intro. Page 19-22 if I remember the actual page numbers. It is also stated in this article, see "The theory outlined section".Miradre (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a page number for "The theory outlined" section? There's no chapter by that name, and my copy does not include subheaders. As for pp. 19-22 - Diamond says that he is providing an alternative to intelligence-based theories, he does not [fixed typo, inserted missing word] say that he intends to critique them. Guettarda (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I said "this article" for that section. That is, this Wikipedia article. I should have been clearer. Not that WP is the best source but it shows that others agree with that one purpose of the book was to provide an alternative to IQ theories. As such I think a response by researchers in the field he criticizes is appropriate.Miradre (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't make the mistake of using Wikipedia articles as a source. As for using them to infer what "others" think...no, we don't do that.

A response by researchers in the field he criticizes is appropriate - again, can you provide a supporting citation? Where does he criticise Rushton? I can't find a mention of Rushton in the book or in the index. We can't work off vague assertions and the implied opinions of Wikipedia editors (which you claim to be able discern from the article) are useless. Guettarda (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Why must he mention Rushton specifically? That criteria does not apply to the other critics. Rushton works in the general field, IQ reserach, that the book criticizes or provides an alternative to. I should clarify Rushton's view which is that the book misleads the reader by presenting none of the arguments and evidence in favor of IQ theories and summarily implies that they have all been scientifically rejected.Miradre (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You said: I think a response by researchers in the field he criticizes is appropriate. Since you haven't established that the book criticises the field at all, I can only conclude that you're trying to say that Diamond criticises Rushton. Which, as far as I can tell, he doesn't. Guettarda (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You yourself you stated that the book states an intention to "critique" or provide an alternative to IQ theories. Rushton works in the field of IQ theories. Again, none of the other critics are mentioned in the book so why should this criteria apply to Rushton?Miradre (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty obvious typo on my part, now fixed. Sorry if that confused you. Guettarda (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

See the quote from the book below.Miradre (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia is not a place to promote points of view, and in particular this article should not be used as yet another place where R&I proponents can insert their hooks. The proposed material is very tangential to this article and less disruption would occur if the matter were dropped quickly. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

How can it be tangential when it was one of the stated reasons for writing the book? Miradre (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You still need a source for that assertion, as I have been telling you all day. Where was it stated? Guettarda (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

From the book, page 25: "Nevertheless, we have to wonder. We keep seeing all those glaring, persistent differences in peoples' status. We're assured that the seemingly transparent biological explanation for the world's inequalities as of A.D. 1500 is wrong, but we're not told what the correct explanation is. Until we have some convincing, detailed, agreed-upon explanation for the broad pattern of history, most people will continue to suspect that the racist biological explanation is correct after all. That seems to me the strongest argument for writing this book." Miradre (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I should also note that Rushton would likely strongly disagree with label "racist". It is like labelling all people who accept that people differ in IQ or other abilities as "social darwinists".Miradre (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, it's misleading to add emphasis to a quote without saying that you are doing so. But that's entirely beside the point. What Diamond is saying in that paragraph is that "the strongest argument" for writing the book is the lack of a "convincing, detailed, agreed-upon explanation". He isn't making the case that the "racist" explanation is wrong, he's working from the (mainstream) premise that it's wrong. Guettarda (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The most common view among the experts on the subject in the only survey done was that there are genetic differences regarding IQ between races. Rushton's criticism is that this view is described inaccurately and summarily dismissed as scientifically disproven, misleading the reader regarding the views of the scientific experts on the issue.Miradre (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As another point. There is another study that also mentions the book. It has been mentioned before but I will repeat it here since it is part of the NPOV dispute and is related to the Rushton review: "Templer and Arikawa (2006) argued that while the book provides one explanation for differences in human accomplishments, it did not prove that this is a better explanation than explanations based on group differences in intelligence, which may in part be due to genetic factors. In fact, they argue, it is possible that several theories may be right and each one provide part of the answer to varying human accomplishments."

This is somewhat similar to Rushton criticism so I think they could be combined into a single paragraph.Miradre (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This was already explained to you above. If you are having trouble digesting that, you'll have to resolve on your own. aprock (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"the alien" theory of economic development argument? That is just silly. The book does not claim to be a reply to any theories about aliens influencing economic development; the book does claim to be a reply to intelligence theories regarding economic development. As such the views of those advocating intelligence theories are relevant.Miradre (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What aliens are you talking about? Quite confused. Anyway, you're back to square one - what reason is there to create an entire section devoted to Rushton's views? Why are they notable? Why are Rushton's views notable at all? Aren't his views generally seen as lying somewhat on the fringe? Guettarda (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The "alien" argument was from an earlier discussion above.

In the only survey ever done on IQ experts, the view that there are genetic racial differences in IQ was the most common one.[3] It is not just Rushton who criticizes Diamond. Templer and Arkiawa does the same.[4]Miradre (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Two points: First, please put such thoughts on a suitable R&I page because the subject of this article is not R&I. Second, no amount of discussion is likely to be satisfying, so I suggest that no more occur unless some new material is raised. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I received a question regarding whether Rushton views were fringe which I answered. They are not (regarding IQ) among IQ reserchers. I just added new material. Some links here. Quote from Diamond's book some paragraphs above showing that the most important reason for writing the book was as a reply to theories regarding biological group differences.Miradre (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Rushton's views are fringe. Miradre refers to a community of "IQ researchers" among whom his views are not fringe. This is a community of scholars who all agree with him - I mean, the group identified as "IQ scholars" is a group of people who all share the same view. In fact, there is a larger number of scholars who debate questions concerning race and IQ and among them Rushton's views are most certainly fringe. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

IQ scholars are the scientific experts on IQ. No, not all the IQ scholars have the same view. There is on ongoing debate among IQ scholars regarding the question which is not settled. But there is no evidence that the view, that there are genetic group differences in IQ, is fringe.Miradre (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, this discussion has gotten off on all sorts of tangents that are irrelevant to this article. The relevant points are:

1. Miadre's assertion that the book was written to critique the "racist" interpretation.

   From the section s/he pointed to and the quotes s/he has provided, it's obvious that Diamond is working from the assumption that this position is wrong.

2. Miadre's assertion that Rushton is an appropriate spokesman for the field of "IQ research".

   The point of the matter is that Rushton's views are non-mainstream. Now, for all I know he might be entirely correct and is being sidelined for purely PC reasons. Or it might because he is totally wrong. That's utterly and completely irrelevant to us. Our job isn't to right great wrongs. And while discussions of Rushton's rightness or wrongness might be appropriate in an article that discusses his theories, they are utterly irrelevant here. All the more so given that R&I topics are subject to arbcomm sanctions. Guettarda (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

1. OK. I will cite another part from the book. Page 19: "The objection to such racist explanations is not just that they are loathsome, but also that they are wrong. Sound evidence for the existence of human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology is lacking." Here Diamond's misleads the reader by completely ignoring the arguments and evidence in favor such differences.

2. In the only survey ever done on IQ experts, the view that there are genetic racial differences in IQ was the most common one.[5].Miradre (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

3. It is not only Rushton. There is also the similar criticism by Templer and Arkiawa.Miradre (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You believe that the book was written to critique this. That's fine. Now you need to find a supporting citation. Your own interpretation of the book, or of this article, or any other interpretation is irrelevant. Find a third party source or drop it. As for Templer and Arkiawa...what are you arguing that they say? And please provide a citation. Guettarda (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that about "critique". Maybe a better description would be an "an argument against" or "alternative to" IQ theories. The problem is, according to Rushton, that the book describes the scientific status and evidence for IQ theories incorrectly. As such Rushton criticizes the book for misleading the reader.

You want another source for that the book is concerned about racial IQ theories? OK: "Professor Diamond’s main concern is to reject any simple racial explanation of the apparent differences in material culture between different regions of the planet. In particular, he argues that there is no essential difference in intelligence between races;"[6]

I have already in this section given a link and proposed text regarding Templer and Arkiwa but I can repeat it: "Templer and Arikawa (2006) argued that while the book provides one explanation for differences in human accomplishments, it did not prove that this is a better explanation than explanations based on group differences in intelligence, which may in part be due to genetic factors. In fact, they argue, it is possible that several theories may be right and each one provide part of the answer to varying human accomplishments."[7]Miradre (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What you seem to be missing here is that Rushton's views are clearly non-mainstream. So unless Rushton's theories are a clear focus of the book, we shouldn't include his rebuttal. See WP:FRINGE. As for Templer and Arkiawa...they aren't discussing Rushton, let alone Diamond's discussion of Rushton, so I fail to see how any of this is relevant. Guettarda (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In the only survey ever done on IQ experts, the view that there are genetic racial differences in IQ was the most common one.[8]. So Rushton is not outside the "mainstream" among IQ researcher (regarding IQ).

Templer and Arkiawa provide their own critique of the book. This is not dependent on Rushton's criticism in any way. But both their critique and Rushton's criticism should be included for an NPOV article.Miradre (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop being obtuse. This isn't an article about "IQ experts". Phillip E. Johnson is a leader of the intelligent design movement, but that doesn't mean we insert his opinion willy-nilly into evolution articles. As for Templer and Arkiawa - we are discussing this edit. I see no mention of either of them in that edit. If you want to start a discussion about them please feel free to do so. But don't send this one off on a tangent. Guettarda (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent design is a pseudoscience. IQ testing and research are not.

This section is titled "NPOV dispute" which includes if the article should include Templer and Arkiawa's criticism of the book. But we can discuss the criticisms one at a time if you prefer. Let us take the Rushton review first.Miradre (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(a) Please stop being so obtuse. It's an analogy, not a direct comparison. You argued that Rushton is mainstream in his own subfield. Since you did not provide a direct citation to the resource you linked to, I cannot verify what you're saying. It's noteworthy that you don't claim that the source says that Rushton is mainstream, you say that "view x is most common" and "Rushton holds view x". Assuming that you are correct (and your readings of Diamond give me ample reason to doubt you), that simply speaks to the prevalence of a view within a small subcommunity. Johnson's view is mainstream within the ID community, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia science articles not because it's pseudoscience, but because it's fringe. Likewise, Rushton's view, no matter how well it is accepted within his own community, lies well outside the scholarly mainstream. As do Johnson's views. So, per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, we can't treat them as if they were.

(b) Please read your own comment. You were talking about one particular edit that was reverted. It has taken over 2500 words to try to explain one simple policy issue to you. I'm not willing to be dragged into a second discussion before you have grasped this issue. Guettarda (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You can read more about the survey here: The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_(book). You are arguing that it is the views among all scientists that matter, even scientists in completely unrelated fields such as geology and astronomy, and not the the views of the actual experts on the issue? That would of course be very strange.

The partially-genetic explanation for racial IQ differences is not universally accepted among the experts in the field. Neither is the all-environmental explanation. There is an ongoing debate regarding this. But neither view is fringe. If you want the read a literature review summarizing many peer-reviewed studies supporting the partially-genetic explanation see this literature review in a journal published by the American Psychological Association: [9]Miradre (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly tenditious at this point. You're simply repeating the same arguments over and over again. Your assertion--that Diamond's book is a critique of the work by Lynn, Rushton or any in that vein, and therefore their views are automatically notable here-- is so tenuous and belabored it's absurd. The fact is that they are such minor actors compared with Diamond's numerous and more notable -not to mention more relevant- criticisms that nobody outside their little clique of Pioneer Fundeds has paid them any mind at all for their views of this book. You could argue until you're blue in the face, (which I submit you are already doing here), but that will not change the fact that they aren't notable here. Their views are insignificant. End.Of.Story. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a false description as anyone can see above. Lynn? I have not even mentioned him! Templer and Arkiawa are not PF grantees.Miradre (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You're the one asserting it's a critique of the IQ/race research, and it makes no sense to pretend Diamond's critiquing Rushton alone. He doesn't mention either of them. Besides the "passing mention" discussion of Templer etc, who took any notice of the Templer paper (besides execrable websites such as "Majority Rights" which you've linked above)? Any guesses who the few are who cite it? Professor marginalia (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It not just my assertion. Besides what I have quoted from the book I must obviously repeat this again: ""Professor Diamond’s main concern is to reject any simple racial explanation of the apparent differences in material culture between different regions of the planet. In particular, he argues that there is no essential difference in intelligence between races;"[10]

43 other papers have cited the Templer and Arkiawa study, both negative and positive, so it obviously had an impact.Miradre (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're presuming that by rejecting any "simple racial explanation of apparent differences" means "Diamond is rejecting Rushton et al", that might well be the most damning admission I've seen yet coming from an admirer. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A problem seems to be that some are unaware of the the racial genetic explanation is not a fringe view among the experts. It takes some time and explanation to correct this misunderstanding which is common among those not knowledgeable about the research.Miradre (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What ever the "problem" is in terms of real world authorities and experts writing about these topics, your problem here is that wikipedia isn't the place to "correct their misunderstanding". Professor marginalia (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read again what I stated. The "real world authorities and experts writing about these topics," know that the partially-genetic view is not fringe. This incorrect perception may be common among others. But it is the scientific experts in the field that counts.Miradre (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're basing this on an anonymous survey held decades ago, you're never going to make any headway in pushing that particular POV. aprock (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It is the only survey ever done. On the other hand, there is no evidence that the partially-genetic theory is fringe. I can also point to this literature review summarizing many peer-reviewed studies supporting the partially-genetic explanation in a journal published by the American Psychological Association: [11] Miradre (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Then whatever. Put away the survey. It's irrelevant to the issue here. The issue here is that Templer etc statements or views about Diamond are fringe. They are trivial! They are essentially substance-free, they're little more than vague conjecture, and an inconsequential tangent with essentially no comparability or contribution, qualitatively or quantitatively, to anything else in that paper. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the main goal of the book? I quote again: "Professor Diamond’s main concern is to reject any simple racial explanation of the apparent differences in material culture between different regions of the planet. In particular, he argues that there is no essential difference in intelligence between races;"[12] So it seems very appropriate according to NPOV to have a response by those who argue otherwise. If the book misleads the reader, as Rushton argues, then that is hardly trivial.Miradre (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We heard you the first six times you've said this. Whether or not the issue is trivial, Rushton and Templer's views of Diamond are trivial. And I've wasted too much time on this to continue with it another six rounds. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If you heard my answer the first time, why then do you continue bringing up the same question again and again? Miradre (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, because the answer you've given is incorrect. Guettarda (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• You can read more about the survey here - no, I can't. That's a Wikipedia article, we can't use that as a source.
• see this literature review in a journal published by the American Psychological Association - you're joking, right? You're using an article by Rushton as the basis for your assertion that Rushton's position is mainstream? Yeah... Speaking of which, before you claim that Rushton's views are mainstream, you might want to look at the links that Hrafn provided: Talk:J._Philippe_Rushton#Biological_support_for_a_biological_explanation.3F. Clearly his views are seen as fringe by biologists. And since his theories are biological, as Hrafn mentions, it's far more telling to see what biologists think of them, rather than what non-biologists think of them. The "mainstream" views of a very small, non-mainstream field aren't mainstream - not when the far larger mainstream world of biology dismisses them. Guettarda (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I gave the wikilink for your convenience. Otherwise you will have to read the copyrighted book which I obviously cannot provide online. But that does not affect WP:V criteria. You can get it at a library if interested.

Rushton does research in several areas. One is his rK theory which as you note is very controversial. But that is not the issue here which only is in regard to the partially-genetic theory for racial differences in average IQ. That is not the same as Rushton's rK-theory which is about an enormous number of different areas not related to IQ and intelligence.Miradre (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors above who have kindly given their time to defend this article, but some discussions are pointless as no amount of logic will dissuade those who wish to push their favorite topic. Consensus is clear, and further discussion is not required—indeed, more responses would merely feed the excitement. Further repetitive commentary should be removed or hatted, and anyone who wants to take the matter further should find a suitable noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I will add an NPOV tag to the section and leave it at that for now if we cannot reach an agreement here.Miradre (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, that would not be appropriate. Tagging is inappropriate if there is consensus. You might consider asking for a WP:3O. But don't tag the article just because you cannot get your way. There needs to be some unresolved dispute, Guettarda (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is another critical source criticizing the book for ignoring genetic explanations and genetic differences between populations: The 10,000 Year Explosion I do not think any of the objections you have tried to apply earlier can be used against this source. So any objections to including this criticism? See the linked WP article for its general arguments. The book mentions GG&S several times and criticizes it for ignoring such genetic explanations for differing development between different parts of the world.Miradre (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...still not citations? Why am I not surprised? Guettarda (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

One example: "In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond observed: "A larger area or population means more potential inventors, more competing societies, more innovations available to adopt-and more pressure to adopt and retain innovations, because societies failing to do well will be eliminated by competing socieites." We take this observation a stop further: There are also more genetic innovations in larger populations."Miradre (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a quotation, not a citation. And what does that have to do with either Rushton or the idea that intelligence, not geography, explains differences? Guettarda (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Does not necessarily have anything to do with Rushton. But it is a criticism of Diamond's rejection of biological differences between groups as an explanation for differing development.Miradre (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation? Guettarda (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you want the biographical details of the book? They are The 10,000 Year Explosion, Gregory Cochran, Henry Harpending, Basic Books, 2009. Page numbers? See page 66 and 121.Miradre (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sick of your rudeness. But having asked you for page numbers many times, I can only conclude that your refusal to provide them until asked over and over is intentional obtuseness. The library's copy is currently checked out, but I have placed a recall. I should have it within the next two weeks. At that point we can continue this conversation. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see you have only asked me once before which did not cause any problems. I will be happy to wait while having an NPOV tag to indicate the unresolved nature.Miradre (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. Based on your quotation, Cochrane and Harpending aren't criticising GGAS in your quote, they're proposing to expand on Diamond's theory. So that's an entirely distinct issue. Guettarda (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Let us make it clearer. On page page 121 it is noted that GSS states that today the dominant power are those areas who a long time ago had a high population density, or areas with descendants from such areas. GSS is criticized for stating that this is entirely cultural and learned. This is very unlikely since if the cause was only due culture then it should be relatively easy for other populations to catch-up. That they do not indicates that genetic differences have occured between ancient high-density and ancient low-density areas that disfavor the later regarding current development.Miradre (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I find your grammatically challenged morass of text rather difficult to follow. A direct quote from C&H might help. Figure out what you're trying to say before you write. Try using shorter sentences. And re-read it before hitting [save], bearing in mind that the rest of us don't know what you're thinking, only what comes out. Guettarda (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, even if the text itself is quite long but I will try to quote the relevant parts. "Jared Diamond observed in Guns, Germs, and Steel that "the nations rising to new power are still ones that were incorporated thousands of years ago into the old centers of dominance based on food production, or that have been repopulated by people from those centers...Prospects for world dominance of sub-Saharan Africans, Aboriginal Australians, and Native Americans remain dim. The hand of history's course at 8000 BC lies heavily on us." But what kind of experiences are we talking about? Diamond asserts that such differences were entirely cultural, that is to say, learned-but if this were so, populations that missed out on these experiences could in principle catch up rapidly... ...On the other hand, genetic changes that accommodated people to a dense hierarchical society could easily have developed over those millenia, and genetic information can't easily be transferred-yet."
• Also, if you have trouble getting the book about the survey of IQ experts here is a journal article with only the survey: "Snyderman, Mark; Rothman, Stanley (1987), "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing", American Psychologist, v42 n2 p137-44 Feb 1987"
• Finally, here is a link to Rushton's review of GSS: [13]
• Happy reading! Miradre (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Cochran/Harpending stuff is arguably tenable. (note: as far as I can see, the challenge it presents against Diamond has nothing to do with IQ or cranial measurements today and other such esoterica Miradre's trying to shoehorn here a la Rushton, Templer et al.) Discussion of it should break out to a different section. (And unless I'm mistaken and those authors connect Diamond to present day heritability measurements of IQ, then absolutely NO-just because Cochran and Harpending talk about IQ elsewhere doesn't mean it can be SYNTH'd to Diamond to coatrack Rushton et al in here). Professor marginalia (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

PS - Drop the Survey of expert opinion on intelligence. For good. It's irrelevant here. It has no direct connection to this book! You're not allowed to connect them. Its authors didn't. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cochran/Harpending also continue with "If the root causes of these differences are biological changes affecting cognitive and personality traits, changes that the product of natural selection acting over millenia, conventional solutions to the problem of slow modernization among people with shallow experience of farming are highly problematic. And yet, methods based on an underlying biological causes might be very effective."
• Cochran/Harpending in another section goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews, including with heritability calculations, but since that is not directly connected with GSS I agree that that part is not relevant for this article.
• I included the citation for the survey due to earlier claims here of "fringe" status for the partially-genetic explanation for group differences in IQ.Miradre (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, someone needs to take a look at the The 10,000 Year Explosion article too since it looks like possibly some monkey business has been going on there as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is on my to do list.Miradre (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I'm pretty sure you understand that I think *other* eyes are needed on that article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Cochran is a contributor to the gene expression blog. Popular figures from blogs or youtube channels do have a tendency to inspire fans to come and tell the story. Oftentimes fans are over-excited to come "set the record straight" on wp--but this tendency isn't necessarily orchestrated. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sid Meier's "Civilization"

Just lurking, and surprised that Sid Meier's 1991 Video Game "Civilization" is nowhere mentioned given its clear position as background not so much to the more specific ideas than to the general ambition and reception of Diamond's book. 188.155.139.175 (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism by Rushton removed

See [14]. While the text removed has some problems such as "and others" when only Rushton is cited, I think it can be easily be modified to contain no OR. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rushton's website: http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org strikes me as being sophomoric - not academic at all. It was created just to push Rushton's views on evolution. I can't see giving credence to what Rushton has to say and certainly don't think the website should be used as a citation. GroveGuy (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The website is just having a copy. The article was published in a journal: [15]. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to include something about Rushton (much more neutrally worded than the way it was in there), AS LONG as we also let readers know who Rushton is. Pioneer Fund etc.VolunteerMarek 09:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

the article already includes a line about this guy. more than enough.-- altetendekrabbe  09:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a straw-man. None of Rushton's actual arguments are stated. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Altetendekrabbe, yeah, you're right - that should be sufficient.VolunteerMarek 10:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

To summarize Rushton's views:

1. The book ignores the alternative or complementary explanation of IQ differences instead of geography explaining cultural differences.
2. Makes no mention of the evidence supporting the IQ explanation.
3. Rushton had send Diamond copies of published research on the relationship between brain size and IQ and racial differences which Diamond neither answered to or mentioned in the book.
4. "It seems incredible that, as an evolutionary biologist, Diamond seems unaware that it is different environments that cause, via natural selection, biological differences among populations."
5. "When evolutionary biologists describe ultimate and proximate factors they typically do so to describe how natural selection works on genes. Diamond is far too well-informed and experienced an evolutionist not to know this. Brain size and IQ are obvious candidates for mediating mechanisms".
6. "Even if cultural innovation were initially the result of relatively favorably geographic processes, each such innovation would itself set the stage for for a process of genetic selection for those best adapted to survive under such conditions."
7. "Further, if being centrally located increases the probability of receiving cultural innovations the arise elsewhere, if also increases the probability of receiving genes that provide a relative advantage in applying such innovations."
8. Diamond was not the first to propose geography: "Diamond's conclusion, neither novel or unique (Croby 1986; Darlington 1969)"
9. Diamond does not specify or give credit regarding which of the ideas presented are those of other scholars by not having inline references.
10. The book seems to be a response to the influence of the then recent Bell Curve debate.
11. Diamond's stated strong emotional response to arguments regarding racial differences in IQ seems to affect the presentation. An example of the moralistic fallacy.

Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please use one of the many other articles available to battle over the Race and Intelligence issues—this article is about a book. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Rushton's review is about the book. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Rushton's views are in the extreme minority. I.e. His opinions should be afforded the proper WP:WEIGHT of precisely zero. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In the only survey ever done on IQ experts his view, the partially-genetic explanation, was the most common one: The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book). Old, but there are no survey more recent.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:UNDUE the one line inserted so far is more than enough. There is no need for an article on a book to represent peripheral side-issues, hardly addressed in the book, in a disproportionate way. Mathsci (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Just having a line ("J. Philippe Rushton, whose racial arguments on IQ were branded as racist in the book, said that it seemed that the evolutionary biologist Diamond did not know about evolutionn.") including Diamond's character attack on Rushton ("racist") and only including what seems to be a straw man version of Rushton's argument hardly seems NPOV. Furthermore, "evolutionary biologist Diamond did not know about evolution" is not an argument made by Rushton. Rather one of Rushton's argument is that Diamond knows very well relevant things regardng evolution he does not mention in the book. Anyway, the local current consensus does not seem to support changing the text so I will not edit the paragraph. Hopefully more uninvolved editors will add their views. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The usual advice is to comment on content and not contributors. Mathsci (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, what part of his post commented on contributors. Secondly, given the survey and that JD said he wrote the book in response to the hereditarian hypothesis on race and intelligence (note I haven't read the book; I'm just going of what others have said) the article should have some hereditarian based criticism as per NPOV. 110.32.132.48 (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Hopefully more uninvolved editors will add their views" (my emphasis). That is a comment on editors, not on content.

As others have said, this article is not related to the article Race and intelligence (the talk page of which you have just edited, cf [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]). The survey that you mention also has nothing to do with this book, so any further discussion of that particular point is WP:UNDUE on this talk page and would be disruptive. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Diamond, as stated in the book, wrote the book at least in part as a response to the race and intelligence debate. Thus it is related to that discussion. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A mention in a book dealing with a lot of big picture topics does not entitle coatracking of undue views here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Making a series of non sequiturs to justify inclusion of material which is not directly related to the book (the subject of this article) is WP:UNDUE as well as unhelpful. It would disproportionately skew the article as several experienced editors have already mentioned. Stringing togetehr isolated cherry-picked sentences from a chain of unrelated sources could be used to justify even the most abstruse kind of point, but not in a convincing way, nor in a way recognized on wikipedia, and evenly formally disallowed in this particular topic area. Mathsci (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify what Diamond said in the book (page 25 in the Prologue): "Until we have some convincing, detailed, agreed-upon explanation for the broad pattern of history, most people will continue to suspect that the racist biological explanation is correct after all. That seems to me the strongest argument for writing this book. Authors are regularly asked by journalists to summarize a long book in one sentence. For this book, here is such a sentence: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves."" Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The topic is not discussed extensively in the book and the topic itself is tangential to the actual content of the book (it is possible to produce a chain of tenuous arguments to suggest otherwise, but that is just undue WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). When the Royal Society awarded their Poulenc prize for the book, a citation was produced, presumably of more than one sentence. Their evaluation is far more relevant to the article (at present it is nor even summarised). At the moment you are just trying to use this article as a WP:COATRACK for quite unrelated content. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Presumably the author himself is an authoritative source regarding why he wrote the book and how to summarize it. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting now that the main reason Jared Taylor Jared Diamond wrote his book was in response to this debate? That is not what the article states at present. Is it perhaps your own personal interpretation of one sentence, which is not actually central to the book or in fact discussed in any depth there? On wikipedia editing usually goes somewhat in the opposite direction: to take fifty pages and summarise them in two or three sentences. Therein lies the meaning of WP:DUE. Mathsci (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The quote speaks for itself and obviously the book is a better source regarding its content than Wikipedia's article. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Quotes do not speak for themselves. Quotes can be interpreted different ways. Quotes must be understood in context. When someone says that a quote "speaks for itself," it usually means that they are too lazy to take the effort to read and try to understand the larger work and thus be able to understand the quote in context, or it means that theey are just pushing their own POV and cowering behind someone else's words, taken out of context. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The quote does in fact speak for itself: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves." As the quote does not mention Rushton or his work in any way, using that quote to push Rushton content into this article is absurd, disruptive, and amounts to POV pushing. aprock (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A reviewer does not have to be mentioned in a book in order for his review are to be relevant. Most or all of the reviewers of the book mentiond in this article are not named in the book. Please represent my point correctly. The full quote from Diamond was "Until we have some convincing, detailed, agreed-upon explanation for the broad pattern of history, most people will continue to suspect that the racist biological explanation is correct after all. That seems to me the strongest argument for writing this book. Authors are regularly asked by journalists to summarize a long book in one sentence. For this book, here is such a sentence: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves."" Here is a review stating that the book is at least in part an argument against racial IQ differences as an explanation for societal differences.[26].Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

using that quote to push Rushton content into this article is absurd, disruptive, and amounts to POV pushing aprock (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I can't find any mention of Rushton in that source. Guettarda (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

See my earlier statements including the one immediately above regarding if a reviewer has to be named in a book in order to be relevant. We seem to be going in circles currently. I will not currently add material regarding Rushton to the article since I do not think there is currently a local consensus for that. I hope more editors will add their views. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I read what you said. You are arguing that Rushton's views are relevant even though Diamond doesn't mention him by name. And you provided a source to buttress your assertion. Which is fine. Except that the source doesn't mention Rushton. If Lamal doesn't connect Diamond's book with Rushton, what's the point of it? Surely you aren't saying that Lamal's mere mention of "racial IQ differences" is a magic word that, said three times, automatically summons BeetlejuiceRushton? Because that would just be absurd. Guettarda (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Let us say there is a book that has as a major topic the issue of global warming. It does not name a particular global warming researcher. Is this global warming reseracher still allowed to write a review of the book? Yes, I would say. Can Wikipedia still quote this review in an article about the book despite the book not naming this researcher? Yes, I would say. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. What does that have to do with this article? This isn't a book about global warming, and Rushton isn't a global warming researcher. I fail to see why you are rambling on about all this irrelevant stuff. Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Or, to put it otherwise - if you can only make your point by analogy, make sure the analogy applies. Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I again think we are now going in circles. I have stated my case. As stated, I will not currently add material regarding Rushton since I do not think there is a current local consensus. I hope more editors will add their views. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Going in circles? Really? You're in a habit of making disjointed statements while ignoring requests by other editors that you make some sense? I see. Then I really think you need to read WP:DE. Guettarda (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

BeetlejuiceRushton is a pretty marginal figure who simply keeps repeating the same claims whatever the venue. Diamond's book was very widely reviewed. If we are going to include in this article an account of different reviews, maybe we should first come up with a reasonable and neutral search criterion (e.g. most widely cited reviews, or reviews in the top journals) rather than cherry-pick reviews that say what we want to say. We should never use quotes simply as a means to include an editor's view in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Guettarda, I will try to be clearer. Is there a policy stating that Wikipedia disallows reviews if the author of the review is not named in the material being reviewed? I do not know any such policy. The book, as I have argued above, provided input in the race-IQ debate, and Rushton, a researcher in that area and a well-known proponent of the other side in the debate, have reviewed that input. Therefore, I argue it is relevant and should be mentioned. There are currently no views from the opposing side regarding the race-IQ issue in the article which is needed for the article to be NPOV. But I recognize that I do not currently have a consensus for that and will not add that to the article. I hope more editors will add their views. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I should have clicked through to your user page sooner...but then, I thought you were still topic-banned, Miadre. I agree - until someone comes along with something new to add to this topic, we should not discuss it further. Guettarda (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, given the quote supplied above, this book is about R&I, so we need to make sure the opinion of most researchers in the field is included. Say you have piece of media that is reviewed well in the press, but supports a minority point of view. Are you to argue that Wikipedia's article on the media, whatever it is, should not contain any mention of the mainstream view of experts? 110.32.192.144 (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I can recommend reading the book. It's interesting, and it would help avoid mistaken comments. Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP might also read the responses of Jared Diamond in this transcript of a 2004 PBS interview about the book.[27] The other topics raised by the IP have nothing to do with this article and seem unhelpful, Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

1. What of my comments were mistaken? (I have seen the film.) 2. "The other topics raised by the IP have nothing to do with this article and seem unhelpful" - This is an assertion which you offer no evidence for. 3. You didn't answer the question. 110.32.150.94 (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The book, which is a historical account, does not mention IQ tests anywhere, nor does Jared Diamond in the interview. So, as almost everybody else has mentioned here apart from one other user, any attempt to use this article as a WP:COATRACK for topics covered by WP:ARBR&I would be WP:UNDUE. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

IQ tests are mentioned on page 20 of the prologue. Intelligence mentioned numerous times throughout the book. Here is a review stating that the book is at least in part an argument against racial IQ differences as an explanation for societal differences.[28] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Passing comments like that cannot be used as an excuse for making this article into a WP:COATRACK. There is also a negative review by Michael Levin from a similar viewpoint. He too takes issue with the book because of his own particular stance. It would be fair to say that the book gives a point of view on a very general topic, within science and history, but is not directly concerned with any of the issues involved in racial IQ differences in the USA. Multiple other editors have agreed. As with evolutionary psychology, inserting this kind of content willy-nilly over wikipedia does not help readers. Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether the book mentions IQ tests is not relevant: the point is that the book is nothing to do with IQ tests or intelligence in general. The book is concerned with the very big-picture question of why certain cultures developed advanced technology and others did not. It discusses a wide variety of issues, such as the geographical fact that Eurasia lies east-west, while the Americas and Africa lie north-south (various very interesting ideas spring from that). Another significant issue concerns the fact that only certain animals such as cows and pigs have been domesticated, while some continents have no animals suitable for domestication. I believe there is one short paragraph in the prologue that mentions IQ. Using that paragraph as a reason to coatrack a psychologist's views would be UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop throwing WP:COATRACK around like it's relevant. WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT WHY IT DOESN'T APPLY. Note you still haven't answered the question. 1 paragraph can be important; it explains why he wrote the book. What is undue is giving no mention of the mainstream opinion on the topic the book is written for. 110.32.128.190 (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(a) Rushton isn't mainstream; (b) this has already been explained. Please see WP:IDONTHEARYOU. Stop disrupting this page. Guettarda (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Could the IP please indicate whether he has edited through any named accounts recently, e.g. TheTrunchbull. (talk · contribs) Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Guettarda, Rushton is more mainstream on this particular topic than Diamond is, as per the survey. This has already been explained. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I see no relevance of your link to anything going on here. Did you mean to link to the article I just linked to? Mathsci, that is a comment on editors and not on content, but since I will be generous, the answer is that I have not. 110.32.128.190 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? I find that rather hard to believe - Rushton is a psychologist, not a geographer, while Diamond, although a physiologist by training, holds is a professor of geography at UCLA. What's your basis for saying that Rushton's views are more mainstream in cultural or environmental geography than are Diamonds? Guettarda (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The IP address is also confusing significance and notability. Rushton is the most notable proponent of this particular point of view. But the point of view itself is a fringe point of view. Diamond's book is not especially original - his argument is really a synthesis of a good deal of well-established research in anthropology, geography, and history. He is not the most important figure in any of these fields (although he is as Guettarda points out a fully qualified geographer), but his work is the most notable synthesis of mainstream research. Mainstream, which is why Rushton doesn't make the grade. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at Rushton's bio and I noted that his argument is primarily an evolutionary ecology article. So even if you see this as an article about human evolutionary ecology, Diamond still wins hands down, given that he's been publishing on that topic since the 1970s, and has been very widely cited in the ecology and evolution literature. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about R&I! That's why I said "this particular topic". I am sorry I caused confusion, though it means we forget about the comments between this post and my previous one, right? 110.32.128.190 (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is, of course, the problem. This article isn't about "race and intelligence". But even if it were, Rushton's theories are evolutionary-ecological...a topic in which Diamond's views are far more mainstream. Guettarda (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. We have been through this lots of times, and repeating your claim until everyone leaves doesn't make it true. I am not talking about Rushton's r/k stuff; that's not the point. And what "is, of course, the problem"? 110.32.128.190 (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that you've made four edits total, it's difficult to see how it can be that "We have been through this lots of times" unless you are a sock of someone. Allow me to suggest that you either log into your usual account, or sign up for one, so we can avoid further confusion about the nature of an IP with four edits. aprock (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

We are now going waaaay of topic, but if you must. My User Contribs says I have made 4 edits because my IP shifted between Feb 22 and 24. Both me and Acadēmica Orientālis have "been through this lots of times" on this very page. 110.32.128.190 (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to again suggest that you sign up for an account. Keeping track of IP migration is something no one has time for. aprock (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

We are now going even further off topic (note you still haven't answered my question), but the reason I don't create an account is, as lame as it sounds, that I can't think of a decent name. 110.32.147.245 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry 110... it isn't about "race and intelligence". That's just reality. Read the book. Look through it's index. There's nothing there about it. Sure, we've got people saying that Diamond should have addressed their theories. But he didn't. And no matter how important Rushton is in the "race and intelligence" community, it's still a very, very minor community. GGAS might be a big deal to them, but from the perspective of GGAS, Rushton et al. are pretty small fish.

As for evolutionary ecology - you're mistaken. The ONLY way that race could be used to explain anything here is either through the prism of evolutionary ecology, or through a claim of separate special creation of each race. And whatever his flaws, Rushton does not appear to deny human evolution. Guettarda (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I am now getting rather annoyed for having to refute the same thing over and over and over and over again. It's about race and intellegence because he says that is the main reason he wrote it. That's just reality. Read the comments. Evolutionary ecology: it does not matter why the mainstream opinion among psychologists is that the black/white IQ gap is partially genetic, since it is the case per WP:WEIGHT we need to include it as that's why the book was written. We can actually move this debate forward if you stop repeating yourselves and/or answer the question, which was: "Say you have piece of media that is reviewed well in the press, but supports a minority point of view. Are you to argue that Wikipedia's article on the media, whatever it is, should not contain any mention of the mainstream view of experts?" 110.32.195.250 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is where the confusion is arising from. Generally speaking, why you say something is not the same thing as what you say. That Diamond's motivation for writing the book is different from what the book is about seems clear, though it appears you disagree. That's fine. The WP:DEADHORSE is quite dead. Further "refutations" are unlikely to be productive. But you are free to keep flogging. aprock (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

So because you can't actually counter my arguments, your tactic is to say that no one's interested so therefor I should give up? On the matter of why he wrote the book, is there a Wikipedia policy that says we should only discuss what, not why? 110.32.155.179 (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

IP hopping could be a way of evading sanctions for WP:TE. Mathsci (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Romney Criticism

Is there a consensus not to include anything about the Diamond's criticism of Romney's take on the book. I think the edit that came after mine did a good job of contextualizing what the discussion was about. I think the point about it not being news was a good one, but I feel like it is still significant because it was a discussion of the book by a presidential candidate that the author choose to author a response in the New York Times. I'm interested in other people's take. Thanks! Dhawk790 (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to include it. It was not so much a "discussion of the book by a presidential candidate" as a passing mention in a speech by a politician trying to gain points. It gained enough buzz to merit a public rebuttal by the author. That does not mean this transient volley needs to be preserved for the ages in an encyclopedia article on a substantial work of nonfiction. If it still seems significant in six months, then it might be worth putting back in. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Opinions from people with no expertise in the area are not suitable for an article, and this page is not the place to poke a politician. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This item about a politician's not being able to understand the book belongs in the article about the politician. Here we need reviews of the book. GroveGuy (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)