This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
That does not look like an advertisement, and why would the WSJ even publish an advert like that. This is what Gottfredson said about the origin of the statement[1]:
The controversy over The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) was at its height in the fall of 1994. Many critics attacked the book for supposedly relying on outdated, pseudoscientific notions of intelligence. In criticizing the book, many critics promoted false and highly misleading views about the scientific study of intelligence. Public miseducation on the topic is hardly new (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987, 1988), but never before had it been so angry and extreme. I therefore approached the editorial features editor, David Brooks, at the Wall Street Journal to see if he would be interested in my writing an essay on the rising crescendo of misinformation on intelligence. He was not. He said he would, however, consider a short statement signed by 10 to 15 experts on what knowledge they do, in fact, consider to be mainstream in the study of intelligence. Timeliness required that any statement be submitted within 2 weeks.
It seems that unless Gottfredson is lying, Serpell is wrong.
As to the Garrett business, I didn't have access to Winston's article. It looked like synthesis as there was no mention that it was Winston who makes the argument. It's OK.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
As you've just acknowledged that you haven't been checking sources during your revisions, I'll ask you to revert your changes and stop disruptive editing. aprock (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I acknowledge the Garrett thing; I think it should be mentioned in the article that it's Winston's interpretation, though. I was able to check all the other sources. I would suggest that you stop reverting my sourced edits without first discussing what's wrong with them.--Victor Chmara (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that since this is an article currently under arbitration that you should discuss edits that might be contentious before making them.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you've got WP:BRD backwards. Once someone has reverted your edits, you should come to talk to discuss them. I'm happy to discuss them, but reverting them without discussion is edit warring. aprock (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This thread about my recent edits was already here and I was soliciting comments about them when you started reverting wholesale the new content that I had added.--Victor Chmara (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I did not revert all your edits. I reverted select ones and gave proper edit summaries. If you have specific problems with the ones I reverted, please bring them up. aprock (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. For example, your edit summary for this [2] was "restored sourced content", when in reality you removed sourced content added by me. Moreover, all the "restored content" was included in my version, too, with the exception of a factual error that you restored (the article was published in Intelligence in 1997, not 1994). Similarly, in this edit[3] you inexplicably restored the POV wording that I had changed ('conspiracy' suggests 'conspiracy theory', i.e. kookiness, unlike the neutral 'campaign'). In this edit[4] you also removed sourced content added by me, while claiming to "restore content". You also twice made a factually incorrect revert suggesting that the Vanhanen interview was published in Helsingin Sanomat[5][6]. In short, your edits are not constructive and your edit summaries do not match what you are actually doing.--Victor Chmara (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the first edit you cite[7], I restored content that you had deleted and replaced with non-encyclopaedic language. Your change of wording (from conspiracy to campaign) was not based on any source reference. There was no such campaign, and labelling it as such gives undue legitimacy to something that did not exist. With respect to Helsingin Sanomat, you deleted the reference with no edit summary or talk page discussion. aprock (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, if you think my wording of something is 'non-encyclopaedic', you can change it. You don't have to remove it. And what was the content I had supposedly deleted there? I don't see it. Secondly, so all the anti-hereditarian campaigning described in the article did not actually happen? Is that seriously your position? If so, then perhaps you should remove from the article the following explicit discussion of these campaigns:
Although the main intention of the hereditarians had been to challenge the anti-hereditarian establishment, they were unprepared for the level of reaction and censure in the scientific world. Militant student groups at Berkeley and Harvard conducted disruptive campaigns of harassment on Jensen and Herrnstein with charges of racism, despite Herrnstein's refusal to endorse Jensen's views on race and intelligence. Two weeks after the appearance of Jensen's article, the Berkeley chapter of the militant student organization Students for a Democratic Society staged protests against Arthur Jensen on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, chanting "Fight racism. Fire Jensen!"[56][67] Jensen himself states that he even lost his employment at Berkeley because of the controversy.[47] Similar campaigns were waged in London against Eysenck and in Boston against Edward Wilson, the founding father of sociobiology, the discipline that explains human behavior through genetics. The attacks on Wilson were orchestrated by the Sociobiology Study Group, part of the left wing organization Science for the People, formed of 35 scientists and students, including the Harvard biologists Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin, who both became prominent critics of hereditarian research in race and intelligence.[68][69] In 1972 50 academics, including the psychologists Jensen, Eysenck and Herrnstein as well as five Nobel laureates, signed a statement entitled "Resolution on Scientific Freedom Regarding Human Behavior and Heredity", criticizing the climate of "suppression, punishment and defamation of scientists who emphasized the role of heredity in human behavior". In October 1973 a half-page advertisement entitled "Resolution Against Racism" appeared in the New York Times. With over 1000 academic signatories, including Lewontin, it condemned "racist research", denouncing in particular Jensen, Shockley and Herrnstein.[70][71]
What's your source for the word 'conspiracy'? In the article, the cited sources are Segerstråle 2001, Jackson 2005, Herrntein 1973, Jensen 1982, Davis 1983, Pearson 1997, and Gottfredson 1998. Are you saying that they all use the word 'conspiracy'? That's BS. My point is that 'campaign' is a neutral word to describe what they said was happening in those days. Moreover, elsewhere in the article 'campaign' is the exact word used to describe what happened. Note that the article does not say that there actually was such a campaign, only that Jensen and others claimed that there was. Using the word 'conspiracy' discredits Jensen and others by suggesting that they are crazy, and that, say, the Sociobiology Study Group did not actually exist (which, bizarrely, seems to be your position).
As to the Helsingin Sanomat bit, it is explicitly mentioned in the cited source that it was about "comments made by Professor Emeritus Tatu Vanhanen in an interview with Kuukausiliite, a monthly magazine supplement of Helsingin Sanomat". Please read the sources before making such reverts.--Victor Chmara (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Please review the diff to see the restored content: [8]
If you have a source for the word campaign, please provide it.
Your distinction between supplement of a magazine and magazine is not reason to remove the reference to the wiki-link.
You don't seem to understand how the diff thing works. The only thing I removed was the erroneous description of where and when the article was published, only to replace it with a more accurate and detailed description of same. I also added a quote from the article. The stuff about Weyher, Mankind Quarterly, etc. is there in my version, too, unchanged. Again, what is it that I supposedly removed?
Davis 1983 talks about Gould and Science for the People campaigning against hereditarianism. Segerstrale 2001, p. 34 talks about "vigorous campaigns against Jensen and Herrnstein" by the academic left. What is your source for the word 'conspiracy'?
I am a native speaker of Finnish, and a long-time subscriber and reader Helsingin Sanomat (a newspaper) and Kuukausiliite (a magazine). Unlike you, I know the difference between the two. It is simply an error of fact to claim that the interview was published in Helsingin Sanomat, and this is also evident from the cited source.--Victor Chmara (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry wrong diff. That's the one I apologised for below. So many diffs makes it a little hard to keep track. Here are the diffs where you removed content: [9],[10],[11] (same as [12]). With respect to the word campaign vs. conspiracy, the campaigns you mention above are not about stifling research. As I said above, you removed the magazine reference without any justification. Correcting the source would have been fine. aprock (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I acknowledged my error regarding the Garrett business many hours ago. Why are you still harping on it? It has been corrected in the article. The rest of the diffs show no removed content. Please copy-paste here the passages that you think I removed, so I can show you that you're wrong. Whether or not the campaigns were about stifling research, that's what Jensen and others thought they were; the passage is about the opinions of Jensen et al., not about what the campaigns objectively were like. If you think 'stifle' is the wrong word, you can replace it with something better. The justification for the Helsingin Sanomat edit was the cited source that was there all along, you just didn't read it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not harping. You asked to see diffs where you removed content, and I provided them. I've reviewed all the edit summaries related to the Helsingin Sanomat edit, not a one mentions sourcing. aprock (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no content removed in them. What the hell are you talking about? If there is, why don't you copy-paste some here? The Helsingin Sanomat business is ridiculous, too. Why do you think I would have added false information about it? You should have assumed good faith, and, if needed, raised the issue on the talk page, in a thread specifically reserved for discussions of my recent edits.--Victor Chmara (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
As an exercise, I'll do the first one for you:[13]responded with an updated version of Henry E. Garrett's "equalitarian dogma", labelling was removed. aprock (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
You are not acting in good faith. I have repeatedly admitted that I was wrong about the Garrett thing. Did you miss it every single time? I have not attempted to revert it, either. I interpret this as you finally admitting that you were wrong about me removing content. You, on the other hand, removed lots of stuff while claiming to be "restoring content".--Victor Chmara (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm acting in good faith, I'm just on a very small laptop, which makes the comparisons difficult when the diff goes awry (as they appear to have done). So yes, I do admit that I didn't read those diffs correctly, and I again apologize. I've updated the newspaper/magazine reference to match the source. aprock (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
With respect to your most recent edit [14], you are removing sourced content and introducing an alternate POV which appears to place undue weight on the study. aprock (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
That edit removes absolutely no content, and it certainly does not place undue weight on anything. In reality, it restores balance by citing scientists who see the survey as vindicating the hereditarian research tradition. Before I added that short remark, the article contained only attempts to play down the significance of the survey. Furthermore, the content I added was straight from the Snyderman and Rothman (study) article, and no one, not even mathsci, has thought that it was POV there.--Victor Chmara (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the repsonse. I misread the original edit. I did not see that the red text had been replicated below the references you added. My apologies. aprock (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted. However, this is something I don't appreciate. What a waste of time and energy, only resulting in more bad blood and less work on the actual articles. This thread was here and I was asking for comments on my edits long before you started reverting my changes. There's nothing about these edits that cannot be resolved by talking about them. I don't understand your behavior.--Victor Chmara (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I was primarily focused on restoring content which you had deleted. I also reverted the cases where you made arbitrary determinations of wording without sourcing. My intent was not to remove sourced content, and in the cases where I did that I have no objection to your remedying those mistakes. aprock (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
What content have I removed? You still have not supplied me with even one example of removed content. I have reworded some passages, but I have not removed any relevant content. The problem is that you don't seem to understand how to the diff option works. The conspiracy/campaign thing is about NPOV, I don't understand how you can argue otherwise. 'Conspiracy' is pure POV pushing unsupported by sources. The word 'campaign' is used several times elsewhere in the article when the very campaigns that Jensen and others considered as examples of neo-Lysenkoism are discussed.--Victor Chmara (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
See my reply here [15]aprock (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I have already pointed out that "paid advertisement" is not factually correct.
Moreover, the Wikipedia article on the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" editorial links to the reliable sources on the history of the formation and publication of that document. This was all discussed on the talk page of the Race and intelligence article or on one of the talk pages of the ArbCom case on that article or perhaps in more than one place recently, and anyway is fully sourced in Mainstream Science on Intelligence. That editorial was not a paid advertisement. It was also not a review article. The editor of the journal Intelligence—I have the exact issue at hand in my office—noted that that writing was reprinted "as an editorial." It has as much weight as any joint editorial—no more and no less. It is out of date on several factual issues, and it would be a violation of the biography of living persons policy to assert that its living signatories still agree with all its propositions without citing such an assertion to their own recent writings or interviews. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Besides having a copy of the Intelligence special issue that reprinted the editorial, I have a photocopy of the editorial as it was originally published by the Wall Street Journal. I can authenticate that the photocopy that Mathsci kindly provides is accurate, and point out for the record that is not at all labeled or placed in the way that a paid advertisement would be placed in that publication. David Brooks is still living, and he should be able to confirm under what circumstances the editorial was published. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Without engaging in idle speculation, Mathsci's citation indicates that it was a paid advertisement. While that might not be strictly true, no source I know of contradicts the claim that the WSJ was paid to include the content. That said, one mention is a book may not be enough to establish that as a notable fact. aprock (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Most likely, that is just a mistake in the source that Mathsci kindly provided (and correctly represented). If the factual issue is really that important, it should be possible to get a direct answer on that issue from multiple living persons. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Based on Gottfredson's account, which I quoted above, it's clear that it was not a paid advertisement. Insisting that it was is tantamount to saying that Gottfredson is a liar. Furthermore, the suggestion that the WSJ would publish an advert like that on their editorial page makes no sense whatsoever.--Victor Chmara (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere in Gottfredson's account does she say that the space in the WSJ was not paid for. Suggesting such is WP:OR. aprock (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Gottfredson forthrightly acknowledges that the printing of extra copies (approximately double the normal size of a print run) of the special issue of the journal Intelligence was funded by the Pioneer Fund. But no one except Serpell (2000), which I have at hand, has put into a reliable published source any statement to the effect that the Wall Street Journal violated its usual editorial practice and put a paid advertisement on the editorial page. Serpell perhaps was misremembering where the editorial was printed in the newspaper, or perhaps was passing on someone else's wild speculation without checking. There is no credible evidence that the Wall Street Journal editorial was a paid advertisement. Serpell's statement sources back to his article in Sternberg's handbook, yes, but the source (the book) is not reliable on that issue (even though it is very reliable on many other issues). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen any reference to it being on the editorial page of the WSJ. I don't think that really this is a very important point. Nor do I think that this public statement or it content has any more significance than say the 1970s statement on race which had over 1000 signatories, You can look at the WSJ page on Linda Gottfredson's website by following the image link above. Mathsci (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Jude Wanniski's letter, published Dec 30, 1994 in the WSJ, indicates that the statement was indeed printed on the editorial page. An excerpt:
In the continuing discussion of Charles Murray's "Bell Curve" on human intelligence, you have displayed the views of 50 professors, "all experts in intelligence and related fields," ("Mainstream Science on Intelligence," editorial page, Dec. 13) as if to say "case closed." In fact, the only reason there is controversy about the Murray thesis is his assertion that intelligence is partly inherited, perhaps as much as 60%. This leads to the logical conclusion that the clear disparity in IQ between white and black Americans, along the bell curve, can be offset only through many generations of miscegenation.
The mainstream statement is certainly at least as significant as the APA report. Furthermore, this article is about the history of the debate, so certainly the arguments presented in the statement, even if they were outdated (they aren't), are relevant.--Victor Chmara (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Victor, when you write, "The mainstream statement is certainly at least as significant as the APA report," I have to disagree with you. The APA report was much more carefully done, and much better represents genuinely mainstream opinion among psychologists. The sources about the composition of each document make that quite clear. (And, by the way, Serpell does a good job of describing differences between the two documents, both of which I read immediately after their publication and have stored in my office all this while, even while moving overseas and back.) But I do agree that the "Mainstream Science" editorial deserves some modest mention in an article about the history of this controversy—after all, that's why Serpell mentioned it. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I think a concise and clear statement like "Mainstream Science" signed by a large number of leading scholars is an extremely useful source in an article about the history of the debate. Moreover, as it was initially published in a newspaper with a large circulation and not in some academic journal read only by experts, it became part of the public discussion about the issue.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Good, then we agree it's of significance for the article and it stays. Details (of how) to follow in constructive discussion, yes? (And in a new thread, please, once the ugliness at arbitration is done I think it would clear the air to archive some of the more contentious past discussions here and elsewhere.)PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Gottfredson called it a "essay"[16] and a "statement"[17], not an "op-ed". Gillborn called it a "statement". I'd go with "statement". Professor marginalia (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, calling "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" a "statement" seems perfectly acceptable to me. As long as it's clear that its signatories may have changed their mind in years since (as some plainly have, which triggers BLP policy), then describing the editorial as the joint statement of the signers at the time seems uncontentious. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
On quoting from primary sources
I changed the placing of the two textbook references used to describe the publication of Mainstream Science on Intelligence and to give a brief description of its content. For convenience I have also added in the footnotes for the citations the precise pieces of text used. In the paragaph on this topic prior to Victor Chmara's edits, all the content came from secondary sources. There is already an article on The Bell Curve, which is why the book is not treated in detail in this article. It is a book however with 872 pages. Mainstream Science on Intelligence was one page long in the WSJ and also has its own wikipedia article, summarising the 25 points in the article using a secondary source. In these circumstances it seems WP:UNDUE for a wikipedian to make his own pick of the points from the WSJ article that he thinks are relevant to the history. That is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Unless there is some other source, not by the co-signatories which makes such a summary or selection, that kind of material seems to be against WP edit policy. Wikipedians cannot write as if they themselves are historians, using primary sources. I have tagged the sentence leading to the quote. The citation there is just to the primary source. Mathsci (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we do need to learn to use secondary sources more and not write all Wikipedia articles from the ground up with original synthesis of primary sources. There are three reasons for this. One (which you have already mentioned) is that this is Wikipedia policy. We can't write Wikipedia articles the way many people write blogs. Two, an editorial procedure following Wikipedia policy helps us all stay calm and communicate civilly and factually, even if we disagree about facts. Three, Wikipedia articles based on summary statements from reliable secondary sources don't become bloated with quote farms and are more enjoyable reading for all of us editors and for all readers of Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The editorial is quoted and referred to in the Gottfredson source (secondary quoting primary), so I don't understand the need for re-citing information provided in the secondary source. Nevertheless, I've attributed to the appropriate WSJ edition. This did not qualify as an editor quoting a primary source.
Technically the editor is picking from Gottfredson quoting the primary; when I have a chance I'll pick through to see how the salient points are covered.
Are there concerns that what is quoted in the article creates an artificial synthesis which implies anything other (regarding the entire piece) than what is quoted there? That would be the only concern. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Vecrumba: we don't choose quotes from primary sources. You have got that completely wrong. There was already a reference to the Intelligence editorial in the text. Again you made a mistake about that by replacing the {{cn}} tag with the WSJ reference to the primary source. The 1997 citation to Gottfredson is the Intelligence editorial and is obviously a primary source. It is completely unreasonable to claim that the subsequent reprint of the WSJ open letter as an editorial in Intelligence makes the latter a secondary source. That is just wikilawyering.
I have replaced Victor Chmara's personal choice of quotes (WP:CPUSH, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH) by the brief quotation from the primary source (the open letter/editorial) chosen by Gillman in a WP:RS. I don't actually see the need to quote from the open letter, which is inconsequential compared to the book it is supporting. Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
@Mathsci, it would be helpful then, for a moment, to explain exactly what you wished as an appropriate action for your "citation needed" tag, and please do so without talking to me like I'm an idiot. I've come to suspect that what is clear in your mind is not coming across with the clarity you think it does, and as I'm not an idiot, that would be with regard to more than just myself. And please stop with the WP:ACRONYMS, it obfuscates whatever specific points you are trying to make.
I will also note that your accusation of wikilawyering is offensive. Start talking to editors as if they are interested in the topic and not here just to argue with you. Apparently you can't disagree with anyone without also attacking them. Get over it. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I would have been glad to accept your non-insulting non-accusatory note that Gottfredson still counts as primary, but I can only gather you just don't know how to do that. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Picture of San-Bushman
I think this picture is sort of offensive. We do not actually know the IQ of the persons pictured, but the cutline makes it look as if they persons pitured should serve as an example of low Bushman-IQ. May be the persons pictured where geniuses, a mean IQ does not say anything about a single person.
The picture is old and the persons pictured may be dead by now, but may be their descendants are still alive. How would you feel if you looked up "race and intelligence" may be in Chinese Wikipedia and you found a picture of your grandfather underlined "whites tend to have lower IQs than Chinese"?-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No mention of purpose
This article does not point out the purpose of the debate, or even make any explanation to why people care. What would be different if one hypothesis emerges victorious? It's not like anything will change-- people will still be treated the same way (I hope) regardless of which theory is correct. No one's intending to change anything depending on the results, no one's (admitting to be) planning on committing any more Holocausts on the matter, so this controversy could be classified as a curiosity controversy, such as a furious debate on whether dung flies can stay in flight for more than 10 minutes.
BTW, any moron who thinks flies can magically hover for a whole 10 minutes straight is clearly paranoid, and in deep need to go see a psychiatrist, or otherwise go to hell. There has been absolutely no crumb of evidence that a fly which feasts upon dung can fly for 10 minutes straight. Naturally selection clearly would never even think about having a dung loving fly stay in air for 10 minutes. Idiotic sympathizers for such the most fringe urban legend need to learn to read a friggen book, because none of them shows any possibility of a fly not touching the ground for 600 seconds. There isn't a single real expert who believes so. A fly can't even fly for 10 minutes on the moon (although critics argued it is due to the lack of an aerodynamic propulsion medium). Stop the nonsense and open your blind eyes to the dam truth. A fly CANNOT fly for 10 minutes without rest.
173.183.79.81 (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Professor marginalia, you cannot delete anything anywhere and say "not forum". I am merely stating this article's absurdity for not mentioning the purpose as if implying it already is important. Your shoot-first-ask-later approach for deleting other people's edits to talk pages is off the face of Wikipedia's natural atmosphere. If you believe an Wikipedia user's comment is threading off topic, you may comment on it, but no madman would delete something on sight and think about it later. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
NPOV dispute: Removal of national IQ history
See [18]. This research has been much quoted by many independent researchers in numerous scholarly papers. Please explain the removal.Miradre (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I added a secondary literature review mentioning the books as well as a critical source that also noted the large impact of the books. See [19]. Please the explain this why the material was removed now.Miradre (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
As noted in the edit comment, it was removed because it was undue. Critical reviews, and the Pioneer Fund president boosting research supported by the fund does not change that. aprock (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Both were secondary literature reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Rushton and Jensen are of course allowed write scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals. Ad homienm is not reason for exclusion. Also the critical review, while being critical, also noted the large impact of the books and rankings. As such both notability and widespread usage have been established in secondary sources.Miradre (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
As the wall of text you've generated on Talk:Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel demonstrates, discussing issues where you disagree is a fruitless endeavor. If you think the content you wish to add is not WP:UNDUE you are welcome to seek out a WP:3O. aprock (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually we seem to have reached a form of solution by agreeing to take a break in order to read sources. So I hope you can assume good faith here and try to reach a solution.Miradre (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Ridiculous. I removed the tag-the passage that was removed was repetitious-the same controversial figures are already alluded to there. No need to belabor. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Image
I've removed this image from the article for several reasons. The caption of the image was: San bushmen from the Kalahari desert. According to Lynn, their mean IQ is 54, corresponding to the "low end of mild mental retardation in economically developed nations, ... the mental age of an average eight-year old European child." In the 1990s, hereditarian researchers started writing about the genetic causes and socioeconomic effects of intelligence rates in sub-Saharan Africa
First, I checked Mackintosh and he doesn't seem to mention the Bushmen. He does, very briefly and very much in passing, mention the Kalahari hunter gatherers but there the only reason he is brining them up (among others) is to make the point that "We have no grounds for assuming that the modes of thought or reasoning that we take for granted as evidence of intelligence, will be the same as those to be found in an illiterate peasant society.". There's nothing about IQ or mental retardation or anything like that in there so I have no idea what that citation was doing there.
Second, I guess some of it's in Lynn. But then why was THIS PARTICULAR group chosen? Why not have a image of a group of Belgians and give their IQs? The tack-on last sentence is a pretty weak excuse for the inclusion of this image.
Third, there's nothing in actual article text that refers to the Bushman. There's a bit about Rushton's views on Africa which he included in the infamous pamphlet that led to to him being dropped by his publisher. But that's a different thing.
Fourth, the way the caption is worded is problematic. While in text we could address the potential criticisms of these kinds of statements (which is sort of what Mackintosh is doing in fact) here, as an image caption, this presented as some kind of fact, with the sneaky implication that "The Africans are mentally retarded". Hence the caption is both offensive and violates POV. Again, the tack on last sentence of the caption appears to be come kind of justification the inclusion of the quote from Lynn but it's OR. In fact white Europeans were making racist claims about African intellectual inferiority long before the 1990s "hereditarians" (and, if one can be optimistic, the prevalence of such claims has declined over time).
What permission do you wish that I obtain from you? Let me know, which FACTS are in your way?
You don't need any permission, but you do need to make constructive edits which improve the article. The edit I reverted was one that broke the summary style of the article, as well as getting some things wrong. Keep in mind that this article is a fairly well written one which handles a delicate subject with a certain attempt at maintaining NPOV and balance. If you're looking for an article that needs fixing, allow me to suggest Race and Intelligence which is in a dire state. aprock (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the edits to the lead were not an improvement. The lead needs to accurately summarize the contents of the article. Also it used some non-standard language that didn't improve the readability, such as the use of "re-present" to mean something like "present again". Also the proposed lead introduced a specific mention of Gould's book but removed mention of the many, much more important, multidisciplinary edited volumes, sparked by the Bell curve debates of the 1990'es. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 07:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Jensen 1969 article
Hi. I created this article How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? and see that there is a great deal of relevant material in this history. (The same is also true here. I am planning to move a lot of that material around and otherwise clean things up. Does that seem sensible? Any advice? I can see that this topic is fraught with conflict. Thanks. Yfever (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I see the article you created has only just barely survived an AFD, challenged as POV fork. And reading the article in its current state I'd have to agree it is a POV fork. There no mention is given there regarding the content in the article which brought it such notoriety (ie notability) in the first place: what it says about the racial achievement gap. What do you mean by, "clean things up"? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Based on the responses from the closing admin here [20], the AfD is going to deletion review when I have the time to figure out the procedural details. aprock (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
People who watch this page ought to comment hreSlrubenstein | Talk 08:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Nit-picking
We quote Wooldridge quoting Jensen: "the technique for raising intelligence per se in the sense of g, probably lie more in the province of biological science than in psychology or education" but Wooldridge contains a typo which is irritating. "technique" should be "techniques." The Jensen quote can be found in
Jensen, A.R. (1969), Environment, heredity, and intelligence - Issue 2 of Harvard educational review: Reprint series, Harvard University Press, ISBN0916690024 (Page 108).
I'd like to clear up the irritating bad grammar but (i) it would involve inserting a second 1969 Jensen reference, so does that require re-dating them 1969a and 1969b? and (ii) I don't know whether that Wooldridge citation supports more than just the Jensen quote in that paragraph, so don't know whether to replace it or just add the Jensen cite. Hence, I'm not touching it. Perhaps someone more familiar with the article and this citation style would like to look at it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
NPOV Issue
HUGE problem with the following:
The hereditarian line of research continues to be pursued by a group of researchers, mostly psychologists, some of whom are supported by the Pioneer Fund, an organization often described as racist organization.[1]
1. Mostly psychologists - define mostly
2. Define "some". If it's 1 of 1000, then who cares?
3. "often" - define often
Not to mention the reference is dubious. I think AT THE VERY LEAST, the dubious"an organization often described as racist organization" should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.159.214 (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The material appears to be true and refereced. Why do you wish to remove it? --John (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:Label "racist"; WP:weasel "some"; WP:Claim "described". Plus it's from a reference over a decade old and a source not easily accessible. This quote, in the introduction, biases the reader. "Pioneer" appears 17 more times in the article, so fixing the NPOV in the intro is not really removing ANYTHING. Are you seriously suggesting the pioneer fund has had that much on the influence on the WHOLE HISTORY of the subject? Not to mention the pioneer fund does not support ANY INDIVIDUALS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.159.214 (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
"The hereditarian line of research continues to be pursued by a group of researchers, mostly psychologists, some of whom are supported by the Pioneer Fund, an organization often described as racist organization."
I am removing the above, based on 1) WP:weasel 2)WP:claim 3)WP:label 4)I don't think one can say "continues" based on a decade-old reference 5) Mentioning "pioneer fund" in such an editorializing manner is not appropriate for the intro (would we put "Thomas Jefferson, the racist slave owner" in the intro for the DoI?) 6)John has not responded to my concerns with more than "it's refereced (sic)" 7)Pioneer fund is discussed AT LENGTH (much out of proportion) in the article and on its own page. If you revert please respond to my points. Thx--24.42.159.214 (talk) 04:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I support removal of that text based on IP24's rationale. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Could John, Marek, and anyone else defending this tendentious embarrassment to the project please address the IP's perfectly valid criticisms? Given his grasp of the vernacular here, the IP may be no newbie, which is always disconcerting, but I'm a known quantity, with no dog in this fight, who agrees with his assessment of the text, and would appreciate an explanation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
When citing style guidelines, the appropriate action is to improve the style, not delete the content. If there is some question about the continuing nature of the research, that can be handled by requesting verification or citation. As this is the lead, the body should be checked as well. With respect to the well established reputation of the Pioneer Fund, I'm not sure what the point is. With respect to who you are: [21], that's not relevant. aprock (talk) 05:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, first, yeah, this is another banned user sock puppeting on the article - hence the reverts. Other than that I agree that the "mostly psychologists" part is awkward and should probably go - and I don't think that's actually in the source. But except for that, the statement - about PF being frequently described as a racist organizations - is both accurate and well sourced.VolunteerMarek 05:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I've access to the reference cited. There are others by the bucket load that could be used in its place saying essentially the same thing. I'm confident there's a stronger, de-weasel'd, way to phrase this. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't have time to continue this just now, but I have to say your reference to my block log, Aprock, is pretty creepy. I'm beginning to get the tenor of the debate here. For what it's worth, the first block was a mistake, some trigger-happy admin misinterpreting a supportive comment, and the rest relates to a single incident where I described a fool as such.
I agree it should be rewritten. Sadly, I don't have time just now to look at that but will do so later, so, until that's done, would prefer to leave that tendentiousness out of the article, and if it's replicated in the body, that should go too. I don't doubt for a moment that that organisation is racist. That's not the problem with the passage. The problem is it associates those who study intelligence and heredity with racism in a sloppy lazy weasely way, that makes the article look biased and stupid and reflects poorly on the project. I couldn't care less about this topic but I care about the reputation of this encyclopedia.
I'm still shuddering at your grossly inappropriate response to my simple effort to explain where I'm coming from. Ugh. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
In the future, if you find a problem that you don't have time to resolve it on your own, please do consider tagging it for review as an alternative to perpetuating an edit war. aprock (talk) 06:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably, no. Not when the text is that tendentious. But thanks for the advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Volunteer mark, I don't see why you respond to only a single one of my MANY issues, but you have the time to level an ad hominem attack against me. The sentence needed to go beacuse, mostly, the pioneer fund is a relative side-note when compared to the WHOLE HISTORY OF IQ/RACE and doesn't belong in the intro. But also because the style was SO slanted (weasel'ed claim'ed label'ed) there was no reasonable way to fix it. This article read (and the body still does, but the editors can deal with that), "Let's learn about a buncha racist nazis studying race and iq". Funny how the main article on race and IQ is much more balanced. But people still think it's ME with the NPOV problem!
Because you're yet another banned sock puppet disrupting this topic area?VolunteerMarek 16:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point! You are in violation of:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Please read the sections on: Stay on topic,Stay objective, Be welcoming to newcomers and most importantly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks --24.42.159.214 (talk) 17:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I see things have definitely not quieted down while I've been busy elsewhere. The accusations against the Pioneer Fund are based on partisan divination of its intent ("agenda") on the part of its detractors—no judgement of rightly or wrongly. The topic is best served by sticking to sources and scholarship, particularly with regard to the dynamics of schools of thought. As for Pioneer specifically, there is scholarship which is central to the topic of race and intelligence which has been funded by Pioneer; and the accusations against it are certainly central to the controversy, no disagreement regarding the content of the content, if you will. That said, placing Pioneer in the lead of the article and concluding the lead with their mention rather makes the article/controversy seem to be about them (about advocacy groups) as opposed to the question of intelligence and biological inheritance as applied to societal notions and historical practices regarding "race" (and strongly weighted toward the U.S. experience). I don't see any pressing issues with the lead as it currently stands (w/o the specific mention of Pioneer). But saying they're just a side note is tilting too far the other way. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly the case that the Pioneer Fund is not alone in searching for biological explanations for differences in racial outcomes. aprock (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
What's the objection exactly? Pioneer Fund may not be alone, but numerous sources I've tripped through have labeled it as the chief backer financially underwriting the "hereditarians" for decades. Numerous sources also explain somewhat how it is the subject tends to be so US focused. The "who" is funding the research is now more than ever a key bit researchers are expected to disclose now so I don't see the scientific community today dismissive about it, shrugging off that bit as irrelevant. So plz let's at least define the objection more clearly, focus in other words. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
A clear example of the bias in this article is that the material mentioning the debate around the literature reviews and books by Lynn and Vanhanen on national IQs has been completely removed from 2000-present section. This debate and following research such as the high correlations with international student assessment tests, as well as research regarding associations to numerous other factors such economic growth, in many cases done by researchers not having any connections to the Pioneer Fund, is one of main issues in this time period. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
? Ok, but that's not what I'm looking for. Can we focus objections rather than diffusing them? Professor marginalia (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
This removed material is one example of how Pioneer Fund research is not necessarily central to the debate. Especially the current debate. The IQ studies in the literature reviews, the literature reviews (books) themselves, and most of the following researchers have not been funded by the Pioneer Fund. Granted, Lynn, one of the authors, has received some Pioneer Fund grants for other research but not for the books. Most of the researchers using the data in the book for continued research has not received any Pioneer money at any time. The Pioneer Fund should certainly be mentioned in the article but it should not frame the whole debate.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about, "the book(s)"? Professor marginalia (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The books IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality by Lynn and Vanhanen which review the worldwide literature on IQ testing in different nations. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but what have these books to do with the dispute at hand then? Professor marginalia (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The two books and the big debate and the research that has followed during the last ten years illustrates the dangers of relying on a ten years old source for making a statement in the lead about the current state of the field.[22] The scope of the debate and who participates in it has changed since 2002.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Richard Lynn is also a psychologist supported by the Pioneer Fund and his books are often described as racist, so the example doesn't work here. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I raised 7 valid arguments. Marek responded to (maybe) one and lobbed 2 ad hominem attacks (inviolation of WP:Talk guidlines). Professor failed to respond to the point re: relevency of Pioneer fund in the lead. STILL the text was changed without discussion in talk. Please let me know if WP editors are planning to be bullies on this topic and I won't waste my time. I will revert until my issues are at least DISCUSSED.--24.42.159.214 (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
<-- The only problem with the original sentence was the "mostly psychologists" part, which has been removed. Other than that the statement is accurate and ,pertinent. You are removing sourced text.VolunteerMarek 02:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
It is 100% NOT correct. How can you say "continues" from a ten year old reference?--24.42.159.214 (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Umm... because it "continues". Is PF still funding Herediterian research? Yes. Is it still being described as a racist organization. Yes. Is there any indication that this phenomenon has "ceased to continue"? No. You got sources which somehow show that Pioneer Fund turned over new leaf or something? Or are just playing at WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT? Here's another more recent source which says the exact same thing [23].
With regard to the Tucker source, yes, it was published in 2002. And so what? Is it still being cited? Is it still relevant? Yup.VolunteerMarek 02:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The ad hominem attacks notwithstanding; Now I KNOW there are underlying NPOV issues here. You are placing the burden on me to prove who the PF DOESN'T fund. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative. I propose tagging NPOV based on the fact the tone of the article is much more slanted than: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence and that article is tagged! Not to mention the PF is mentioned 15 times and Charles Murray only 3! Furthermore, this article is redundant when considering "Race and intelligence" and could stand to be deleted or merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.159.214 (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, this article is redundant when considering "Race and intelligence" and could stand to be deleted or merged. - actually, the other way.VolunteerMarek 03:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Pioneer Fund still exits but it there is no source for that currently "The hereditarian line of research continues to be pursued by a group of researchers, mainly supported by the Pioneer Fund". A ten years old source is not current. The book "God's Economy" you cite is not about this field. Current researchers who have proposed hereditarian theories such as Gregory Cochran, Henry Harpending, Tatu Vanhanen, and Bruce Lahn and his whole research group, have not been funded by the Pioneer Fund in any way. Furthermore, NPOV requires a neutral view which would include the rejection by for example Rushton of the fund or himself being racist while for himself accepting the term "race realist".[24].
More generally, the lead is problematic for it implies that there are only hereditarians and non-hereditarians. Actually, there are many researchers such as those who have used the national IQ data who do not take side in the hereditarian-or-not debate but instead do research on the associations of the national IQ scores to factors such as economic growth or simply note that they correlate highly with international student assessment tests. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that the usage of the weasely euphemism "race realist" by various racists actually has any validity and should be taken seriously?VolunteerMarek 07:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
You did not reply to most of my points above. Regarding the one you did, Wikipedia does not decide which view is correct and report only that. As per WP:NPOV we should describe the debate from both sides. Certainly we should somewhere in the article mention the claim of "racism" against the Pioneer Fund. We should also mention the response to that criticism. Please reply to the other points I made above. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK, Tucker doesn't say hereditarians are 'mainly' supported by the Pioneer Fund. Volunteer Marek's citation cites the whole book without including a page number, so nobody can verify where Tucker allegedly says this. All the article's other citations to books include a page number. I'm removing this sentence as not properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.30.8 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Can we PLEASE protect this article and get rid of all this sock puppeting banned user IPs? VolunteerMarek 06:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a serious accusation. What evidence do you have for this accusation? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Arguing that the source provided is not reliable because it's a decade old is incredibly weak. If there is evidence that the source is wrong - not original research, but another source saying something different - provide it. The above discussion is fruitless. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
That is only one objection. But note that those wanting to include material have the WP:BURDEN of evidence. If you want to claim something about the current situation, then you have to provide the evidence. There is certainly much new development and many new hereditarian researchers since that book. Examples include Gregory Cochran, Henry Harpending, Tatu Vanhanen, and Bruce Lahn and his whole research group, who have not been funded by the Pioneer Fund in any way. Also, NPOV requires a neutral view and presenting both sides of the debate which would include also mentioning the rejection by for example Rushton of the fund or himself being racist while for himself accepting the term "race realist".[25].
More generally, the lead and sentence is problematic for it implies that there are only hereditarians and non-hereditarians and gives the impression that only a group of hereditarians are continuing research in this area. Actually, there are many researchers such as those who have used the national IQ data but who do not take side in the hereditarian-or-not debate but instead do research on the associations of the national IQ scores to factors such as economic growth or simply note that they correlate highly with international student assessment tests. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
You are engaging in original research, in that you have not provided sources for your assertions. Provide sources for your assertions. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
[26][27][28]. Just some examples of non-Pioneer researchers advocating genetic group differences in intelligence. For other non-Pioneer researchers doing research on the national IQ scores, see many of the sources here: [29][30]. For Rushton rejecting that the fund or himself are racist while for himself accepting the term "race realist": [31]. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
You are engaging in OR by SYNTH. Find a source that says what you believe to be true - don't attempt to prove it to me. Rushton's rebuttals would be provided undue weight in the lede. Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I see that you have now changed the sentence to include a date. That is an improvement. And some of the criticisms therefore do not apply anymore. But for example NPOV requires that WP present both sides of a dispute and therefore we should also mention Rushton's view. We should also at the very least clearly attribute the sentence as being a view, not an established truth, by a book by Tucker. Note also that WP:BLP applies. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
BLP does not apply to "As of 2002, the hereditarian line of research continues to be pursued by a group of researchers, mainly supported by the Pioneer Fund, an organization described as racist organization," as no identifiable living persons are mentioned. Please don't fabricate things. Hipocrite (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, BLP does apply, as the text is a blatant example of guilt by association. "We didn't mention the researchers in the specific sentence" is immaterial. And 2002 is old news in this field. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
2002 is old news in the field of "History of the race and intelligence controversy?" What, exactly, are you smoking? BLP does not apply to "the Pioneer Fund." Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of BLP or not, my points about presenting both sides as per NPOV and attributing views as views and not as facts still applies. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no opinion used as fact. Here is the sentence you are constantly reverting - "As of 2002, the hereditarian line of research continues to be pursued by a group of researchers, mainly supported by the Pioneer Fund, an organization described as racist organization." Here are the facts presented "the hereditarian line of research continues to be pursued by a group of researchers" "mainly supported by the Pioneer Fund" "described as racist organization." Each of these three statements are not opinions, they are, in fact, facts. The line is in fact, pursued. It is sourced that this pursuit is mainly supported by the PF (I know you disagree, but you have not provided a source. Do so, or stop commenting), and "described as racist organization," which is a fact. Hipocrite (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not reverting anything. Only the first statement is an undisputed fact and not a view. That the hereditarian researchers as of 2002 was mainly supported the Pioneer Fund is a view in a book by Tycker, not an established fact, and should be described as such. Certainly there was no systematic literature review of the field in the book but only some specific researchers funded by PF being mentioned. Regarding being "racist", NPOV requires also presenting the opposing view by Rushton with source given above. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
@ Hipocrite, the article doesn't even mention authors such as Sesardic, whose "Making Sense of Heritability" was published in 2005 by Cambridge University Press, far removed from your (seems to me, appearances only) personal vendetta against the Pioneer Fund being the (racist) source of all hereditarian evil. Or am I missing something? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
And on PF, you need to indicate who, specifically, has called PF racist, and when and why, specifically. You can't just say they've been called racist. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Please review WP:CIVIL. If you cannot remain civil, I cannot continue to respond to you. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The volume to noise ratio isn't helping. Nor is bolstering one's arguments with non sequitur and "IDONTLIKEITS". This is a "History of", so getting carried away by a relatively recent study someplace won't erase 4+ decades of PF influence. Sources...getting more of those should help us gain headway. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Sources such as opposing views by Rushton have been presented and NPOV requires views from both sides as discussed above. Also, views by one party in the debate should be attributed, not presented as undisputed facts when they are not, also discussed above. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Please try to clarify and focus your objections to the situation at hand. The article does describe some defending Pioneer Fund. And why does it seem that no matter what the dispute is, somehow the solution, as you see it, means adding more "views by Rushton"? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I am talking about the disputed material in the lead. See earlier discussions above. The President of the Pioneer Fund is of course highly relevant in a discussion regarding the PF. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: Rushton. Seems to be a new meme heard often in hereditarian fansites and white supremacist websites as if there's a world of difference between race realist and racist, but does anybody on the outside see any difference? ("You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.") Professor marginalia (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The aim of Wikipdia is not to decide and endorse which view is true and present only that view but to present a neutral point of view by mentioning the possibly many different views on an issue. According to proponents, "race realism" means the scientific argument that races exists, "racism" political claims such that different groups should have different human rights. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Incivility does not help the discussion. Do you have any factual responses to the points raised by me and others here? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how one could claim Pioneer Fund as being "non-political"-what else could you call the funding and support for eugenics laws, racial segregation, anti-immigration measures, anti-busing and anti-affirmative action? Funding of grants for Ku Klux Klan tracts, the American Renaissance etc? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Not even Tucker makes many of these claims although it is easy to misread what he states. You are conflating the PF with independent activities by persons/organisations somehow related to it. Such as someone giving money to the PF also giving money to another organisation or the PF giving money for one purpose and the person/organisation receiving money also doing other activities not funded by the PF. However, this is guilt by association. Regarding the funding they do have given, the view of the PF is that this funding has been for the explicit purpose of publishing science and research findings so they become available to the general public and not only to researchers. Not for the purpose of advocating some specific political view.[32] You may of course disagree, but again, Wikipedia NPOV means presenting both sides of a debate, not deciding who is right and presenting only that view. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I think you're imagining things. Please stop with the soapboxing. You're the one who defined "racism" differently from "race realism" as the latter is completely removed from politics. Are you curious then who the sources are for PF's race centered political activities? If that's really what this is about, I will. If accusing me of "conflating", guilt by association etc is just another red herring and your mind won't be changed anyway, I won't bother. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
My personal view as an anonymous Wikipedia editor is not particularly interesting but you can read the view of the Pioneer Fund President here on "race realism": [33] I am well aware of Tucker's claims having read the entire book. The issue here is that this article, in this particular instance the disputed material in the lead, should follow NPOV by not describing what are views as facts and also include the view of the opposite side on the issue. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyhow, I feel we are starting to go in circles now which I think is not productive so I will remove myself from further discussion unless there are new arguments. I have presented my case above. I will of course respect whatever the consensus here decides. I hope more uninvolved editors will add their opinions. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Right. Pioneer Fund's funding has gone to overtly political activities as well as race differences research; pretending my examples aren't real wastes everybody's TIME. So get back to the point, what I'm getting at is that "race realism" is a relatively recently coined term Rushton would prefer used in the place of what's the more common termed "scientific racism". Just saying, I don't think it gets any better mileage. Besides, we're making this way more work than it needs to be. Pioneer Fund's influence dominates decades of hereditarian research; they didn't just emerge after 2002. And the other causes they've funded illustrate what they're about better than adjectives anyway so let's do it that way and get on with our lives. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Someone alleges this is "Off topic stuff"
Another biased lead
If you think the lead of this article was bad, you should check out the second paragraph of Mankind Quarterly. It calls MQ racist six ways in one sentence, completely out of proportion to the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.30.8 (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Interesting, but I don't think that is analogous to the issue with this article.--24.42.159.214 (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Observation best on its own
(edit conflict) thread before "another biased lead" above, would now be off track... There are two questions here. One, the degree to which heredity plays a role in intelligence. The other, specific mainly to America, where most of the studies and controversy reside, is that standardized intelligence measurement scores correlate along what are socially identified racial lines. I agree that the issue can be presented in a more nuanced manner. The controversy is around the conflation of:
what we measure as intelligence has been shown to have inheritance
what we measure as intelligence has been shown to statistically across a population to score differently across identified racial group (i.e., Asian > white > black)
ergo the alignment of scores along racial groups demonstrates that some groups (and therefore, on average, the individuals in those groups) are more or less intelligent, that intelligence being inherited
Where this breaks down is that #3 is a leap of association between #1 and #2
#2 alone can be explained by social and cultural super-function (highly effective) or dysfunction (ineffective) with regard to the value of learning. That heredity is involved from individual to individual is not required to explain the statistical variance between groups. Having grown up in New York, the ultimate melting pot, of parents who got off the boat and had no preconceptions of any "race" having never met any, who I've experienced as "smart" and "stupid", if/when correlated to "race", has had everything to do with the culture someone grew up in and what that culture values (and parents in particular) than anything having to do with breeding and genetics. (And this is where one can make the argument that intelligence tests are inherently biased, as they contain many elements which have nothing to do with innate reasoning skills and are therefore more a measurement of practical learning achievement than of innate learning potential. But another conversation.)
Ultimately, the search for the elusive "X" factor continues (my expounding above merely being one personal opinion). As long as that search continues, so will the controversy.
That said, considering that the study of the human genome has shown that those characteristics of humans which we associate with race are the most superficial of our genes, it's unlikely that we'll ever find a genetic basis for intelligence. And, as a society, even if that exists, is that something to be pursued? Nothing creates inferiority like slapping the "inferior" label on someone and then setting out to "help" them. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This is an article about history. Please stop going off on some kind of tangent. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
For an article arguing that suppressing research is harmful for society and all groups, see [34]. This view is also something that should be mentioned in the article. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
NOT off topic. My point is that the lead and article need to be less polarized/polarizing. The tacit message is that anyone discussing any factor having to do with differences in measured intelligence across identifiable racial groups other than socio-economic is a racist, and that any researcher who supports any sort of hereditarian view is a racist, and that nothing has changed since the first researcher into the topic who assumed blacks were stupid. We can do better than that in representing the cause and effect. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Polarizing or not, the following is garbage: "As of 2002, the hereditarian line of research continues to be pursued by a group of researchers, mainly supported by the Pioneer Fund, an organization described as racist organization". "As of 2002" and "continues to be pursued" are different tenses and "a group of researchers, mainly supported by the Pioneer Fund" is just as weasel-y and vague as the original sentence" " an organization described as racist organization" is redundant. By "mainly" are you implying they get =>51% of their research funds from the PF. Can you prove that? By "group", exactly which group--one scientist? two? three? These questions are critical in determining the significance of the PF residing in the lead.--24.42.159.214 (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
PF takes credit for having so much influence, claiming credit for "keeping alive" the study of genetics in race based intelligence differences. Funding doesn't exist in the "usual way", as the hereditarians frequently lament. The research PF funds is also usually conducted in specially created independent research institutions to avoid limits placed on their grantees by universities and other such research institutes from their review boards. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
One more reason the other side should be more specific about this mysterious "group of researchers, mainly supported by the Pioneer Fund" is from WP:BLP: "when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group" and "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem"--24.42.159.214 (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how "mysterious" the researchers would be since so many are identified in the article already. You want them all listed or what? Professor marginalia (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
For some idea: "The support of the Pioneer Fund is not limited to Jensen, Shockley, Pearson, Rushton, Gordon, and the Minnesota Project. The list of other recipients of Pioneer Fund grants reads partly like a "Who's Who" of scientific and political racism in the United States, Canada, brew Britain, and Ireland. Recipients include the American Immigration Control Federation, the Foundation of Human Understanding, Richard Lynn, professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, Eysenck's Institute of Psychiatry at the University of London, and Seymour Itzkoff of Smith College." The Nazi Connection Stefan Kuhl 2002. "Herrnstein and Murray cited the work of at least thirteen Pioneer Fund grantees in the pages of The Bell Curve." American eugenics: race, queer anatomy, and the science of nationalism Nancy Ordover 2003. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
It plays to the point initially brought up by Orientalis; is this "Group" small enough to qualify PF for BLP protections? Hypocrite snarkly said "What, exactly, are you smoking? BLP does not apply to "the Pioneer Fund." But according WP:BLP it may well apply to the PF. When people are THAT dogmatic are are not clearly correct you can see why I have continued NPOV and good faith concerns. On the other hand, if the group is extensive, you are labeling a broad swath of academics as racists. --24.42.159.214 (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
PF is a corporation: "This policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with the other content policies." So let's focus again--I assume you're saying we don't need to name names or count heads? I think the solution I offered above is still the way to go then. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the following accounts of contemporary non-hereditarian views on race and intelligence:
Suzuki et al. (2011). "Racial and Ethnic Groups Differences in Intelligence in the United States." In The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence.
Daley et al. (2011). "Race and Intelligence." In The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence.
Hunt (2011). "Human Intelligence", p. 409-447.
Mackintosh (2011). "IQ and Human Intelligence", p. 325-359.
Nisbett (2010). "Intelligence and How to Get It."
Sternberg (2005). "There are no public-policy implications: A reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005)." Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 295-301.
Nisbett (2005). "Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005)." Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 302-310.
Suzuki et al. (2005). "The cultural malleability of intelligence and its impact on the racial/ethnic hierarchy." Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 320-327.
Brody (2003). "Jensen's Genetic Interpretation of Racial Differences in Intelligence: Critical Evaluation." In The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur Jensen.
Jencks & Meredith (1998, eds.). "The Black-White Test Score Gap."
I believe that the list is highly representative of current non-hereditarian views. However, none of them even mention the Pioneer Fund, let alone attribute to it a central role in contemporary discussions. By discussing Pioneer in the lead section and branding it and by proxy its grantees as racist, this article gives one particular minority viewpoint a prominence that it does not have in reliable sources. Most anti-hereditarian researchers have not voiced any criticisms of the (relatively meager) funds that some hereditarians have received from Pioneer. Attacking the fund in the lead section is not acceptable as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines about due and undue weight, living persons, and lead sections.
The Pioneer issue may be discussed elsewhere in the article in proportion to its (small) significance, but all accusations about racism etc. should be attributed to named persons; no weasel words. Citations to literature should include page numbers to enable verification. Tucker's 300-page book is currently cited without page numbers. Moreover, Tucker's book may be the primary source for some claims in it; secondary sources should be used for those claims.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
"I looked at the following accounts of contemporary non-hereditarian views on race and intelligence" This article is about the history of the controversy, not about contemporary views on R/I. Those are all good sources, and I think your general conclusion is does apply to the Race and intelligence article, though not here. aprock (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The Pioneer Fund is discussed in the lead section precisely in the context of contemporary research, so of course the fact that representative contemporary accounts do not even mention it is very relevant.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
You make a reasonable case, and if there is no reliably sourced content in the body of the article which the Pioneer Fund statement is summarizing, then I agree that it should not be restored. However, a summary of reliable sourced article content can certainly be added. aprock (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Not an anthropologist here but...
The section titled "Early History" starts with the phrase "In the 18th century" Did we just ignore over 6.000 years?
The folk wisdom, superstition and ignorant racism of earlier civilizations is real history even if it makes people uncomfortable.
current stereotypes
Maybe modern stereotypes should be added? Like: Women and blacks are bad at computer/board games... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.37.240 (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment: lack of social & cultural history
I think this article does a pretty good job of delineating the content of the thought of various theorists who have treated of the topic of race and intelligence. What it lacks, in large measure, is any context for the emergence of this issue as a scientific object and its various formulations through time. While some sections are considerably better than others, often the text simply introduces a notable advocate for the position that race and intelligence are linked and then gives a brief precis of their position. There's little discussion of eugenics, imperialism, anxieties about racial purity and decline, the rise of IQ, the impact of the civil-rights movement, desegregation and the entry of African-Americans into higher education, the impact of WWII (some on this), the policy implications in regard to welfare provision, etc. I'm not advocating a reductive reading of the intellectual content of the theories as necessarily wholly determined by social, cultural or political factors but it is quite important to their meaning, resonance and reception, I think, and also to the preoccupation with the issue itself. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I just stumbled across the article this morning and was pleasantly surprised at its quality. The whole “race & intelligence” subject matter has been a battleground on Wikipedia that produced far more than its share of trips to ANI and involvement of ArbCom. And in the heyday of disfunction, our “Race and intelligence” article was truly abysmal so I expected the same when I landed here. Apparently the community finally figured out a way to reign in the passionate ones so as to allow quality contributions from knowledgeable and talented wikipedians.
As for discussing topics such as “eugenics” and “anxieties about racial purity,” note the title of the article; it’s the history of the controversy associated with race and intelligence. This article is not a venue to treat like a soap box and expand it beyond that scope. In other words: “Just the facts, ma’am—on the subject matter, ma’am.” Greg L (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
On the comment that Hitler banned IQ tests calling them "jewish".
The source used for this comment is not written by historians of any sort, and the data presented in the source itself is in dispute by others, so I don't consider this yet to be a very credible statement. Someone who declares the exact opposite, Stephen Murdoch, wrote the book "IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea" Which states that not only didn't Hitler ban IQ tests, but he used them. He himself can be seen giving a lecture about this point on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37qrLGhXch0.
Also, Murdoch is a far more recent source than the 1979 source being used for the statement, leading me to believe there is data he is privy to that the original source is not. So I propose we keep that comment out until further evidence is presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.4.185 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Murdoch is an ideologically motivated polemicist with no expertise in any of this. In contrast, Eysenck and Fulker were leading experts on psychometrics and related topics. Eysenck was a native German, too, so I would think he would have known the facts. I don't have Eysenck and Fulker's book, so I'd like to see what they write about this exactly. There must be other sources on this, too. I restored the deleted sentence for now.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I see the sources haven't been updated for a while.
This article is better sourced that most articles on Wikipedia, but efforts to keep the sources up to date have relaxed for a while as other edits have gone back and forth. I think I'll read through this article from top to bottom strictly for proofreading to refamiliarize myself with the current overall structure of the article, and then update the references (with appropriate revision of article text to match what the references say) thereafter. I can already see that I have at hand several new publications directly on point for sourcing this article that aren't listed in the article bibliography yet, including new editions of some of the books already cited. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 10:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Lede edited with newest sources in mind
The lede here (and the end of the article, summing up the history to date) hadn't caught up yet with some of the latest publications on the topic of the article.
These are worth a read to see what the latest claims and counterclaims are. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Conflating IQ with Intelligence
This article blatantly conflates the topic of intelligence with IQ. Intelligence by many, if not most accounts, is a more complicated quality, and there is a plethora of resources to attest to this. Nobody has a monopoly on the topic of Intelligence. The article should be re-titled "History of the Race and IQ controversy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:101:17E6:45B:830D:FB59:7FFC (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of the race and intelligence controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on History of the race and intelligence controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of the race and intelligence controversy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Why does this article normalize slurs such as "m****"?
Doesn't this also normalize violence? In general, disabled people are exposed to more violence. And some neurodivergent people have strobe sensitivities, which can expose us to additional endangerment. At the very least, scare quotes might be an improvement. 173.66.5.216 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Still trying to think of a slur that starts with M ...125.254.38.168 (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it is "moron" which is used as a reference to the period when it was used as a psychological classification and not a slur. I have added quote makrs to show this more clearly.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I've done a bunch of edits recently and had two reverted. These reverts restored images I had cut so I'd like to explain my rationale for cutting them.
1) The first image I cut was of a document which is apparently a page from an address Arthur Jensen gave in 1967. My edit summary stated: "Cut image of document as uninformative / uninteresting / only serving to give this document WP:UNDUE status relative to other papers discussed here". That seems pretty clear to me, and no reason was given for reverting.
2) The second image is of controversial English psychologist Richard Lynn. Over at Talk:Richard_Lynn#Use_of_"controversial"_for_description_in_lead we've reached a consensus that he needs to be referred to as "a controversial English psychologist" rather than simply "an English psychologist" because of the overwhelming balance of sources that describe him this way. If the image is to remain here its caption should be updated to reflect this.
The editor who restored these images also restored a snippet of text on Lynn which I think contains WP:UNDUE/WP:PUFFERY but I will be happy to remove only those clauses and retain the factual information there. In my view the current version:
Lynn, longtime editor of and contributor to Mankind Quarterly and a prolific writer of books, has concentrated his research in race and intelligence on gathering and tabulating data about race differences in intelligence across the world. He has also made suggestions about its political implications, including the revival of older theories of eugenics, which he describes as "the truth that dares not speak its name".
should be trimmed down to:
Lynn, longtime editor of and contributor to Mankind Quarterly, has concentrated his research in race and intelligence on gathering and tabulating data about race differences in intelligence across the world, and has also made suggestions about its political implications, including the revival of older theories of eugenics.
It would also be appropriate here to introduce a descriptor of Mankind Quarterly to make clear that it is widely considered to be a white supremacist journal, as stated in the lead of its WP article, and to mention some of the criticisms of Lynn's work here. Some of these criticisms are discussed below but it is best for each section to have proper WP:WEIGHT, especially in a long article like this.
Thanks, and of course I'll be happy to discuss each of these points as necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
The recent arbitrary deletions of images by Generalrelative (GR) are problematic. They were made without seeking consensus. The usual process WP:BRD applies, which is why I have amended the header. For two small images, GR has now provided a wall of text. I created the original article History of the race and intelligence controversy in Spring 2010; the problems in creating that content resulted in the WP:ARBR&I case (see template above).
One of the two images is of the controversial document, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" That is summarised in a very long accompanying passage by Adrian Wooldridge of "The Economist" in his 1994 book "Measuring the mind: education and psychology in England c.1860-1990." The summary accompanies the image and is why it is there. A POV fork article How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? was made by Yfever who created the article A Troublesome Inheritance.
The image of Richard Lynn is there for balance. He is linked to the Pioneer Fund and Mankind Quarterly. That is carefully described by William Tucker, an expert on the history of scientific racism. Lynn is a controversial figure. That can be emphasised; possibly that can be added to the caption.
In summary: I believe that the images should remain, with the accompanying text for Lynn adjusted. The links to the Pioneer Fund and Mankind Quarterly could be made more explicit. Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Note that I have restored the original header title. There was no policy-based reason to alter this header. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll also note that, despite the petulant tone, it appears that Mathsci and I agree on all but the first point: the image of Jensen's paper. For reference, here is that image. In October 1967 Arthur Jensen gave an invited address with the same title as his article at the annual meeting of the California Advisory Council of Educational Research in San DiegoGeneralrelative (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
(ec) That is indeed the image/document "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?", uploaded to accompany the lengthy text summarised and paraphrased from the 1994 book of Adrian Wooldridge. That is a lot of material. The image has been in the article since the creation over a decade ago. Where there was a very clear fault was in the POV fork How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?: that article by Yfever was an attempt to produce an alternative hereditarian version of the summary. Editors there, such as User:aprock and User:Professor marginalia, thought the POV fork was some kind of joke; but an AfD failed. Long term editors who have helped in R&I articles were both professional anthropologists: User:Slrubenstein, Steve Rubenstein, who died in 2012 at the age of 50; and User:maunus, who still edits but is now less active. I requested help from an administrator because of your use of Talk:Race and intelligence as a WP:FORUM: I have not edited Race and intelligence or its talk page since July 2010. The image was uploaded in en.wikipedia.org on 30 May 2010 and was transferred to Commons by the administrator FastilyClone in 2014. The caption was copied at that stage. The document of Jensen was central to the furore sparked off in the late sixties. That's what reliable sources say. I was actually surprised that the document could be found; after 10 years, however, I can't quite remember how I found it. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
The above comment appears to be entirely off-topic. I will just note that nothing at WP:FORUM (or rather WP:FORUMSHOP, which is what I presume Mathsci meant) discourages the type of notice I gave here. Generalrelative (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Generalrelative that the picture of a page from Jensen's talk doesn't belong. It's an unusual image to have, unless the page were a document of historical significance, which it isn't. As far as the image of Lynn goes, I don't see anything wrong with having the image if it has a suitable caption making it clear that he promotes fringe views. But I don't see how including him provides "balance". I count 16 portraits of people in this article, including 10 promoters of racialist or eugenist theories (Galton, Terman, Goddard, Shockley, Lynn, Draper, Jensen, Cattell, Eysenck, Burt) and 4 opponents of scientific racism (Flynn, Douglass, DuBois, Boas) -- a strange notion of balance. The other two are of Binet (who I don't believe was involved in the debate) and Lysenko (who has nothing to do with this article, except to give undue emphasis to Jensen's name-calling his opponents "neo-Lysenkoites"). If you want balance, you could include portraits of Lewontin, Kamin, Gould, Montagu. NightHeron (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Images have always been a problem because of unavailability and copyright issues, including copyvios. For Kamin for example, his image can only be used for the biography article. There was an image of Gould in the article, but it was deleted as a copyvio. There are no images for Lewontin (he's over 90 now). The main problem was in finding recent images, not numbers of environmentalists/hereditarians. Try finding the images on en.wp or commons and you will discover the problem for yourself. Most of the images were found in Spring 2010; it could be even harder now. I have two postscripts: first, in 2019, Eysenck was posthumously discredited at his psychology institute in King's College, London for scientific fraud involving lung cancer; second, there is an image of Montagu but with no relevant text for that material. This article was originally detached from the article race and intelligence at the suggestion of my friend, the cultural anthropologist Steven Rubenstein (User:Slrubenstein). The text came first and then images added, when available. I also created the biography articles on Christopher Jencks in 2010 and Nicholas Mackintosh in 2009. Again no images; Flynn was around with Mackintosh at that time. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
MOS:IMAGES (at #Pertinence and encyclopedic nature) says
Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.
or, as an oft repeated maxim says "to illustrate, not to decorate". It is not obvious to me how an image of a paper illustrates anything other than WP:ADVOCACY. Why is this paper being picked out for special attention? Are we telling readers that it is particularly important? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Previously there were more images in the article. Rushton was there but removed as a copyvio. For the early period of HR&IC, there are lots of images; for 1920-1960, there is just the image of Boas; for 1960-1980 there's Shockley, Draper, Jensen, the "How Much ..." document, Cattell, Eysenck, Burt and Lysenko; for 1980-2000 there's just Lynn and Flynn. There are no images of the 1994 book on the Bell Curve because of copyright rules. There are no policy statements for images, just guidelines. I know that because of edits in other topics. The article Europe, where I am the still the main contributor, has far too many images, far too many maps, etc. It's crowded. For music and art articles, there are only guide lines. For art, Edmund de Unger. I also added an image of a chateau for Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. Here is an example for a Lutheran Hymn Wer nur den lieben Gott läßt walten with audio media (an ogg file of a Reger chorale prelude coded by me in lilypond). For the BWV 543, the article and images are still being created. For Franz Liszt and the featured article Frédéric Chopin, there were no particular guidelines on images, etc. For Marseille and Aix-en-Provence, there was a lot of chopping and changing of images. Mathsci (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Despite the profusion of words here, it seems we're left with a simple conclusion: 3-1 in favor of removing the image in question (and a solid consensus for the compromise language suggested in my OP). I'll hold off for a couple days in case anyone else would like to weigh in, and if nothing changes here I'll then make the edits. We can continue to discuss possible solutions to WP:BALANCE issues with the images in a separate thread if necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The official 17 page document is here. The second page of the 1967 article shows the image. The title was "How Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?"
The 1967 paper is similar to the cover of the Treaty of Versailles. In 2010, the 1969 paper was summarised/paraphrased from Wooldridge's book. It became one of the most notorious and controversial papers of that era, as attested in Jensen's 2012 obituaries[35], [36], [37], etc.
The second page of the 1967 article is not a big deal; the 1969 article is under copyright. It's also part of the Jensen shrine of User:Deleet/Emil Kirkegaard. The 17 page document is of symbolic value only. With their headers, advertising and commentary, Generalrelative has made a mountain out of a molehill about this image; if, however, they are going to spend their time fighting to right great wrongs, I am not going to stand in their way.
This year NightHeron advertised an off-wiki posting about SPLC on wikipedia.[38] I was involved in dealing with meat/sockpupppetry described there: I am not sure whether Generalrelative or NightHeron have worked that out. Mathsci (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with user:Mathsci that I'd rather not see any more removals from these articles. This issue is larger than just the images, and there was another recent example in the history of Nations and intelligence quotient from 30 November to 5 December. Count me against removing the images from this article also. Gardenofaleph (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Though there's really no way to engage constructively here if your argument is simply that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Regardless, this conversation appears to have run its course and, per WP:ONUS, consensus for retaining the disputed content does not appear likely to emerge. Generalrelative (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The tone of you response here, with [[WP:JUSTDONTLIYEIT]] and [[WP:ONUS]], leaves a lot to be desired. Your idea of counting !votes is not how it's done on AfDs or RfCs: an involved administrator should probably help if you are just "judging" images. (The Milton Keynes editor has not weighed in a second time.)
I decided in the end that I preferred to discuss the two images in their own two sections, giving reasons in edit summaries. For 1960–1980, even if both had the same title, the sprawling 1969 article was the one being discussed, not the short 1967 San Diego talk, so that was removed. Then, for the 1980-2000 section, I removed a hidden image for "The Bell Curve", because it's under copyright. I made all other removals related to Richard Lynn except for (a) referring to him as "the controversial English psychologist" instead of "a controversial English psychologist" and (b) the Wildian quote of Lynn, which is now attributed in the 2002 book of William H. Tucker (psychologist). Mathsci (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments on checking citations and reviews of Richard Lynn's books
Since 2008, book reviews of the Richard Lynn's books have been used in this article and other related articles. Those reviews should be sourced; sometimes editors have produced their own commentary on controversial content without sources.
Dysgenics. In 2008, I made edits creating content about 2 book reviews. That involved finding reliable reviewers, Nicholas Mackintosh (for which I created a BLP) and W. D. Hamilton. Both are FRS. This is that content which has not been changed since added. The section on Eugenics in [[Richard Lynn]] is still unsourced.
Race differences in intelligence. Mackintosh's 2007 book review of Richard Lynn's 2001 book are no longer in this article. The substance of that review was summarised in Mackintosh's 2011 second edition of his "IQ and Human Intelligence": "the results of three studies of the San Bushman of southern Africa give them an IQ of 54. Lynn does, at least for a moment, wonder whether 'people with an IQ of 54 could survive as hunter-gatherers in the Kalahari desert, and whether this could be a valid estimate of their intelligence'. But this worry is still dismissed. 'An IQ of 54 represents the mental age of the average European 8-year-old child ... [who] would have no difficulty in learning and performing of gathering foods and hunting carried out by the San Bushmen'."
Eugenics: A Reassessment. In Angélique Richardson's 2003 OUP book "Love and eugenics in the late nineteenth century", page 226, she writes: "In Eugenics: A Reassessment, the psychologist Richard Lynn urges a new eugenics of human biotechnology and predicts how eugenic policies are likely to affect national configurations, geopolitics, and the balance of power in the twenty-first century. Like his Victorian predecessors, he uses the language of social equality to advance eugenics, concluding that the twenty-first century will be recognized as the time when humans took control of their genetic destiny, a conquest which will be regarded 'as one of the greatest advances in history'. Lynn argues that if the new eugenics of medical technology is only used by the affluent, then societies will become more divided, with IQ, work ethic, motivation, and self-discipline—qualities which he considers to be genetic—rising among the affluent, and, conversely, 'a genetic under-class' of 'unskilled workers and unemployables' developing. Eugenics, the love of late nineteenth century, has become, for Lynn, 'the truth that dare not speak its name'." Richardson is Professor at Exeter University in History of Science and Literature with collaborative projects at the Royal Society.
Originally the content had, Lynn "has concentrated his research in race and intelligence on gathering and tabulating data about race differences in intelligence across the world. He has also made suggestions about its political implications, including the revival of older theories of eugenics, which he describes as 'the truth that dares not speak its name'." The last sentence is a summary from Richardson. It took a while to access and check 4 or 5 sources for content on eugenics: Tucker turned out to be the wrong source. Since it came from Richardson, which apparently Generalrelative has not read, the sentence should probably be rewritten, using WP:RS and WP:V. In this case WP:DUE means that a relevant and longish paragraph (see above) should be paraphrased/summarised in a way that properly represents the content. The concluding quote of Richardson, which precedes Lynn's grim vision of the future, is completely apt. In the absence of Richardson as a source, the edits of Generalrelative seem to have been made just on the basis of WP:IDLI and not on a careful reading. Mathsci (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
My edit summary was clear: Quote is verifiable but WP:UNDUE. It's also nonsensical in this context because eugenics is not a proposition that can be "true" or "false". Please refer to WP:ONUS before restoring disputed content. I did not say that I had verified it myself but rather that it was verifiable. Indeed, I was taking it on faith that you were not misstating (or misremembering as the case may be) the source for this quote: [39]
I will also remind Mathsci that article talk pages are not an appropriate place to characterize the imagined motivations of other editors. My response to Gardenofaleph referenced WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT with regard to the actual substance of their comment –– i.e. that there was nothing there but a bare assertion of personal preference: [40] On the other hand, stating that the edits of Generalrelative seem to have been made just on the basis of WP:IDLI, when I have given the substantive edit summary quoted above, is entirely inappropriate. The same goes for Mathsci's recourse to ad hominem ("arbitrary", "fighting to right great wrongs") in the previous thread. I very much hope that this will be the one and only time I need to raise this issue here, and that we can now WP:FOC. Generalrelative (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Citing isolated studies.
As a reminder, we should generally avoid citing individual studies for anything on a page like this, especially relatively recent ones. From WP:RS: Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context. If a study is worth including, it will generally pick up secondary sources pretty quickly; but since the study of intelligence, genetics, and the brain definitely falls under the "complex and abstruse fields" warning, we need to avoid citing individual papers unless they're very well-established (and if they are, we should be able to find secondary sources and use those.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
"Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between racial groups."
RESOLVED
re-litigation of very well-established consensus.— Shibbolethink(♔♕) 15:52, 18 September 2021 (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.
This is just not true. One does not need to go far to know that. This page even references a paper, more specifically an expert survey that directly contradicts this statement. Only 17% of the participants of the survey hold a completely environmentalist view on the black-white IQ gap, even though 32% of the participants identified as very liberal. David Reich, notorious liberal-leaning geneticist, has admitted that we should expect science to prove cognitive differences in the population of genetic origin in an article he published on The New York Times in 2018. The environmentalist view is currently as weak as ever. Hot Twink 69 (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2021 (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.
Discovery of differences in incidence of IQ gene variants
RESOLVED
Consensus is clear and IP has apparently agreed to abide by it. Generalrelative (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2021 (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.
This paragraph should be included:
Nonetheless, in recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. [1] It is now clear that at least some of the genetic variants that contribute to higher intelligence are not evenly distributed across races. [2][3]
The science is indeed undeniable. However you do not seem to understand it, nor do you appear to understand how Wikipedia works. That's okay, but now that you know you're doing it wrong, please take some time to familiarize yourself with our policies on WP:OR, and in particular WP:SYNTH, before editing further. You should also be aware of the strong consensus against racial hereditarianism established here: Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_103#RfC_on_racial_hereditarianism. Generalrelative (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
None of this is original research, they are all peer-reviewed articles published in prestigious academic journals and all the sources explicitly say exactly what the paragraph says. The first article says more than 1200 SNPs were discovered in the study. The second article says "Allelefrequencies varied by continent in a way that corresponds with observed population differences in average phe-notypic intelligence." The third is an article from the Wall Street Journal that says the gene variants discovered are more common outside Subsaharan Africa than inside
Maybe if people were allowed to see this information that consensus would crumble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 (talk • contribs)
Are you really trying to cite Davide Piffer of the Ulster Institute for Social Research? And then claiming that scientists are unaware of their research because of censorship by Wikipedia? And edit warring in the meanwhile rather than waiting for a consensus to emerge in support of your addition as is required? Generalrelative (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Piffer's article was published in the mainstream journal Intelligence. I have also independently confirmed his results using this database:
https://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/
By the consensus crumbling I meant the consensus among wikipedia editors and the general public.
Most scientists who would respond to a survey on the matter already acknowledge that there is a genetic component to the gaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 (talk • contribs)
Intelligence has a history of publishing racist pseudo-science.[4]. - MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
As far as I know there is no Wikipedia policy against quoting the journal Intelligence. Further, given that this information is publicly available and easily verifiable from a number of databases from respected academic institutions, I fail to see how any of it can be considered "pseudoscience". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 (talk • contribs)
Since you also apparently don't know about WP:3RR, I would not assume you have a complete knowledge of Wikipedia policy. - MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
That applies to you as much as it applies to me. Further, it does nothing to show that the Journal Intelligence or the WSJ are not sources that should be allowed on Wikipedia. The paragraph clearly has important and relevant information that people looking at the article would certainly be interested in knowing. The sources comply with Wikipedia's policy. The information is accurate. Please stop removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll just leave this here for anyone who may stumble upon this conversation in the future: Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ.
And I'll just note that a number of editors strongly disagree with most of the FAQ's claims. See the old discussion here [41] and here [42]. The FAQ answer about political correctness is particularly bad and misleading, as evidenced by this recent New Yorker article.[43]Stonkaments (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
1) a number: yes, a very small number, most notably a verbose sockpuppet and yourself.
2) Rehashing old discussions where the consensus was clearly against you is, at this point, long past disruptive.
3) evidenced by this recent New Yorker article: this does not look like evidence to me. Instead, perhaps take a look at the the citations which actually appear in the FAQ?
4) For someone who has declared themselves to be finished with this topic, you sure do seem to have a hard time dropping the stick and moving on. Generalrelative (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I insist it is important that this is included somewhere in the article. It will make it more balanced. Most importantly, the paragraph is accurate. I await a sound counter argument that leads to the conclusion that this paragraph should not be on this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The answer you got looks pretty solid to me. The onus is on you to build consensus for inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The answer was an ad hominem against Piffer and an assertion that Intelligence publishes racist pseudoscience. The fact that a journal publishes information that appears to you to be "racist" to you does not make it pseudoscience. Is the information factually correct, yes or no? Is Piffer's methodology sound, yes or no? No one is even denying that it is true that the genetic variants for IQ are not evenly distributed across races. If you really do not like Intelligence just keep the WSJ and a link to Bruce Lahn's Wikipedia article and that is that. I know I am meant to assume good faith, but I cannot help but think that the exclusion of this paragraph is motivated by politics, not the science or even Wikipedia's policies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 (talk • contribs)
(response to unsigned comment) Since Davide Piffer's writings about race are at issue, it's not an ad hominem attack to mention his extreme racialist views; see [44]. NightHeron (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Piffer can think and say whatever, he could be a talking dog for all I care. There is no Wikipedia citing policy precluding citations from people who have made racists or extreme comments in other contexts. All that matters is for Wikipedia, was his article published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, and the answer is yes. If you guys don't like the Piffer reference, drop it and stick with the WSJ one.
These are important scientific results that lie at the heart of the topic of this article. Wikipedia is the largest online encyclopedia in the world, its readers should not be kept from this information for brazen political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 (talk • contribs)
The 15-year-old WSJ article is not a good source either. Are there any recent reliable secondary sources that back up the claims by Lahn? Extraordinary claims require substantial support from reliable secondary sources. NightHeron (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Well if you look into what happened with Lahn, he stopped doing his research in this area because it was getting "too controversial". How is this an extraordinary claim? Is the WSJ not a reliable secondary source? As I said earlier, you can corroborate Piffer's results for yourself by simply inputting the SNPs from his study in this database: https://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.193.190 (talk • contribs)
No, the WSJ is not a reliable secondary source for evaluating scientific claims. The claim in this case is "extraordinary" because it contradicts the consensus of mainstream science. As Generalrelative suggested above, you should read the relevant Wikipedia policies, such as WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE. NightHeron (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
By the way, another Wikipedia policy that you should be aware of is that you're supposed to sign each of your comments by putting 4 tildes at the end. NightHeron (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
We have already determined that this is NOT original research. The RS policy explicitly says "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)", the WSJ is one of the largest news papers in the US.
I am sure you will say the thing about the consensus has been litigated time and time again, but I have not seen any persuasive evidence that there is such a consensus, I have seen contradictory surveys on the matter. One where most intelligence researchers who responded (albeit with a low response rate) agreed that there is a genetic component to the gap,[5] others that, while not asking specifically about IQ, showed that there may be a consensus that race does not exist among Western anthropologists.[6] the issue is far more contentious among geneticists.[7]
I did read in the FAQ that it said "Generally speaking, the better the methodology of the survey, the lower agreement it shows with the claim of a genetic link between race and intelligence.", however, I did not find any references to any surveys that according to them, had better methodologies. If you can provide them, that would be good.
What this surveys do show however, at the very least, is that this constitutes AT LEAST a significant minority opinion among the experts. Wikipedia explicitly says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"
Finally, I invite you to read the GWAS themselves, and see that these SNPs do cause variations in educational attainment. And then to go to the https://popgen.uchicago.edu/ggv/ data base and see how the proportions differ by population. And see that this is, as a matter of fact, true.
93.149.193.190 (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I might also mention that he Microcephalin gene variants identified by Bruce Lahn (that are differentially distributed among modern populations) were not found to be associated with IQ or cognitive ability in modern groups (Mentioned here with sources cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephalin#Controversy). For this reason as well, citing an old source to support the idea that they are so associated is misleading. Skllagyook (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Other sources say it is a good predictor of IQ at the population level.[8]
There is no reason to hide this information from people reading this article. It is important, relevant, well-sourced, and, most importantly, accurate. Please include the paragraph.93.149.193.190 (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The correlation they find in the singe study you linked is at a country level (essentially the same point made by Lahn to suggest it as a cause). But no association was ever found on an individual level (which makes it seem unlikely to be a cause of IQ differences). Also, their study was published in Intelligence (a questionable journal for reasons explained by others here), is co-authored by Heiner Rindermann (a hereditarian and contributor to Mankind Quarterly) and is not a secondary source (but rather a single primary source). Regarding your claim that it is "accurate", that is not for us as Wikipedia editors to judge based on personal opinion (see WP:TRUTH). Skllagyook (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, we can rephrase the paragraph:
Nonetheless, in recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. [1] It is now clear that at least some of the genetic variants that contribute to higher educational attainment and brain size and development are not evenly distributed across races.
Piffer accounts for educational attainment, Lahn accounts for brain size and development, without saying or implying this has anything to do with IQ.
Heiner Rindermann is a hereditarian and contributor to Mankind Quarterly... so what?
James Flynn was an environmentalist, and a socialist. Yet he is referenced here.
Intelligence is, according to the very sources you use to criticize it, one of the most respected journals in its field. The fact that they publish material that supports the hereditarian hypothesis does not make it pseudoscience. Since the sources did not care to mention any specific articles that would qualify as "pseudoscience", nor did it care to point to inaccuracies in their data or errors in their statistical methods that are not merely part of a reasonable scientific disagreement, but actually on a pair with astrology and homeopathy in the world of "pseudoscience", perhaps you can direct us to said articles?93.149.193.190 (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. This is a blatant case of refusal to accept consensus and tendentious POV-pushing. NightHeron (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
How about instead of blocking me you
a) provide the better surveys that show the alleged consensus against hereditarianism in the scientific community
b) provide a few articles that qualify as pseudoscience published on Intelligence
93.149.193.190 (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
You've acknowledged that the consensus of Wikipedia editors is against what you're saying, so it's time for you to move on. You're refusal to drop the stick is becoming disruptive, and other editors have better things to do with our time than to keep up this pointless discussion. NightHeron (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Fine, clearly those surveys and papers do not actually exist. 93.149.193.190 (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2021 (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.
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=spacer}
