Wikipedia

Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 96

< Talk:Race and intelligence
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Maunus in topic Replacing systematically disadvantaged with supposedly disadvantaged
Archive 90←Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98→Archive 100

Joseph Graves

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

"Anthropologist C. Loring Brace[39] and geneticist Joseph Graves contradict the notion that cluster analysis and the correlation between self-reported race and genetic ancestry support biological race."

I'm not sure Graves is cited enough to consider him a mainstream source. FrankRamsbottom (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Graves has subject matter expertise, and he is cited a lot in medically reliable sources, including sources listed in the specialized source list on anthropology and human biology. He is well respected among authors who regularly write on this topic in academic publications with strong peer review. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you give some examples of him being cited please? FrankRamsbottom (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Citations alone does not determine mainstream status, fringe literature is also cited - just in very different contexts. Google scholar however gives 263 citations to Graves book "The Emperor's New CLothes" which is his popularizing account of the R&I debate and its history. In contrast Rushton's Race evolution behavior has almost 600 citations, but that does not alter the fact that that book has zero credibility in academia wheras Graves' is even used as a textbook not infrequently.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
"that book has zero credibility in academia" You are lying. FrankRamsbottom (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Good luck trying to publish a paper where you cite it as a source for facts, Mike - in journals other than Mankind Quarterly or the Occidental that is not going to happen.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The book has been praised by Harpending and E.O. Wilson among others so your extreme statement is simply false. FrankRamsbottom (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I dont know about Harpending, but not by E.O. Wilson. He has stated something to the effect that "phil is a nice guy and his arguments wouldnt be so controversial if they werent about humans".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources for general dysgenic effect

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2730791/Are-STUPID-Britons-people-IQ-decline.html http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/8085-world-iq-over-time/ 74.14.49.15 (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail, a tabloid newspaper with notoriously lax editing standards, is not a reliable source for any such assertion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Should high school graduation rates be mentioned?

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I found a source on high school graduation rates, and it's mind boggling how heterogeneous and counter-intuitive they turned out. There are 5 states where black men have higher graduation rates than white men. It's also interesting to note a number that white males who attend schools in Detroit have lower graduation rates than black males. In New York only 57% of white males graduate high school while in Phildelphia it is 39%. Would this deserve mention in this article? It definitely contradicts what is said by many race and intelligence researchers about white superiority. http://blackboysreport.org/national-summary/black-male-graduation-rates Turtire (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Graduation has nothing to do with intelligence. Bullying, crime, poverty, and attitude of the household matter. The largest group of kids that end up dropping out or in jail come from the largest families. Race has nothing to do with it though. Dream Focus 00:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
To answer your question, information about high school graduation rates would deserve mention in this article insofar as reliable secondary sources mention that issue in connection with the article topic. In any event, Wikipedia content guidelines on reliable sources strongly favor secondary sources for all aspects of editing Wikipedia article text, so we would want to look at those to find out what such sources say about that issue. It is good to think about possibly related issues with good factual sources in mind, so thanks for bringing up this question. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This thread seems to be about one country alone. This encyclopaedia and this article are global. Please look at the other 95% of the world's population too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
HiLO about 90% of the literature about this opic is specificalloy about the US and research done in the US on US populations. So there is not way that the US is not going to get disproportinate coverage. I am planning to write a section on the remaining 10% of the resarch which is mostly represented by Lynn and Vanhanens studies of global IQ and the literature that critiques and corrects their findings.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The already massive amount of US research is surely another reason to reject yet another narrowly based study. That disparity showing where people actually think this is an issue is also something that our article should reflect. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
No it isnt. Wikipedia needs to reflect the literature and if the literature is US centric then so will the article be. The reason not to include this is that it is a low quality primary source that has not yet become part of the literature that this article needs to review.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the article title should change to Race and intelligence in the United States of America. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Except that generally the scholars simply assume that their US based findings and arguments reflect global truths about the relations between race, biology, IQ and intelligence. That is not uncommon in social sciences.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. If the sources don't really have a global perspective, the article title ought to reflect the sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hunt 2011 and other reliable sources cast considerable doubt on relationship of brain size to article topic.

Latest comment: 10 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

Once again I see an insertion of synthesis of primary research findings, not representative of the mainstream scientific literature, into an article within the scope of the 2010 ArbCom case discretionary sanctions. I'm going to be more bold here than I have been on past occasions, and ask the editor who just inserted that content kindly to post a detailed rationale for relating brain size at all with the topic of this article. Please refer to reliable, secondary sources. I have suggestions of good sources on the topics of human ntelligence and race for editors who are interested in checking those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

All main secondary sources on this topic treat the tpoic of brain size in relation to R&I differences. The fact that some of them conclude that it is unlikely to be relevant does not mean that we shouldnt have a section on it, but only that we should represent that viewpoint. There are many reliable sources, also MEDRS degree, that include the material and conclude that brain size covaries with IQ between individual. The question is whether it does between groups. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The fact that most of those studies of brain size in relation to the topic of this article conclude that brain size is unlikely to be relevant to this article's topic means we had better be extremely careful about which primary research articles are dropped into the article section (which, if you restored it based on good sources, would find no objection from me). A lot of studies of brain size have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this article, and Hunt 2011 does point out, very clearly, that it is dubious to assert that brain size has much to do with the issues this article is about. Most of the reliable secondary sources that bring up the issue at all are reacting to fringe primary sources. Perhaps we do need to respond to those kinds of writings that are out in the broader world, but probably not as a heavily emphasized section of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
None of the sources included were primary sources. The one you chose to rely more on has only a few lines about brain size whereas other sources have much more than that. I think you should revert to my version again, which will then need to be further elaborated with sources by Deary and a few other reviews of brain size, race and IQ. The article does need to spend time engaging even those claims that are considered debunked, because our job is to inform the reader about the status of research. Many readers will be looking for the brinsize stuff and if it is not there they will put it in and well have to respond again. From my perspective the only way we can achieve a stable article is by neutrally and fairly summarize both/all notable viewpoints. Removing or reducing the brainsize section achieves the opposite of that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much every long academic writing concerned with race differences in g discuss the brain size data. This includes both primary and secondary literature. Bouchard recently wrote a new review concerning brain size, evolution and g. Bouchard is a grand old man in this field and the paper was published in the well-established Behavior Genetics journal. In his review, he discusses both the heritability of g, brain size, and their relation between individuals. He also touches on Gould's wrong claims about Morton's measurements of craniums from different populations. The heritability of brain size has a median of .82. He mentions some studies of heritability of IQ/g: "g is very significantly heritable beginning at least at age 9 and heritability increases with age until late adulthood when it reaches the mid-seventies and higher for some populations.". As for correlations between brain size and IQ/g in humans, he mentions two meta-analysis which found .33 and .38. (Rushton and Ankney (2009) and McDaniel (2005)).

Loehlin et al in their 1975 book (secondary literature) discussed the head size x IQ relation and reported various small positive correlations. They also mention that "The statistical fact that small head size for age and sex is associated with mental retardation has been known to clinicians at least since Kind’s report on 500 mentally retarded persons in 1876.". They however also wrote that "Again, head circumference, while quite possibly a valid indicator of a link between nutrition and IQ, shows little promise of accounting for U.S. between-group IQ differences, even allowing for some underestimation of black-white nutritional differences in the Ten-State study.". Remember that this is based on the data available in 1974 concerning head size (not brain size).

The current version of the section is inadequate. It cites only strict environmentalists even though these are a minority among scholars and even fewer among researchers who study race and intelligence. Rushton is mentioned but not cited directly. A good discussion of this would cite Lynn, Jensen, Rushton, Bouchard, as well as Nisbett and Hunt. It needs to be rewritten if Wikipedia is not to misinform the public among what researchers generally think, as opposed to the vocal minority thinks. Deleet (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the current section is inadequate, but the notion that Hunt and Nisbett et al. represent a "vocal minority" is delusional. yes the article should cite Jensen and Rushton, but they should not have more weight than work's such as Mackintosh, Hunt and Nisbett, Flynn et al. assign them, because those are the mainstream works that we use to assign weight to different viewpoints. Loehlins 1975 book, is too outdated to be included. Bouchard's review should be cited as should Deary's. But the weight of the two arguments should be assigned relative to Hunt and Mackintosh.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Nisbett is a vocal minority in this field. Both surveys of expert opinion find that strict environmentalism is a minority viewpoint. Rindermann carried out a new survey of experts in 2013. Strict environmentalism (for US Black vs. White difference) was 17%, compare with 15% in Snyderman et al's 1984 survey. Most researchers who actually carry out research are hereditarians. Flynn is the most active strict environmentalist (or perhaps closet hereditarian) to my knowledge. There are others who mostly comment instead of doing primary studies (e.g. authors of the paper "Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin.": Richard E Nisbett, Joshua Aronson, Clancy Blair, William Dickens, James Flynn, Diane F Halpern, Eric Turkheimer). Turkheimer is definitely a strict environmentalist, since he regards it "a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair" (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/eric-turkheimer/race-iq). He is apparently willing to make the moralistic fallacy outright. There are others you could mention, perhaps Wicherts although I'm not familiar with any direct statement by him. I didn't find any recent publication by Mackintosh with regards to race and IQ. Where did you get the idea that strict environmentalism is mainstream among relevant researchers as opposed to among non-experts? I am a researcher in the field, so I keep up with the primary literature. Deleet (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Nisbett may be vocal but his 100% environmental view is clearly not in the minority as the 2012 review (vocal minorities don't publish reviews by 8 major scholars in flagship journals), and mainstream sources such as Hunt and Mackintosh's textbooks demonstrates (both describe it as a major view, even if Hunt finds it unlikely). I am not saying it is in the majority either, but the attempt to paint the 100% environmetnalist view as a small minority view is quite simply nonsensical and only makes sense if one lives inside the magical blog universe of Steve Sailer and friends who like to see themselves as a silent and oppressed majority. Based on reliable mainstream sources, there is no doubt that the 100% environmental view is one of several mainstream views - whereas Lynns, Rushton and Jensen's view of more than 50% genetic view is not. Now specifically regarding Brain size it does seem that recent reviews of brain size IQ correlation are pretty unequivocal about the correlation (whereas the Nisbett, Flynn et al. review express some doubts not warranted by those studies). So the mainstream view here does seem to be that there is a correlation, and that needs to be conveyed by the article. Regarding brain size the 2012 Nisbett et al paper probably should not be used more than to say that some psychologists express doubt about whether the correlaiton is causal. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I cited two surveys for you where it is clearly a minority view, around 15-20%. These are the only two surveys AFAIK. Of course minority views publish reviews from their point of view in flagship journals when their view is politically sanctioned, especially by the very association that publishes the journal (APA). Minorities also publish reviews in flagship journals when current politics do not support their views.
Textbooks cost money to print, so they are reliant funding which means politics (major publishers in this case). If you read the publication history of Jensen's The g Factor, you will know that he tried for a long time to get it published without success, and eventually had to publish it with a relatively unknown publisher. Surely you see how this funding filter can bias textbooks against politically disfavored views even if they are common among scholars. I trust Hunt and Mackintosh's books on e.g. the relationship between g and, say, information processing because this has nothing to do with politics. Expert opinion in surveys indicate that Rushton and Jensen's >50% genetic model (for US blacks and whites) is mainstream. Indeed, the mean estimate is 47% in the 2013 survey. I repeat my question. Do you follow primary research in this area and conduct research yourself? If not, where did you get these ideas about what is mainstream among researchers and what isn't? Do you agree that surveys of expert opinion is a better measure of what is and isn't mainstream among scholars than are the ability to publish review articles? Especially when it is a journal owned by an association with a clear stance on the matter (APA statement)? Deleet (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Snyderman and Rothman is an ancient pre Bell curve survey that even then was methodologically flawed. It has at most historical value. The APA statement is also 20 years old. What is mainstream is not decided by surveying practitioners but by seeing what is actually published and cited in mainstream journals and in what context it is cited. There are no published 2013 surveys. I assume you are talking about Rindermans survey which has not been published yet and which seems to be very limited in its attempt to include areas of psychology where hereditarianism is less prevalent. The best way to gauge what is the status of a scientific field is by reviewing how different viewpoints are presented in reviews and secondary sources such as general textbooks and encyclopedias. Hunt and Mackintosh's textbooks are the best sources we have for determining what is an isnt mainstream views. When Steve Sailer's and the pioneer funds worldview becomes prevalent in mainstream psychology journals and textbooks it will be described as such in wikipedia, not before. We do not base editorial decisions on conspiracy theories. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Snyderman is not ancient. Rinderman's is from 2013. Here for those not familiar with it. Surely The Bell Curve would have increased the acceptance of the genetic model, not decreased it. The Rinderman survey is a survey of experts in intelligence research, not people who aren't experts in that field. When we want to know what mainstream climate science says, we don't include petroleum engineers, economists or botanists. We sample climate researchers. The same is true for this topic (so we don't sample social psychologists or cognitive psychologists). I already gave you reason to think that textbooks do not represent majority scholar opinion. Anonymous surveys are better. There are two such surveys with similar results despite being conducted by different research teams and with 30 years or so between them.
You keep writing irrelevant stuff about Steve Sailor and now included a comment about conspiracy theories (what conspiracy theory??). Please refrain from that. Thank you. Deleet (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm well enough convinced by the statements in the recent review articles about human intelligence research that brain size has a moderate positive correlation with IQ, but I haven't seen a strongly evidenced statement by any mainstream researcher that that issue has a sure relationship to the topic of this article (as contrasted, say, with Intelligence quotient), which is about observed differences in IQ scores by "race." What is causative, if anything, is a lot harder to tease out in regard to the topic of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Weij, there are no mainstream sources that dont discuss this in relation to this topic. People have studied this relation for about 200 years, it is both historically important and a part of current rsearch. Your argument is simply not making sense - I think you need to start reading some of the many sources I know you have at your disposal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

My main problem that I was trying to edit, was the part that says there is no IQ variation between men and women. That is not true and you know that. Men are typically observed to have an higher IQ of 3-4 IQ points.

Sex-related differences in general intelligence g, brain size, and social status http://www.uned.es/personal/rosuna/resources/papers/Nyborg%20sex%20differences.pdf

A longitudinal study of sex differences in intelligence at ages 7, 11 and 16 years http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/PAID2011.pdf

Typically boys over 16 have an IQ lead of around 3-4 IQ points...MicroMacroMania (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The possible sex gap in IQ is much more contested than the race gap since there isn't even agreement about whether the finding is consistent. Note how Deary and Johnsons recent review note that while brain size in general correlates with intelligence, there are several different cognitive paths to the same degree of IQ, which they use to explain why women achieve similar IQ results to men in spite of their smaller brain sizes. Other studies frequently point to the differences in neural structure in male and female brains to show that size is a good predictor within groups but not necessarily between them. Specifically on the male-female issue the differences seem to come down to which test you use and whether it depends more on visual or verbal reasoning and long term memory (see. eg. Halpern & LaMay 2000). Nisbett et al. Also do not accept the existence of male-female IQ differences. So no that proposed finding is not robust at all. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have reverted to a version of the Brain size section more similar to what it was like before Weijibaikebianjis edits on sept 16. There was no consensus for his changes to begin with, and he never got around to elaborating it as he said he would, and his edits misrepresented Hunt who clearly states that brain size may be related to the r&I gap. I did some minor copyeditng too and added a few sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Revival of source discussion

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see that several discussions of unreliable sources have crowded off of this article's talk page the helpful discussion of reliable sources from earlier. I am pasting in below, from the most recent talk page archive, the full previous discussion, with original editor signatures and time stamps. Below that (at the end of the copied-and-pasted section), I'll post one further comment about recent source discussions. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: What sources should we use to establish notability and relative balance of different viewpoints?

Latest comment: 10 years ago134 comments15 people in discussion
Closing per request at WP:ANRFC, though I suspect with the substantial agreement on many issues, the conclusions in this close will not come as any real surprise. Sorry for the long wait if folks were waiting for a close. There were many issues discussed here with various levels of participation, so I'll go through them individually:
On Proposal A, editors agreed that, consistent with WP:MEDRS, notability and balanced views on this subject will be prioritized by sources that are recently published reviews in reliable sources (such as as academic journals) or textbooks written by experts in relevant fields (such as intelligence, race, or human biological variation)
On Proposal B editors gave:
highest priority to the Daley et al. (2011) and Suzuki et al. (2011) handbook articles, the Nisbett et al. (2012) (titled "Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments") and Wicherts et al. (2010) review articles, & the Hunt et al. (2011) and Mackintosh et al. (2011) textbooks,
high priority to the Weiss (2010) handbook article, and the Hunt & Carlson (2007) and Nisbett et al. (2012) (titled "Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin") review articles, and the Mielke et al. (2006) textbook,
medium priority to the Loehlin (2000) handbook article, the Rushton et al. (2005) review article, the Neisser et al. (1996) and American Anthropological Association Statement organizational reports,
low priority to the Rindermann (2013) review article, the Gottfredson (1997) report
no consensus on the rest of the sources. (This does not mean they are lower priority; it only means there was insufficient participation or argumentation to form a conclusion.)
On Question C, though few editors responded, the consensus was that, given that the term "mainstream" does not necessarily imply a single, dominant view, it was agreed that explaining the entire IQ test score gap through environmental effects as a probable cause is a mainstream viewpoint.
On Question D, editors agreed that J. Philippe Rushton is not considered a mainstream scientist on the basis of how his work is received and discussed in the field. Consequently, in consideration of our principles on due weight, that his work is less prioritized and also contextualized based on commentary whenever it is relevant to discuss.
With regard to the no consensus sources above, editors are welcome to be bold and weigh them as they see fit in the article, but be prepared to discuss them on the talk page if challenged. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In order to move forward I propose that we establish a criterion to evaluate the ideal sources on which to depend for establishing notability, status and relative weight of different viewpoints within the Race and Intelligence literature. The proposal has been modeled on WP:MEDRS. Following this general proposal for a decision regarding quality of sourcing, we will be able to make decisions about specific sources, about how they should be weighed in determining the weight of arguments.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal A.

When establishing notability and relative balance of viewpoints within the Race and Intelligence literature should we give priority to the following kinds of sources: "1.) recent, general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable psychological and anthropological journals, 2.) widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in either the fields of intelligence, and/or Race and human biological variation, and 3.) professional guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies"?

Survey
  1. Yes For a controversial field such as Race and Intelligence which relies entirely on the quality of research and argumentation that it is beyond either the capability or responsibility of wikipedians to assess, it is of the utmost importance that we closely follow the most reliable mainstream sources and the way they weigh views and arguments.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes although I have to add one caveat specifically about the phrase "race and human biological variation", because from what little I know the concept of "race" itself as the word is generally used is pretty much discredited by academia, although they do apparently acknowledge that there are significant differences between what might be called ethnicities in some "races." John Carter (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Yes, but I wonder if just agreeing to apply the sourcing requirements of WP:MEDRS directly and explicitly might be more straightforward, and provide a stronger foundation from which to manage sourcing questions. For example, say: Use WP:MEDRS as applicable. ... <RfC text> ... aprock (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Yes. It is essential that we follow the contemporary consensus on this issue, and the proposed sources are those that will best do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  5. Yes. Standard sourcing approach for science articles, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  6. Yes. But we should cede to existing wikipedia policies when we require more thorough detail regarding balance and notability. BlackHades (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  7. Yes of course. As written, this is basically just an expression of Wikipedia policy. I have been keeping source lists on human intelligence and on race and related issues in user space here on Wikipedia for a long time. (I invite anyone participating in this discussion to recommend further sources for those source lists, each of which has a talk page.) I will comment on some specific sources below. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  8. Yes MEDRS is a fine model, which works because it represents consensus among editors (even though it's not policy); MEDRS is also valuable because current policy sets the sourcing bar too low for contentious, high-traffic areas of the literature. -- Scray (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  9. Yes. Use of high quality mainstream sources is always in order. And I concur with Scray, "MEDRS is a fine model, which works..." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  10. Yes. As above. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I have moved your comment into a separate discussion section. If you meant it to be "no" then please move it up with that wording instead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I have no position at this point. You said you're modeling your proposal after WP:MEDRS. And much of what you wrote would already fall in line with existing wikipedia policies regarding notability and balance. Could you explain what you feel this proposal would accomplish that already existing wikipedia policies regarding notability and balance such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:MEDRS would not? And if this proposal does pass, does it supersede existing wikipedia policies on notability and balance? What happens if a source follows existing wikipedia policies but doesn't follow the guidelines for your proposal? Or how about the reverse, what happens if a source follows your guidelines but happens to violate some wikipedia policy? Which supersedes which? BlackHades (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I need to answer this question. Policy is policy. An RfC is a way to establish a local consensus for how to move forward in writing a specific article. I see no no possibility of conflict between any WP policy and this proposal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Much of your proposal is already in line with already existing policies. Which is why I guess I still don't quite understand the necessity of this proposal. On the face of it, I would support it since much of it already aligns with existing policy. The concern, I guess you can say, is if this proposal to meant to supersede existing wikipedia policies or not. If under existing wikipedia policies, a source should have such and such amount of due weight, but under your proposal a different amount of weight is assessed, which guidelines do we follow? Wikipedia policies or this proposal? Your guidelines are a good starting start point in determining relevant and important sources, but ultimately, I would say existing wikipedia policies should be followed to determine notability and balance. If this proposal is meant to be a good starting point to establish notability and balance, but that ultimately wikipedia policies will still be followed and has final say, meaning this proposal is not actually meant to supersede existing wikipedia policies, then yes I would support it. BlackHades (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Local consensus can not override policy as I am sure you know. But local consensus can decide to follow a particular interpretation of policy for a particular purpose, and it can decide to impose a particularly strict interpretation of policy if deemed in the interest of the article. I consider this to be a stricter interpretation of WP:RS, just as WP:MEDRS is for the field of medicine. I am also not proposing that less reliable sources cannot be included, but that they cannot be used for the purpose of determining weight and balance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand that, though I think being explicit that this is modeled after WP:MEDRS is important. If this does make things a little easier to manage, it might make sense to eventually carve out a generalization of WP:MEDRS, which can be more broadly applied in the most controversial topic areas. aprock (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Maunus and Aprock both make good points here, and I agree with Aprock's suggestion that WP:MEDRS should be explicitly named as a model policy. I note for the record that I do use a bio-medical library and medical textbooks for some of my research, and there are quite a few reliable sources among that literature with important information for the topic of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
They are related in that non-notable viewpoints and relatively non-notable viewpoints, receive no or limited weight.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
We give weight to viewpoints based on their prominence in the most reliable sources, in contrast, notability is a binary decision (either something is notable or not). Merely being notable does not give a viewpoint any due weight to be mentioned in another article. The flat earth movement is notable, but it does not have weight to be mentioned in earth (standard example from WP:NPOV). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I don' think there is anything weird or wrong with saying "notable" where you say "prominent", although it is a different kind of notability than the one we use to determine whether an topic deserves an article. For me it is the same principle - if a viewpoint is notable/prominent enough to be mentioned in mainstream articles about the topic (which flat earth isn't regarding the topic "earth", but which the hereditarian viewpoint clearly is regarding the ropic R&I) then we include it - but weighted relative to its prominence in those sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal B. Reliability of Sources

For each of the following sources please give your opinion on whether the following sources should be considered highly reliable mainstream sources that should receive priority in establishing balance and notability of different viewpoints. In your evaluation try to asses whether a source should have Highest, High, Medium, Low or No weight.

Handbook Articles

  • Daley, Christine E.; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. (2011). "Chapter 15: Race and Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 293–306. ISBN 9780521739115. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
Survey
  1. Highest priorityUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Highest priority aprock (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Highest priority This is actually not my favorite treatment of the topic, but the nature of the source makes it authoritative, and I have the whole book at hand. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Highest priority. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


  • Suzuki, Lisa A.; Short, Ellen L.; Lee, Christina S. (2011). "Chapter 14: Racial and Ethnic Group Differences in Intelligence in the United States". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 273–292. ISBN 9780521739115. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
Survey
  1. Highest priorityUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Highest priority aprock (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Highest priority A good chapter from the same Cambridge handbook I have in my office, and I actually like this chapter a bit better than the Daley et al. chapter. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Highest priority. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


  • Weiss, Lawrence G.; Chen, Hsinyi; Harris, Jossette G.; Holdnack, James A.; Saklofske, Donald H. (2010). "Chapter 4: WAIS-IV Use in Societal Context". In Weiss, Lawrence G.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Coalson, Diane; Raiford, Susan (eds.). WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner Perspectives. Practical Resources for the Mental Health Professional. Alan S. Kaufman (Foreword). Amsterdam: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-375035-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
Survey
  1. High priority Includes important information about Wechsler test score trends. I have the full text of this chapter, which is useful for editing other articles as well. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. High priority. Where applicable. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


  • Loehlin, John C. (2000). "Chapter 9: Group Differences in Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J. (ed.). Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 176–193. ISBN 978-0-521-59648-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
Survey
  1. Medium priority somewhat more dated than the other handbook articles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Low priority Too dated compared to the others. Presumably changes were well considered. aprock (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Medium priority The Loehlin chapter, in a handbook I also have in my office, is useful mostly for showing how the topic was viewed more than a decade ago (and thus how it has developed since the chapter was published). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. High priority A solid general overview on the topic from a prominent psychologist. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  5. Low priority. Dated. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Review Articles

Survey
  1. Highest priority A recent review article in the flagship journal of the APA, coauthored by 7 of the most well-respected intelligence researchers. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Highest priority The author list of this article is basically an all-star cast of researchers on the topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. High priority By this I mean it's noteworthy and relevant as a review for the all environment position of the field. However, they are very selective in their arguments and they completely avoid discussing many studies and points that would contradict their position. A concern raised by several psychologists. Many of these points is highlighted by Hunt's "Human Intelligence". Great care should be taken here to avoid representing their views as the views of the broader scientific field. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Highest priority. Current understanding of the field from highly respected mainstream researchers. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Survey
  1. High priority A followup piece to the above where the autors explicitly states their view and explain why certain studies and arguments have been left out of the review. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. High priority The rejoinder by the authors of the main article is very important for establishing what is mainstream and what is fringe in regard to controversial aspects of this article's topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Lowest priority This is just a one page response in the usual tit for tat, back and forth argument between hereditarians and environmentalists that's been going on for decades. If it does deserve weight, it should be based on the same presentation that American Psychologist made in their issue. Which was side by side, equal time with Rushton and Woodley and Meisenberg. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. High priority. Mainstream understanding of the field. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Survey
  1. Highest priorityUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. High priority There are newer publications on this article's topic that go beyond Hunt and Carlson, but this was a good overview of the topic for the time it was published. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Highest priority High quality secondary source that overviews the issue from different perspectives. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Medium priority. "If not for two major unsupported statements, "Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence" would be a superb piece."[1] It is also not a research review. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Survey
  1. Medium priority Single authored review in a specialized journal historically linked to the hereditarian side of the argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Low priority It looks like this paper was delayed in actually being published, as the preprints online all claim a date of 2012, but the citation of the actual published paper is for the year 2013. This paper is so far only cited (per Google Scholar) in other papers by the same author. Other signs of uptake of this paper are conspicuous by their absence. It will be important to verify the published text of the article, as it looks like editors called for changes in the submitted author manuscript. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Lowest priority. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Survey
  1. Highest priorityUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Highest priority Wicherts is a researcher of impeccable integrity who has often examined the data underlying other publications on the topic of this article. I think Wicherts has a journal article soon to be in press related to the topic of this article that will be well worth looking for when it is available online. (Wicherts is very good about posting links to his articles from his faculty website when publishers allow him to do so.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Highest priority. High quality review. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Survey
  1. Medium priority While this is a primary source for some of the most controversial research, it does represent the final summation of that research. While it can't be used to establish the weight, it can be used to establish which lines of research best represent their final views. aprock (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. High priority When I say high priority here, I mean conscientious editors will read this to be sure what the late professors said about their line of research. What weight their views should have in the article here will depend on what other sources say about those views. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Medium priority: Useful for understanding the view of Jensen and Rushton - not for understanding the relative weight of views within the field.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. High priority An important source as far as the overview of the hereditarian view of the field. Without actually going into the merits of their argument, the paper itself is heavily cited in the field. Their points heavily discussed, which means it needs to be discussed here. BlackHades (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  5. Low priority. Best covered by secondary sources. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Reports and statements by professional organizations, groups and bodies

Survey
  1. Medium priority Now a very dated statement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Medium priority Dated, but relevant from the controversy perspective. aprock (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Medium priority Of course I read it when it was published, and have a copy mailed out by the APA in my office. New research has superseded this one, but it gives an overview of this article's topic as it appeared to a broad spectrum of APA leaders in the year of publication. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Highest priority The position of scientific organizations heavily intertwined in the issue, is always relevant. The main significant statements made in the report still holds today. That individual IQ is highly heritable, racial IQ gaps do exist, the cause of racial IQ gaps is largely unknown. These three points are still largely held today. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  5. Medium priority. Dated and superseded. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


  • American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" and Intelligence[2]
Survey
  1. Low priority Only a statement of concern, not an assessment of results.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Medium priority Useful for Wikipedians to read as very few Wikipedia articles about race pay much attention to the scholars best acquainted with race scholarship. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Medium priority While I do maintain the importance of the views of scientific organizations, the field of anthropology does not appear to have done much research on this particular issue and certainly far less so than the field of psychology. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Low priority. Dated statement of concern. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Survey
  1. Low priority A statement of opinion, not peer reviewed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Primary source. Not peer reviewed. The piece claiming it is mainstream does not make it so, requires secondary sources for that. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Low priority aprock (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Medium priority Important for knowing what one group of authors signed off on at a previous period in the controversy. Both signers of this statement and persons who specifically refused to sign this statement are still active in research on this topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  5. Medium priority It's not peer reviewed which does lower it's notability. It'e still noteworthy however in understanding the position of some of the most active and prominent researchers on this issue. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  6. Lowest priority, primary source. Dated, uninvited "letter to the editor" type newspaper opinion piece with a misleading title. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Texbooks

  • Johnson, Wendy (2012). "How Much Can We Boost IQ? An Updated Look at Jensen's (1969) Question and Answer". In Slater, Alan M.; Quinn, Paul C. (eds.). Developmental Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies. Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE. ISBN 978-0-85702-757-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
Survey
  1. Highest priority Wendy Johnson is an experienced researcher in human behavior genetics, a respected colleague of most of the big names active in research in that discipline. Her book chapter in the cited book, which is part of a more extensive Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies series of textbooks, is a model of reexamining and integrating the evidence that has been discovered since Jensen's 1969 paper that did so much to reignite interest in the topic of this Wikipedia article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • James Mielke, Lyle W. Konigsberg & John Relethford. 2006. Human biological variation". Oxford University Press.
Survey
  1. High priority Being specialized in human biological variation its strength lies in its ability to assess the likelihood of a genetic component to race/IQ correlations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. High priority This is a very important source for this article. I've seen this textbook before, but I'll have to obtain it again, probably by interlibrary loan. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


  • Hunt, Earl (2011). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
Survey
  1. Highest priority A thorough review by a well respected scholar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Highest priority A good skeptical review of many relevant aspects of the issue. aprock (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Highest priority I own this book. There are some mistakes on some other issues in this book, but it is much more mainstream and thoughtful than most of what has been used to source this Wikipedia article for years. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Highest priority Very thorough overview of the issue. Solidly displays the bias and nitpicking that both environmentalists and hereditarians in the field are guilty of. Investigates many key issues in great detail. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Survey
  1. Highest priority A thorough review by a well respected scholar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Highest priority A high level current presentation. aprock (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Highest priority A classic on its topic. Especially useful because the book is in its second edition, after being used for years as a textbook at Harvard, Caltech, and other universities where psychology students are expected to read thorough textbooks. I own this book, just as I still own the first edition. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Rod Plotnik & Haig Kojoumdjian, 2007. “Introduction to Psychology”. Cengage Press
Survey
  1. High priority Because it is an college level textbook its strength is to assess the general balance of hereditarian/environmental arguments in the general discipline of Psychology, not just intelligence testingUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


  • Schacter, D. S., Gilbert, D. T., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Psychology. New York: Worth.
Survey
  1. High priority Because it is an college level textbook its strength is to assess the general balance of hereditarian/environmental arguments in the general discipline of Psychology, not just intelligence testingUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


  • Nick Haslam, 2007. "Introduction to Personality and Intelligence" SAGE Publications Ltd
Survey
  1. High priority Because it is an college level textbook focused on the field of intelligence and individual differences its strength is to assess the general balance of hereditarian/environmental arguments in the general field of intelligence studies.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Scott Lilienfeld, 2013. Psychology: From Inquiry to Understanding. Pearson. ISBN:978-0205961672
Survey
  1. High priority I'd like to suggest the Lilienfeld textbook because Lilienfeld did his Ph.D. studies in a milieu of behavior genetics research with a lot of emphasis on research rigor. This book is in its third edition, so it has been examined by professors for its usefulness and accuracy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Gregory, Robert J. (2011). Psychological Testing: History, Principles, and Applications (Sixth ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 978-0-205-78214-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
Survey
  • Richards, Graham (2009). Psychology: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-43201-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
Survey
  1. High priority I don't currenlty have access to this book but it seems highly useful.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You feel Nisbett et al. "Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments" should have the highest priority. There have been criticism published against this paper, which is certainly expected in a field as contentious, disputed, and controversial as this one, which is published in the exact same peer review journal as Nisbett et al. Which include Rushton, J.P "No narrowing in mean Black–White IQ differences—Predicted by heritable g." and MA Woodley, G Meisenberg. “Ability differentials between nations are unlikely to disappear.” You didn't even bother listing any criticism to this paper in your list which seems to imply you feel there should be no weight. Yet the response that Nisbett et al. makes directly to these criticism which is "Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin." you feel is also highest priority? So its..
Nisbett et al. = highest priority.
Criticism to Nisbett et al = zero priority
Nisbett et al's response to criticism = highest priority
Is this correct? BlackHades (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The list of sources does not pretend to be exhaustive, if you feel high quality mainstream sources are missing feel free to add them to the survey and we'll let consensus decide.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The reason why I brought this up is that the criticism to Nisbett et al is published in the exact same peer review journal that Nisbett et al is published on. Not only are they published in the exact same journal, they were published in the exact same issue and date. Which is "American Psychologist 67(6) (2012)". With JP Rushton on pages 500-501. Woodley and Meisenberg on pages 501-502 and Nisbett et al on pages 503-504. Given that they are all coming from the exact same source and same journal, the weight in this particular instance should be equal since it's impossible to try to argue one is coming from a higher quality source than the other. American Psychologist makes no indication that it favors one particular view over the other. BlackHades (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that follows. It is not unusual for journals to publish responses when specific researchers are criticized as Rushton is in Nisbett et al's. review. Rushton's criticism is single authored article which is not a review and it receives a response that can only be understood to mean that his research is simply no longer considered part of the mainstream by the group of scientists who wrote the review and was therefore excluded. There is ample evidence for the general view of Rushton as being on the fringe of science. If you believe Rushton's article should receive as high priority as Nisbett et al.'s review then you are free to add it, but I believe it should receive little or no weight. Even if he were still alive he could not have been claimed to be a part of the scholarly dialogue after such a forceful rejection of his research by the mainstream. But by all means enter it into the survey and consensus will decide the weight. Woodley and Meisenberg I have no opinion on at the moment, they might be worth including but I haven't read their piece yet.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
"Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin" isn't a review either. It's just a direct response to the criticism as raised by Rushton and Woodley and Meisenberg. It seems inappropriate to give weight to the response of the criticism but no weight to the criticism that actually lead to the response when both the criticism and response are from the exact same reliable source, which is American Psychologist, in the exact same issue and date. This tit for tat response in the field has been going on for decades where environmentalists respond to hereditarians, who then responds back to environmentalists, and back and forth, often times in the exact same journal.
Hereditarian positions are not fringe and this constant attempt to make it appear as such needs to stop. Fringe cannot get publication in such a mainstream peer review journal like the APA. Per WP:NPOV "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
There is no indication that the extreme environment positions as expressed by Nisbett/Flynn are more prominent in mainstream peer review journals like the APA, Intelligence, etc. In fact Jensen would have more papers published in mainstream peer review journals than anyone else in the field. Would you agree with this? High quality textbooks such as Hunt's "Human Intelligence" are quite heavily critical of the extreme environment positions such as Nisbett/Flynn. To be fair they are critical of Jensen/Rushton as well but this push of yours to make Nisbett/Flynn mainstream, when there is no evidence to support they are, is inappropriate. The obituary of Arthur Jensen published in the peer review journal Intelligence, called Nisbett's position a "dwindling band"
"Art's case was still not universally accepted but supporters of a wholly environmental explanation had become a dwindling band among whom the most prominent is Richard Nisbett (2009)."
Lynn, R. (2012). Obituary: Arthur Robert Jensen, 1924–2012. Intelligence.
As previously stated Nisbett has been outside the mainstream in the field of psychology for decades. So much of what he asserts completely conflicts with the accepted "knowns" from the "Intelligence Knowns and Unknowns" APA Task Force Report of 1996. Criticism of Nisbett isn't even just from hereditarians. His position even conflicts heavily from more neutral psychologists such as Hunt and Loehlin. Are you familiar with his "Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental process (1977)" paper? It's the paper that made him infamous and brought on strong condemnation from the psychology field.
Dickens, who's one of the coauthors with Nisbett/Flynn, made it very clear that while he agrees with Nisbett/Flynn, their point remains controversial.
“Both Flynn and Nisbett take the view, as do I, that genetic differences probably do not play an important role in explaining differences between the races, but the point remains controversial, and Arthur Jensen provides a recent discussion from a hereditarian perspective.”--Dickens, William T. "Genetic differences and school readiness." The Future of Children (2005): 55-69.
Hunt, while he does have some criticism for Jensen/Rushton, called their 2005 paper, which was published in a highly mainstream peer review journal, "well presented".
“The argument for genetic causes for group differences has been maintained by several serious researchers over the years. The three most prominent advocates of this position today are Arthur Jensen of the University of California, Berkeley; Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster; and J. Phillipe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario. The arguments they propose, which are essentially identical, were well presented in a 2005 paper by Rushton and Jensen.”--Hunt Earl. (2011) “Human Intelligence” pg. 433
You continue to completely undermine the controversy that exists in the scientific field. This issue is strongly contentious, disputed, and controversial. Dickens himself admits their position is controversial. In no way does he ever indicate that it is mainstream. You insist the extreme environment position of Nisbett/Flynn is mainstream and that hereditarian positions are fringe. When I've repeatedly requested for any reliable source that makes this claim, you never provide any. This is the kind of advocacy that would be forbidden by active arbitration remedies. Per WP:NPOV, all significant views must be given weight and the weight should be on the prominence of the view as it exists in reliable sources. BlackHades (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
"Well presented" is hardly praise - it means it is well written, not that it makes sense or is true - Hunt gives the two of them plenty of harsh criticism in the 2011 book - basically he considers Jensen's statistical vector model to be useless. And yes I will continue to insist that the mainstream view should be treated as the mainstream view. And i will continue to state that the mainstream view is the one found in reliable mainstream sources such as Nisbett&Flynns review which is not extreme, and which no one has called extreme. And yes, the point of this RfC is to establish that it clearly is the mainstream view, because it is the view that is favored in most mainstream sources. Dickens' does not say that his view is extreme, he says it is controversial which is something else and obviously true.Rushton and Jensen will get their weight according to their prominence in reliable sources - but they are not reliable sources themselves. Richard Lynn's glowing obituary of Jensen is not a reliable source for anything at all - and suggesting it is, is extremely poor judgment. Your obfuscation and pov pushing becomes more and more pathetic by the hour. Rushton is fringe and has always been fringe as a brief review of his article here will attest. Nisbett on the other hand is not fringe, but thoroughly mainstream, and fringe authors who have been rejected from the discipline do not publish review authors with 6 prominent and well respected co-authors in AP. You are clearly desparate .User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
By "rejecting from the discipline" do you mean mainstream journals like American Psychologist and Intelligence publishing Rushton's work over and over again? Or are you arguing that scientific journals like American Psychologist and Intelligence are actually fringe sources? They must be if Rushton is fringe and yet they continue to publish his work over and over again. Let me see if I understand this. American Psychologist publishes Nisbett et al. You then proclaim Nisbett et al is coming from a highly mainstream source. American Psychologist publishes Jensen/Rushton. You proclaim Jensen/Rushton is fringe....You do realize they're both coming from the same source right? When you say fringe are you even going by WP:FRINGE? Reliable sources in WP:FRINGE is defined as:
"Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas."
You're really claiming that Rushton is not prominent in any of the above? In particular "academic and peer-reviewed publications" which is defined by wikipedia policies as the "most reliable sources". You really want to claim that Rushton fits the wikipedia policy of WP:FRINGE? You even explicitly stated that you didn't even bother reading any of the criticism to Nisbett et. al. Which I don't even understand how when they're published in the exact same journal and issue on adjoining pages. You didn't even read it and yet you've already established it is fringe and deserves no weight...based on? It can't be the source, if you proclaim the source is unreliable we have to remove Nisbett et al as well as it's the same source. If you proclaim it is a reliable source, then we would have to give weight in accordance to the prominence that it is the source. You can't give unequal weight when American Psychologist themselves allocated weight based on their own expertise. American Psychologist gave equal time and weight to Rushton, Woodley and Meisenberg, and Nisbett et al. In no way did the journal American Psychologist indicate which view is the minority and which is the majority. It can't be high level textbooks, since such high level textbooks such as Hunt's "Human Intelligence" flat out reject the primary conclusion by Nisbett et al. and clearly outlines the problem that environmentalists like Nisbett constantly make:
“The direct evidence that we have for genetic effects does not come close to accounting for the size of the gap between White and African American test scores. Neither do environmental effects. And, unfortunately, the environmental evidence has often been presented as evidence that environmental effects do occur – which no advocate of genetic models has ever denied – but has not been presented in a way that permits a quantitative estimate of how important environmental effects are in determining group differences in intelligence in the population.”--Hunt, Earl. (2011) “Human Intelligence”, pg. 435.
So when you say Nisbett et al is the mainstream position in the field, what is this based on? I must have asked you 10 times now for a source, ANY source, to support this repeated claim of yours. You claim "mainstream sources" say so. What mainstream sources? American Psychologist? Intelligence? Cambridge University Press? So once again, what is your source for this bold claim? BlackHades (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
We are not going to agree through discussion on this. I think you are either wilfully trying to misrepresent the mainstream of science or simply not sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic. I am sure you think the same about me. Further discussion between us will get us nowhere. I have added two additional questions to the RfC to let the consensus decide what is more mainstream - the "100% environmental view" or Rushton.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The way you word the RfCs, I would agree with both of them. You can pull these RfCs since there is no dispute here. Or keep them up if you want but I don't see the point since no one is challenging them nor do I think anyone would argue against them. If this is what you thought I was challenging then you appear to have misinterpreted me. Mainstream is defined as the majority prevailing position. This is what I meant by mainstream. Are you still confident that Nisbett's 100% environment position is the mainstream position? Mainstream being defined as the prevailing majority dominant position of the field? Keeping in mind that if it is true, it would mean Hunt is not mainstream. Loehlin is not mainstream. The APA Task Force report is not mainstream. I HIGHLY doubt this. Nisbett's position is not more prevalent than Hunt's position, Loehlin's position, or the APA's Task Force position.
Regarding the other RfC, our argument was not whether Rushton was mainstream, it was whether he was fringe. If you still maintain he is fringe, then we can open a new RfC on it. But if you agree that he is "prominent and notable enough to be included", meaning you believe he passes WP:FRINGE, then we appear to be on the same page and there doesn't appear to be a dispute here and an RfC is not necessary. BlackHades (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have defined what I mean by mainstream a long time ago. I can hardly be held accountable for your failure to read that. Rushton's position is a fringe view within psychology and within intelligence testing. It is not considered a part of the central mainstream paradigm to which Hunt, Loehlin, Nisbett and the APA and the many other mainstream sources we are reviewing belong. But he is a prominent figure within the debate (I would say more out of notoriety than merit), and hence should receive more weight than zero. The exact amount should be determined by the weight given him by the best mainstream sources. As Rushton himself noted, for example in his rejoinder to Nisbett et al. the weight his scholarship was allotted was not necessarily as much as he would have preferred. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
You stated that you feel fringe is a "small minority view that is against a solid consensus to the contrary within a field of inquiry, and who often represent a completely incommensurable paradigm." This could be considered accurate to Rushton depending on what specific part of Rushton's position you're referring to as some parts of his position is more accepted than others. For example, Hunt does agree with some specific points by Rushton. The question though is do you feel Rushton fits wikipedia's policy of WP:FRINGE, more specifically do you feel his position doesn't meet "significant view" as published in reliable sources as stated by WP:NPOV? Just so we're super clear, I'm not asking if he's mainstream, I'm asking does he pass the threshold for "significant view" per policy. I can't see how he doesn't pass this threshold. His view is repeatedly published by reliable sources, often times in the same reliable sources that publishes Nisbett or Flynn's view. Secondary sources in support of his position does exist. Again from similar or same reliable sources. Prominent adherents to his position can easily be named as required by WP:NPOV. Per wikipedia policies, he meets "significant view" as stated in WP:NPOV and hence due weight is certainly greater than zero. BlackHades (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE states "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." and yes I do think Rushton fits that category. Particularly I think he falls under the category 3. "questionable science". But Rushton also clearly passes the criteria of notability for a fringe theorist: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia." As such I think what we need to do is to follow the mainstream sources and see how they describe him and his work and how much weight they assign it - and we need to make his position within the field clear to the readers so as to not mislead them. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I personally think that in a lot of cases like this, which involve contentious matters, maybe one of the best ways to start is to try to develop articles on some of the proposed sources themselves, indicating what the academic world thinks of them, and, if it is encyclopedia-type or otherwise a collection of separate works of more than one editor, indicating where possible which of those sources are more highly regarded than others. Those articles on sources could then be included in links of some sort to this article, and maybe any other related articles. Having that data available on site here to all would almost certainly make it much easier for others to come into the discussion and more quickly assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of the article, at least as regards those sources which have been given their own articles. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but this list of proposed sources are the kind of sources that could presumably be used to write those types of articles - not the kind of classical sources that would typically have an article written about them. The Bell Curve and How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? and similarly classic texts within the field already have articles - but they are primary sources and should not be used to base the article on.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Considering this is an RfC, it speeds up matters, for those with no background knowledge of the dispute, if ISBN's and DOI's are included in all books and papers etc mentioned. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
IRWolfie, see the source list I keep in my user space for many more bibliographic details, and some other recommended sources. I'll try to edit entries here tomorrow, now that I've seen your request. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Question C: Is the "100% Environmental" position a mainstream view?

The question is whether it is a widely held mainstream view that the entire IQ test score gap is likely to be explainable by environmental effects. Note that the question is not whether it is the only mainstream view, nor whether it has been proven to account for the entire gap, but only about whether it is considered a probable explanation by a wide selection of mainstream scholars.

Survey
  1. Yes The "100% Environement" explanation has been mainstream since the first UNESCO statement on race continued to be so in the subsequent statement and in the statement of the 1997 AAPA statement[3]. The view is espoused in psychology textbooks such as those by Schacter et al., Plotkin & Kujoumdjian, and in Intelligence and Personality textbooks such as the one by Haslam. The articles by Daley and Ongwuebuzie and by Suzuki et al. in the 2011 Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence describe only environmental factors and are highly critical of most of the published material pruporting to show genetic causes. Wicherts et al. also favor environmental factors in explaining the gap, though they do not exclude the possibility of some genetic factors being found. The 2011 review article and rejoinder to Rushton by Nisbett, Flynn, Turkheimer, Halpern, Aronson, Dickens & Blair show conclusively that the 100% environmentalist is not a fringe view but espoused by a wide selection of highly esteemed intelligence researcher. The views that see the intelligence gap is explainable is either by equal measures of genetic and environmental factors, or sees it as being mostly environmental with some possible yet to be ascertained genetic factors are also mainstream views. The 80% genetic hypothesis of Rushton and Jensen is not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes If this is how you're defining mainstream, then the answer is obviously yes. BlackHades (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. No According to the definition of mainstream below which is different from this one. 210.183.210.10 (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  1. Comment Your question is completely faulty. By definition, there can only be one mainstream position. Wikipedia article Mainstream defines it as "the common current thought of the majority." Mainstream is the prevailing dominant view. It is not possible to have more than one majority. The RfC needs to be written. BlackHades (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know of any such definition of mainstream. I have given the definition of mainstream that I use above on this talkpage. It means the centre of dialogue within a discipline, not just the single dominant or majority view in disciplines where there is so. I have no where claimed that the 100% environmental view is the majority or dominant view within the discipline. There is no single dominant view in the field of R&I now.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Then the problem appears to be that we were not using the same definition of mainstream. Based on the definition of mainstream you mentioned, we would be completely on the same page. Yes there is no single dominant view. That was ironically what I was trying to prove you to this whole time.. BlackHades (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Which was why I wrote this a long time ago: Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Some_definitionsUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Question D: Is J. Philippe Rushton considered a mainstream scientist?

The question is whether Rushton as a person and a scholar is generally considered to be within the mainstream of the field of Psychology. The question is not whether he is prominent and notable enough to be included, but about whether his views should be given equal weight to mainstream views within the article.

Discussion
  1. No Rushton is not mainstream. I know of few scholars who have been faced with harsher criticism than Rushton both on methdologiogical and theoretical grounds (the moral and ethical criticisms of course do not count when assessing a scientific view). There is a veritable body of literature of critiques of all aspects of Rushton's methods and analyses, from faulty data collection to cherrypicking of studies, to misrepresentation of studies, to statistical blunders or statistical malpractice and to theoretical misunderstandings of the theories he is applying. Rushton has been roundly critiqued on all fronts from mainstream researcher in all of the relevant disciplines. EVen the other pyshcologists in his own department at UWO published scathing critiques of his work. I know of three textbooks (Alland's "Race in Mind", Brace's "Race is a four letter word" and Graves' "The emperor's new clothes") with chapters about Rushton's work in which it is criticized as racist pseudoscience, and I know of several other textbooks that mention Rushton in passing dismissing his research as obviously flawed. He is simply not considered a serious scientist. Why is his work sometimes published in highly respected journals? I think it is out of courtesy to give him a chance to defend against the serious criticisms, and because hereditarians have a habit of complaining about being "censored" whenever their work is rejected by a journal. I think many journals consider it a better strategy to publish it and let it fall on its own (lack of) merits. Also note that Rushton's work is generally single authored except for his co-publications with Jensen and Lynn - both of whom were his close friends and were occupying similar positions as pariahs within the science and hence had little to lose. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. No The argument we had was whether Rushton was fringe not whether he was mainstream. This RfC needs to be rewritten as well. BlackHades (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. No To be on-point with what is discussed here in relation to the editing of the Wikipedia article Race and intelligence, any view on that issue that is distinctive to the late J. Philippe Rushton and not prominently mentioned with support (rather than refutation) in a mainstream reliable source is a fringe view (or, at best, the view of a tiny minority). As such, it would receive little or no weight to receive due weight during the editing of this article. I know of many researchers on this topic who evaluate Rushton's distinctive contributions to the literature similarly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. No. Rushton's views are devoid of scientific merit. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Maybe. Rushton's views are significant minority to mainstream. 210.183.210.10 (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Objection. Such matters are not suitable to be settled by popular vote. Targaryenspeak or forever remain silent 23:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Such issues are to be decided by referring to reliable sources on the article's topic, which is the focus of some of the other recent talk page threads. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The consensus is that this RfC is garbage and uses two mutually exclusive definitions of mainstream: "multiple mainstreams" for the author's preferred minority view, and "single mainstream" for the author's personally disliked minority view. Shall we open another RfC and switch it around? No, that would be transparently disingenuous wouldn't it. Did the closer even read it? 27.1.214.45 (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Maunus does completely alter the definition of "mainstream" from Question C to Question D. I was one of the 2 votes for "Yes" in Question C, with Maunus being the other vote for yes. But if the more traditional English definition of mainstream is used, defining "mainstream" as the current prevailing position, the answer to Question C would be "No". If Maunus used the same definition of "mainstream" in Question C as he did for Question D, then the answer would also be "No". Nisbett's position is definitely NOT the prevailing position and there's been absolutely no evidence presented to support that it is. His position only made up 15% of the field when the Snyderman & Rothman survey was taken. This position ranked 3rd in the survey, behind the genetics/environment combination position as well as the insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion position. Many of Nisbett et al's arguments also conflict with the "Knowns" of the "Intelligence Knowns and Unknowns" 1994 APA Task Force Report, meaning it tends to argue over specific points that already previously achieved consensus. Many mainstream researchers have repeatedly argued against this 100% environmental position. Including Loehlin, Hunt, Carlson, Bouchard, Scarr, etc.
But with the specific way that Maunus worded Question C, the answer would be yes. This should be interpreted to mean the view is notable and should carry weight in the article but should not be mistaken for the more traditional definition of mainstream that means "prevailing or dominant position". BlackHades (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
That is incorrect. My definition of mainstream is very clear and it is also ery commonly used. In most fields there is more than a single mainstream view. Fringe views are the views of those who such as Rushton are not a part of any of the mainstyream tracks of research but is generally considered to be working on problems or with tchniques that are of dubious validity. I think it is a little sad to see you guys whine when the consensus is against you. By your definition of "Mainstream" which is only valid when there is a single dominant position in a field there is no mainstream in theoretical physics, because the different variants of string theory are mutually exclusie and none hae a clear majority. There is also no mainstream way of classifying primates, or human ancestors since there are several taxonomic classifications in use by scientists. And wikipedia would hae no way to distinguish between a clear fringe view such that almost everyone in the discipline agrees is wrong such as say Aquatic Ape Theory and the different iews that are accepted as possible hypotheses. Your idea of how science works is erroneous and adopting your definition of "mainstream" would be a huge problem for wikipedia. The 100% environmental hypothesis is one of the mainstream views regarding the Racial IQ gap - the 80% biology view is not. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Except you don't have a definition of mainstream, you have two defintions of mainstream, the choice of which depends on whether you are applying it to your favorite POV or not. Your 'multiple mainstreams' schitck is just nonsense. Please desist. 211.119.109.57 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Let's not debate whether words can have different definitions. They can. That said, Question D clarifies that the use of mainstream in this context was intended to get at the following: The question is not whether he is prominent and notable enough to be included, but about whether his views should be given equal weight to mainstream views within the article. So the question was one of the application of WP:DUE. Whatever definition of "mainstream" being used here seems less relevant than responding to this question. Accusations that words were intentionally twisted to suit the proposer or my close doesn't appear to be based on anything factual (also, I've never edited this article), so I see no reason to reconsider my close. I suggest you go to WP:AN if you want a more formal reconsideration. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There is very good evidence that the 100% environmental position is mainstream: a coauthored review by 6 of the most respected intelligence researchers in the discipline's flagship journal. COntrary to hereditarian Hunt, Mackintosh in his texbook writes: ""In spite of claims to the contrary, there is remarkably little evidence that the difference is genetic in origin: when brought up in relatively comparable environments black and white children usually obtain relatively similar test scores; and studies of the degree of white ancestry in American blacks suggest that this has little or no impact on test scores. By contrast, there is quite good evidence that several environmental factors, prevalence of low birth weight, breast-feeding, and especially style of parental interaction, do contribute to the difference in test scores.(p. 358)". By the way I agree that the hereditarian position in its reasonable versions such as those by Hunt is a mainstream view. That would be clear to anyone reading what I have actually written.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The sources identified here (professional handbooks and widely adopted textbooks) are examples of the best of reliable sources on this contentious topic, and I will be looking to these as I pursue further article edits. I have taken care during several trips to my friendly flagship state university library to look up all the other sources that have been used in this article over the last few years, so that I have those at hand, and it is high time to begin rewriting this article from top to bottom according to Wikipedia policy on sourcing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Now that there has been time for editors to check the sources and read through those that are readily available, this will be a productive time of year for updating the article from top to bottom for coherency, due weight on various subtopics, and referencing according to Wikipedia content policy. I look forward to seeing the next edits to article text along those lines and expect to edit some article sections from my own keyboard in the next few months. Let's all discuss here how to make the article better. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Knowing full well that this is a late comment, I see how the 2008 Macmillan Encyclopedia of Race & Racism has a composite entry of about 11 pages on the topic of "IQ and Testing" in its second volume. The individual subarticles are an overview, a two-page article on the origin and development of intelligence tests applied to matters of race, a two page article on "culture, education, and IQ scores," and a 3-page article on "Critiques," including issues of cultural bias, nature and nurture, applying heritability measures, environmental factors, and the fact that races are not considered valid biological units. Yeah, it is only one reference work, and I'm not sure how highly regarded it is, but it might be one indicator of what to cover in this and related articles. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I will check the availability of that edition of the encyclopedia and of its new second edition (2013) at libraries accessible to me. Thank you for the source suggestion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Refreshing the discussion here, so that the RfC results are visible to editors on the article talk page, I should mention that I have very complete access to reliable sources recently through multiple academic library systems, so if there are any other current, reliable, secondary sources we should be using to update this article, I will be glad to obtain them to check as we collaboratively improve this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Polling

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

We should consider having some polling on the general opinion tend to be regarding the issue of race and Intelligence from Academics. In the book the IQ controversy include a poll regarding the reason for IQ variation between blacks and whites as following: "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of black-white differences in IQ?" Amongst the 661 returned questionnaires, 14% declined to answer the question, 24% voted that there was insufficient evidence to give an answer, 1% voted that the gap was "due entirely to genetic variation", 15% voted that it "due entirely to environmental variation" and 45% voted that it was a "product of genetic and environmental variation" If we could find some data on the general opinion from academic on race and intelligence it would be interesting.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not useful for this article. Rather than writing about opinions, gathered by methods that probably don't even represent the populations of interest, we should write about the facts. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Allegedly Rindermann has carried out such a poll among psychometricians, and is probably going to publish the results soon. In the 1980s Snyderman and Rothman made a different poll, which has been criticized for being badly formulated, and which prdates most of the relevant research and debates prompted by the Bell curve. The problem with Rindermann's survey in particular is that seems to be narrowly targeted on psychometricians, who are not experts on race (and often hold views of race that are a minority view in the fields that are experts on race), and whose opinions on hereditarianism are not inline with the general profession of psychology or with the behavioral sciences in general such as Anthropology and Sociology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
What criticisms and by whom are you talking about re:Snyderman and Rothman? Their study had a large sample of social scientists from different disciplines. The only relevant criticism that I recall is that the option "product of genetic and environmental variation" does not specify the percentages that are due to genes and environment.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
To answer your question, Victor, the articles listed below are not exhaustive, but they help establish context for Snyderman and Rothman study. (The original article version of the study should be cited more often for how the opinion survey originated, and who put up the authors to producing it.)
  • Goodstein, Leonard D. (1987). "Editorial Statement of the American Psychologist: II". American Psychologist. 42 (1). American Psychological Association: 1–2. doi:10.1037/h0092014. ISSN 0003-066X.
What I find regrettable about the Snyderman and Rothman study is that it reports a clear consensus at the time that psychologists of that era didn't think that IQ tests estimate all important aspects of human intelligence (with creativity especially being mentioned as a human capacity that was missed by IQ tests), and the study is cited to that effect by a number of reliable secondary sources, e.g.,

Groth-Marnat, Gary (2009). Handbook of Psychological Assessment (Fifth ed.). Hoboken (NJ): Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-08358-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

but the only aspect of the survey that gets mentioned here on Wikipedia is the aspect about which most of the survey respondents were least well informed--namely, group differences. If we are to listen to an opinion survey of psychometricians for information about facts of the world, we might as well start with psychometric facts. But anyway now the Snyderman and Rothman survey is now old, and the attempted follow-up survey by Rindermann (I was sent a link to the survey instrument through one of my professional association memberships) has ill-formed questions and a dodgy survey sample and other suspect procedures. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

None of what you say is relevant to what I asked, WBB. In the context of this article, the race IQ gap question of the survey is obviously the most pertinent.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Still POV?

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I have been working to introduce newer and more reliable references into the article and weigt the coverage of different subtopics according to those sources. It would be valuable with some input from others. Particularly the question of whether POV problems persist and where.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is on my watchlist, and I think you are doing good work. Whenever you think the article has been fixed enough to warrant removing a tag, I certainly will not oppose your judgment on that issue. On this article, I'm mostly in watchlist mode, as I roll up my sleeves to clean up some of the articles more on the IQ side of this article's topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, the recent edits are a lot of good work, and big contribution to the encyclopedia project. It will be a lot easier to check the references as the sourcing continues to improve too. Thanks. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we need a separate article about variation in brain sizes between human races? Or maybe just atleast show a picture of the variations in brain sizes.. http://radishmag.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/world-map-of-brain-volume.gifMicroMacroMania (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

For editing any article on Wikipedia, by Wikipedia content guidelines, we need a reliable source, and most of what people surf by as they follow links from blogs will not be a reliable source, alas. A steadily expanding list of reliable sources on this topic can be found in Wikipedia user space, and the actual sources are readily available in larger public libraries or any good academic library. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dude.. I am totally aware where the map is from it is smith and beals in brain size. A better version is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Race_brain_size_cranial_capacity.png

Anyway you did not answer my question. Should we have a seperate article about brain sizes? I am not making one without permission to do so.MicroMacroMania (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No, because there are no RS attesting to the validity, reliability or significance of data interpretations correlating brain size to race. While many sources may opine that such interpretations exists, none are reliable...that is, since no editorial board of any peer-reviewed science journal has yet taken such interpretations seriously enough to publish or engage them in published dialogue, neither should Wiki. By definition, they are fringe interpretations. Fringe opinions can still be notable, but in so citing, Wiki cannot grant them the equal weight or legitimacy of mainstream sources.AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Replacing systematically disadvantaged with supposedly disadvantaged

Latest comment: 10 years ago53 comments14 people in discussion

I propose changing the wording in the paragraph on "cast-like minorities" from "systematically disadvantaged" to supposedly disadvantaged. The reason is that "systematically disadvantaged" violates two of the three non-negotiable pillars of Wikipedia articles:

1) It is not neutral, it is clearly a political point of view to claim that a minority is systematically disadvantaged. It clearly implies that a majority is advantaged and that this majority is suppressing the minority (because the word systematic is used) in order to keep advantages. This is highly contentious and highly partisan, it cannot possibly be called neutral.

2) It is not verifiable. Affirmative action in the United States, as an example, gives clear advantages to some of the minorities which this article claims are disadvantaged. That is a fact. What is not a fact is that any minority in the US is systematically disadvantaged, or disadvantaged at all. This cannot be a fact because no law exists in the United States that systematically disadvantages certain minorities. The only exception would be affirmative action laws that give an advantage to such minorities. No law in the US currently exists that disadvantages any minority. No law in 1996 (source 51) existed that disadvantaged any minority. Systematic disadvantage requires institutionalization, i.e. laws, actual policies; casual racism or preference (which of course may come from either of many parties) would not be sufficient for "systematic disadvantage" and may not even be sufficient for "disadvantage". If a business for example decides not to serve people of a certain group, then it may in fact be the business which is disadvantaged, not the group that can easily take its business elsewhere. It should also be noted that it is not required for the an advantaged or disadvantaged group to be either minority or majority. In some middle Eastern countries for example majorities may be at a disadvantage due to official policies pursued by a minority in power.

The wording "supposedly disadvantaged" would hence be more fitting. It acknowledges that the possibility of disadvantage exists, but it does not claim that it does. This should satisfy the neutrality and verifiability pillars required of a Wikipedia article.

Furthermore the article also claims that other minorities are less disadvantaged. Also not neutral and not verifiable.

Current version:

A large number of studies have shown that systemically disadvantaged minorities, such as the African American minority of the United States generally perform worse in the educational system and in intelligence tests than the majority groups or less disadvantaged minorities such as immigrant or "voluntary" minorities.[51] The explanation of these findings may be that children of caste-like minorities, due to the systemic limitations of their prospects of social advancement, do not have "effort optimism", i.e. they do not have the confidence that acquiring the skills valued by majority society, such as those skills measured by IQ tests, is worthwhile. They may even deliberately reject certain behaviors seen as "acting white".[51][101][102][103]

Proposed version

A large number of studies have shown that supposedly disadvantaged minorities, such as the African American minority of the United States generally perform worse in the educational system and in intelligence tests than the majority groups or supposedly less disadvantaged minorities such as immigrant or "voluntary" minorities.[51] The explanation of these findings may be that children of caste-like minorities, due to the supposed limitations of their prospects of social advancement, do not have "effort optimism", i.e. they do not have the confidence that acquiring the skills valued by majority society, such as those skills measured by IQ tests, is worthwhile. They may even deliberately reject certain behaviors seen as "acting white".[51][101][102][103]

Eracekat (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that other editors here have pointed out that you haven't even read the word that you object to correctly, I wonder if we could also examine whether or not there are any reliable sources for editing Wikipedia that support the proposed rewording of the article text. There is a lot to update and revise in this article, but I think the way to go to do that is to ensure first of all that we are using the best available sources, and then to read those sources closely so that Wikipedia article text is in accord with what those best reliable secondary sources actually say. That kind of procedure would best uphold the Wikipedia policies you mention in your comment. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
At issue is this edit with the change: "A large number of studies have shown that systemicallysupposedly disadvantaged minorities" (with two other "supposedly"). While the above comments are stirring, our opinions on "systemically" vs. "supposedly" are not relevant—the only consideration is whether "systemically" is supported by the provided references. It would also help to read the refs to see what wording they felt was justified. Another issue is that the word "supposedly" is a standard editorial comment to suggest that a claim is false. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely - when I read "supposedly disadvantaged" or "supposed limitations of their prospects of social advancement" I have to wonder if it is code for "not really" - I've certainly seen it clearly meaning that off-Wiki. I am not saying that this is Eracekat's intention, I am saying that that is the way many will interpret it when they read it. This wording would bring the article in line with those who say it is really 'whites' who are disadvantaged and that African-Americans are not disadvantaged - a position which is of course nonsense. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
It needs to be pointed out that the word the OP wants to replace is "systemically", not "systematically" as is written in the opening post above. They are quite different words. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The only question here is whether the article abides by Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and verifiability. By claiming that African Americans are systemically (or systematically) disadvantaged, the article in effect claims institutionalized racism in the US because the word systemically clearly implies that disadvantage is somehow embedded in the system of the country. The segment also very strongly implies that it is white people who are responsible for this. This is neither neutral nor is it verifiable, I just cannot see how it could be either. The article also makes broad claims as to the relative disadvantage of some groups (e.g. what they article calls voluntary immigrants) vs other groups. Neither neutral, probably unverifiable. Even if the source claims that there is systemic discrimination against certain groups in the US, this is still not a reason to parrot this on Wikipedia, the author of the study may be politically biased or may have simply done poor analysis. Systemic disadvantage is actually easy to show, e.g. Apartheit SA had explicit policies and laws that disadvantaged the black population in that country (it does not have these anymore). Malaysia has explicit policies disadvantaging their Indian and Chinese populations. Nazi Germany had a policy to exterminate the European Jews. The US had explicit laws against the Chinese and Japanese at some time. Mentioned can be verified very easily. However, the US since many decades simply does not have any laws, regulations or policies that are of disadvantage to African Americans or other groups. It does however have explicit policies actually giving an advantage to this group, e.g. preference for African Americans in education and in government contracts: neutral (it is simply the truth) and verifiable. The claim that it is the opposite way round is not, stating that it is would be based on opinion and possible bias, both have no place on Wikipedia. Systemically disadvantaged should be removed and replaced with supposedly, because it is the hypothesis that supposed disadvantage causes lower IQ, it cannot be verified in the absence of systemic disadvantage. It is also not neutral because it claims without evidence that the majority group (whites) somehow systemically suppress the African American minority. A better solution still may be to cancel the segment involving the US and instead leave the following two paragraphs which are much more balanced, clearly stating that the authors argue or the authors note... May still be opinionated and hard to verify but at least it states clearly that it is an opinion. The first paragraph states things as if they are fact, which they are not! Plain and simple. It should be rewritten as suggested, or it should go.Eracekat (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There is nothing "political" in pointing out the well documented systemic disadvantage that most minorities face. Wikipedia reflects the sources and there are no reliable sources that refer to "supposed disadvantages". The suggestion is a non-starter.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It is irrelevant whether it is political or not, what is relevant is whether it is based in fact. It is not, repeating that certain minorities face systemic disadvantage does not make it true, neither does claiming that it is well documented, which it is not. Either the evidence is shown or the paragraph should be changed or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eracekat (talk • contribs) 21:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
A fact in a wikipedia context is what reliable sources describe as a fact. The systemic disadvantage of African Americans and other minorities in American socity is one of the best documented facts of sociology. Putting that in doubt amounts to the same kind of science denialism as climate change denial.HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Systematic disadvantage isn't nearly as quantifiable a fact, if it is one at all, as rising global temperatures. Moreover, even if it was, it wouldn't be an objective, uncontestable fact that this is the only cause, the main cause, a major cause, or even a significant cause at all of lower IQ scores among blacks. Tezero (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • With respect to WeijiBaikeBianji's comment: I am not sure if I even have to cite any sources. If a paragraph on wikipedia makes an unsubstantiated and unverified claim, why does there have to be evidence to the contrary to have it changed or removed?Eracekat (talk)

21:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have doubts about citing sources, what are you doing bringing up Wikipedia policies? What should be said with the voice of the encyclopedia in article text is that which is well supported by reliable secondary sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
It is clear that you are not sufficienytly aware of the literature to make an evaluation fo what is and isnt substantiated.HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Eracekat - you still seem to think you can freely interchange the words "systemic" and "systematic". Have you actually looked up the meanings to see the difference? Arguing firmly against one does not make a case against the other at all. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
My mistake in properly distinguishing systemic from systematic is irrelevant and may be used here in order to distract from the issue. It is irrelevant because there is neither verifiable systemic not verifiable systematic disadvantage of minorities in the US. Verifiable fact is: 1) no law or policy is being pursued in the US that disadvantages minorities. 2) Policies exist that give disadvantages to certain preferred minorities in the areas of education, government contracts, government hiring, such policies are generally referred to as affirmative action. They lead, for example, to acceptance rates as high as 85% for African American applicants to some colleges, when equally qualified Asian Americans or European Americans are accepted at rates as low as 35% or so. As such, the facts of the matter diametrically oppose what is claimed in the paragraph under discussion. There was no need for me to prove this, the burden of proof is with those that want to include such content. The burden of proof is with them because Wikipedia has clear, non-negotiable pillars, one of which being verifiability. I anyone finds anything on Wikipedia that is not verified, he or she does not need to prove the opposite of what is claimed in order to have it removed or changed, simply pointing out that is it not verified is sufficient. He or she also does not have to fulfill arbitrary criteria on reading ability or grasp of the English language. Simply pointing out unverified claims is sufficient. Since I have now gone far further than required, and proven that the opposite of what is claimed in the paragraph is in fact the truth, there should be no more doubt that this paragraph needs to be changed as I suggested, or removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eracekat (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Given that systemic bias may not involve government policy, and given that Wikipedia does not base articles on original research anyway, none of what you have written above is of any significance to the content of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles have to be neutral and verifiable. If you claim that systemic bias exists without government policy, then show the evidence for it, or take the paragraph down (or at least stop interfering when I change it). I have shown that government policy exists that is diametrically opposed to what the paragraph claims, affirmative action disadvantages European and Asian Americans, while the paragraph claims the exact opposite. This is not my original research, as you seem to claim, these are verifiable facts. The paragraph is wrong, based on non-facts and it is grossly and disgustingly racist against European Americans and other non African American minorities which are claimed to be less disadvantaged, i.e. advantaged. Proof should be given for the claim made, or it should be changed according to my suggestion or taken down. This kind of racist propaganda has no place on Wikipedia. How can it be taken down?Eracekat (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources. They are not based on the opinions of contributors, regardless of how much clueless drivel they post on talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Your disgusting and disrespectful language arrogantly assuming your own superiority over others shows me that you are out of arguments and that the point I am making is valid. Paragraph needs to be changed or taken down.Eracekat (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
WeijiBaikeBianji, it seems you are missing the point. If a paragraph makes the wide ranging claim that there is systemic disadvantage for some groups, without citing proper evidence for it, then when I ask for it to be taken down, I don't have to show my evidence, it is sufficient to note that the claim is not verifiable. Otherwise anybody could put anything on wikipedia without proof, and in order for it to be taken down or changed, others would have to cite sources, while the original authors do not. That's not how it works! Furthermore, despite not being required to do so, as just explained, I have done so, by citing well verifiable affirmative action policies that are aimed at getting African Americans into college and into jobs over better qualified Asian and European candidates. I am not suggesting to change the article into "advantaged minorities have lower IQ", I simply want the claim removed that African Americans are systemically disadvantaged. It is not true, and it is not verified, and the paragraph should hence be changed or removed.Eracekat (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
A reminder what Wikipedia articles are based on: Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. So even if there is apparent consensus that this paragraph portraying European and Asian Americans as perpetrators of injustice against African Americans should remain, Wikipedia policies are clear that it should not, unless it can be verified. Since the paragraph is not verified, it needs to be changed, or it needs to be taken down.Eracekat (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hilo48, your comment indicates bias and your willingness to use it when editing wikipedia articles. Both the supposed disadvantage of African Americans and climate changed are heavily pushed by the left. This kind of political bias may be OK on MSNBC but not on Wikipedia. I have shown irrefutable hard evidence of official government policy disadvantaging European and Asian Americans (affirmative action). Claiming the exact opposite is racist, it is false, it is politically biased, it is non-verifiable, it is not neutral. It needs to be taken down, regardless of how many people on this board object to it, Wikipedia policies are clear.Eracekat (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm fascinated by the idea that pointing out a mistake in reading a word proves that I am actively biased. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't the slightest bit interested in your 'irrefutable evidence'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Finally a definitive source. Reading all the pesky guidelines was getting to be boring. It's now clear, at least to me, that AndyTheGrump is the "go to" man for ascertaining whether Wikipedia is or isn't "interested". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.2.34 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you conscious or do you vegetate in a pickle jar? Affirmative action is well documented and well written about on Wikipedia itself, and since when do you speak for the whole website, your arrogance is only topped by your incredible arrogance.Eracekat (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Please proofread your insults before posting. Also, please bear in mind that no amount of righteous indignation overrules reliable sources that provide due information. Further comments should be restricted to actionable proposals based on sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Jonnuniq, thank you so much for reminding me of how to insult people, while at the same time doing nothing against the people who started the insulting, read above. No argument has yet been made against my point, yet it has simply been about personal attacks with clear political bias being displayed. Below Andy the Grump claims to be the moral authority on common sense. Can you reign him/her in or will you go only after me?Eracekat (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The existence of affirmative action does not preclude the existence of systemic disadvantage, as anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to figure out. As for sources on such systemic disadvantage, I suggest you start by reading the source cited for the relevant passage: "African Americans are subject to outcome bias not only with respect to [IQ] tests but along many dimensions of American life. They have the short end of nearly every stick: average income, representation in high-level occupations, health and health care, death rate, confrontations with the legal system, and so on. With this situation in mind, some critics regard the score differential as just another example of a pervasive outcome bias that characterizes our society as a whole." [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
This isn't complicated and doesn't need an editor analysis of laws and interpersonal interactions. Simply, some sources say minorities face systemic oppression, others say they have genetic behavior differences. So we have to write supposed systemic oppression, just as we would have to write supposed genetic behavior differences. Could we write "groups with genetic behavior differences" in Wikipedia's voice? Of course not. BeauPhenomene (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The article says 'disadvantage', not 'oppression' - not that it matters, since you are citing no sources whatsoever which contradict the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
You must be aware of sources which state group differences are due to genetic differences. Please don't play games. BeauPhenomene (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
BeauPenomene is correct, we Have to write "supposed" because it is a matter of contention. Evidence against the systemic disadvantage hypothesis: 1) The whole point of the article we currently discuss, studies claiming genetic differences. 2) Affirmative action which gives an advantage, not a disadvantage to African Americans 3) Thomas Sowell is a scholar who regularly refutes various inequality and disadvantage claims (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQq5gKYUoPc ). We cannot let something stand as fact that is clearly in contention. "Supposed disadvantage" is an appropriate phrase, "systemic disadvantage" is not. It would make a mockery of Wikipedia's pillars of neutrality and verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eracekat (talk • contribs) 05:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I notice AndyTheGrump has reverted my edited based on the argument that no sources claim a genetic behavior difference. Does AndyTheGrump really think this or is AndyTheGrump POV pushing and playing silly dishonest games? BeauPhenomene (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Going through the archives it is absolutely obvious that editors reverting me are aware of the relevant sources and are lying. Where can I report this? BeauPhenomene (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC) — BeauPhenomene (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Actually, what is 'absolutely obvious' is that you have cited no sources whatsoever which contradict the sourced statement regarding the existence of systemic disadvantage. Still, if you wish to be blocked for violation of Wikipedia policy, feel free to bring the matter up at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG first... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The same happened to me, changes were immediately reverted, I was asked to make a suggestion on the talk page. On the talk page I was viciously attacked for suggesting the change, at times by the same editor who reverted my change. I am not sure if it is possible to report the issue, I may attempt a change later on, but it will likely be reverted by what to me seem like a small group of editors who have a political agenda. I object to the grump threatening BeauPhenome with a ban, this is disgusting thuggery of the worst kind, clearly aimed at muzzling people of different opinions. People who may on the issue agree with the grump should nevertheless speak out against this behavior as this kind of threatening behavior has no place in a free society. I am very disappointed at how some people on this talk page behave, as if they have a moral authority that enables them to simply ignore stated and verifiable facts and with at times thuggish behavior try to beat down opposing view points, which are verifiable, unlike their own. The point is that a change does not require evidence because the original point made, there is systemic disadvantage, is not proven either. You would need to show that a law exists that systemically disadvantages people, which the sources do not. Wikipedia does not have to parrot the political opinions of some individuals in academia. It should state facts, and if it states an opinion, it should clearly state so, instead of misleadingly claim fact where there is only opinion.Eracekat (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
So now we are being told that pointing out that an editor has misread a word is a vicious attack. ROTFLMAO! HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The article says nothing whatsoever about systemic disadvantage being the result of law. And you have still to produce a single source which suggests that systemic disadvantage does not exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.2.34 (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump knows the sources exist. Why is he wasting everybody's time? BeauPhenomene (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
And is this (argument from ignorance) not the basis for why Wikipedia requires as one of the pillars for an admissible article that it is verifiable? If people could just write down things without evidence, requiring others to disprove it, then it would be hard to keep to the truth because the burden would always be with the person attempting a correction, not the author. Systemic disadvantage would seem to imply that all members of a minority are at a disadvantage and that this disadvantage somehow originates in the system, in society. To be frank, I cannot even see how mere disadvantage (rather than systemic disadvantage) could be proven. 1) We have already established, I think, that now laws or policies exists in US society which discriminate against any minority. 2) We have established that policies exist that actually give an advantage to some minorities (affirmative action). 3) I have given one example of a scholar (Thomas Sowell) whose analysis indicates that similarly educated and experienced African Americans make the same or more income than European Americans, which would seem to be contrary to claimed disadvantage. This is all very strong evidence to the contrary of what the paragraph under discussion claims and because of this it should be changed to reflect this. Leaving it as it is may be unfair to other groups who may implicitly or explicitly be painted as benefiting from the supposed disadvantage of others. I must admit however that I have gotten apprehensive of even trying another change because I would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia, rather than getting banned. How should I proceed? Should I change the article citing sources to the contrary of what is claimed in the paragraph and word it so that the contention of the issue becomes clearer? Should I just remove it?Eracekat (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:No original research (and note that the section in question is referring to a more general case, of which African Americans are but a part). AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of those watching this page, BeauPhenomene has now started a thread at WP:ANI. [5] AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And to settle the sock question I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eracekat - it is possible there is no socking here and thus I think this needs to be determined. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Here is some hard data about the supposedly alleged disadvantage of non-white racial groups in the US. Written by the President of the American Sociological Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs)
But that's just another overqualified lefty academic who makes his point with, like, data! The horror! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

:::Yes, 'academics' like Boas, Lewontin, Gould, Mead, Marks, Goodman, Rose, Kamin, Lysenko etc. etc. have been making their 'points' with 'data' for a long time. The point here is not that some academics think discrimination is a major factor, the point is that some don't, so we can't state it as a fact. Why are you lying? 121.67.223.160 (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not the case. There are also "some academics" who argue that anthropogenic climate change is not a fact, but since their view is contradicted by easily observable facts most scientists disagree with that view. In such cases we do state the majority mainstream view as fact, and if the opposing fringe view is sufficiently notable then we mention that it exists, but is considered counterfactual by most experts. Nice touch with adding Lysenko at the end that shows very well where you are coming from. Please give my best to the happy guys over at Metapedia. Btw. Most of people on the right wing of the debate also are aware of the systemic disadvantage - they just claim that it is caused by genetic differences. That is pretty much what the entire IQ debate is about. Please show us some reliable sources that state that African Americans in the US are not disadvantaged as a group or stop wasting our time.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC
Semi-protected, so the next socks will be accounts, not IPs. I'll think about other solutions, maybe a talk page for IPs. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Eracekat's reasoning. The article states elsewhere there is no systematic bias against black Americans. We don't have race discrimination in hiring, nor are there race segregated schools anymore. Affirmative action makes it easier for blacks to get jobs and into college, so it is a systematic advantage. There are cultural problems with black on black bullying for anyone showing intelligence or otherwise "acting white". Wealthy and middle class people of any race do far better than poor people of any race, even when going to the same schools. That has been well documented. Poor people have more children, so more noise in the house, and harder to study, plus worse nutrition, and more stress. Are the books being used as references really reliable sources? Could we not find just as many books that say otherwise? Unless its a government issued statement based on proper scientific study, I see no reason to mention any claims of existing systematic bias against black Americans. Dream Focus 00:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No where does the article say that there is no systematic bias against Black Americans. It says that intelligence tests are not systematically biased against African Americans which is something entirely different. The rest of your musings are irrelevant.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
[7]User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Socio-economic correlates of stratification are well-established, but do not preclude race or ethnicity as additional independent forces. Just because two variables themselves correlate does not mean that they do not also act independently & synergistically, which well-controlled studies have, in fact, confirmed.
This article is specifically concerned with race as a variable. In examining racial discrepancies among IQ scores, RS's overwhelmingly posit socio-political explanations, since those same RS have repeatedly failed to establish any biological bases for racial taxonomies. In that sense, race as a social construct constitutes both a reality AND an epistemology among researchers. Again, these are not mutually exclusive entities. Once evidence is overwhelming enough to generate mainstream consensus, it itself joins the presumptive framework guiding further inquiry. This is how ALL science proceeds, both "hard" & social.

AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You are right, but here we have the problem that there are two scientific fields with different paradigms for knowledge production that have a stake in the issue and they largely do not acknowledge the other paradigms evidence type as being valid. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_96&oldid=1142775496"