Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 64

message: Stop the intellectual farting contest and start writing the article. --Jagz (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do not have anything constructive to say, shut up.  This page is for discussing how to improve the article.  This includes discussing reliable and notable sources.  Aron, Alun and I have been discussing central issues in good faith.  That this pisses you off is just one more piece of evidence that you are a troll. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Aron, I think you know I agree with you, if by dividing the article you mean creating one article on genetics (or heritability) and IQ test scores, and another one on SES and IQ test scores.  As a matter of fact, I proposed just this yesterday - and was shot down.  Moreover, it is not clear to me that Jagz is supporting this proposal.  When he says "start writing the article" it is not clear what "article" he is referring to, but the last time he expressed this sentiment, he unilaterally created an article for which there was no consensus.  If our discussion in the section above did anything to move us forward to a consensus, I am glad.  But I remain skeptical of anyone who thinks that discussing sources as a means towards building consensus is an "intellectual farting contest." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubinstein you are a bloody admin! Do you really think it is appropriate to tell user to "Shut Up"? Lobojo (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *You don't need a consensus to create an article. I plan on having your involvement in the deletion of the article reviewed. --Jagz (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Why dont we have one article that described both these theories, since both these theories are designed to explain the very same set of empirical data, we could call it say Race and intelligence? Lobojo (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously you have not read any of the scientific literature, or else you would not have said this, since each body of literature works with different data.  Please tell me what of the scientific literature you have read?  Have you read Jacobs et. al. 2001?  Reed et. al. 1991?  Sokol et. al. 1995?  Race et. al. 2006?  Plomin et. al 1989?  In what way do they address the same data as those writing on socio-economic status?  This is just one reason for two articles, they examine different kinds of data to analyze different (though complementary) factors.  Another reason is that for each article there are scores of scholarly books and articles and to cover the scintific debates accurately in one article would make the article far, far too long for Wikipedia. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my word, I was just making a joke. Foster got it, but you were so busy trying to figure out how to insult me again that it went right over your head, you made this (unintentionally) funny reply! So thanks. Lobojo (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So, asking you how much of the scientific literature you have read is now an insult?  It is a sorry day when encyclopedi writers think that the thought of doing research is insulting.  Anyway, your non-answer actually answers my question, obviously you haven't read anything. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If we made an article like that, it'd probably end up getting locked while people yelled at each other on the talk page. Aron.Foster (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HAHAHA Lobojo (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we also agree to move the SES/IQ and genetics/IQ information into these articles and only leave summaries and links in the Race and Intelligence one? Aron.Foster (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, as long as they can be shown to be related specifically to the race-IQ phenomenon. I'm all for a fair representation of this issue, and I think my proposal above is perfectly adequate to provide this. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What a very selective memory you must have. Indeed Futurebird has stated in great detail why this article is original research here. You can disagree with it, but if consensus is against you then Futurebird's suggestion will be implemented. Alun (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what to say to someone who is apparently being so willfully ignorant. Perhaps you should reread it, because all she says is that this article is somehow original synthesis with no attempt to prove it, so please forward me a link to her great details. The point is this, though: How is it original synthesis to have an article about the race and intelligence gap when the New York Times, CNN, Slate.com, the BBC (and many more independent sources), and countless other books and articles HAVE ALL DISCUSSED THE RACE-INTELLIGENCE GAP??? You obviously need to reread the statement on original research and so does futurebird if you two are honestly trying to say that there is nothing significant and/or respectable in publication on the race-IQ gap, in which case you are in a colossal state of denial. There's no consensus either, you, futurebird, and slr are simply not responding to specific things I've said. It's becoming harder and harder to assume good faith when you so consistently misrepresent the progression of dialogue on this talk page. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute, this article is not called "race and intelligence gap", it is called "race and intelligence" is it not? If you want to have an article about the actual gap, then we can create one. The point is the actual gap is somewhat irrelevant, what can an article about the gap actually say, except that the gap exists, and of course your citations are fine to confirm the existence of the gap, but non are academic sources that can be used to verify academic research. On the other hand, what is notable is the cause of the gap. So what causes the gap? The truth is no one knows. But what is the actual evidence that the cause of the gap between so called "races" is not exactly the same as the cause of the gap between different socio-economic groups within the same so called "race"? And, as there is a consensus among academic researchers that the cause of the gap between "races" is the same as the cause of the gap between different socio-economic groups within the same so called "race", then this article is unwarranted, because it a priori assumes that the cause is "race" itself. So what are the options? We can do what SLR suggests, we can have an article that deals with SES and the test score gap, which will deal with test score gaps between socio-economic groups, and we can have an article about the Genetics of intelligence, of which very little is known. Alternatively we could have an article called Within and between group variation in IQ and put everything in there, this article would not a priori assume that the cause was "race". Now I understand some of your concerns, there is apparently an observable difference in test scores between people from the same socio-economic group who happen to identify as belonging to different ethnic groups, possibly this needs to be addressed in one or both of the suggested articles somehow. I can find no evidence of you "assuming good faith" at all, furthermore your comment above about "willful ignorance" is very close to a personal attack. Please remain clam. Alun (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alun, please read the WP Original research guidelines. In order for something to have its own article, it must have received notable coverage by independent sources. That's why I mentioned the New York Times and the BBC, etc. to show that the issue of race and intelligence and the gap between races in measures of intelligence is notable because it has been covered extensively by independent sources, and thus it can have its own article. And it's not just the gap itself that is notable, but the entire phenomenon of the correlation between race and intelligence/IQ. James Watson's remarks (and no, I'm not using him as an authority on the matter, I'm using his remarks because they are germane to a discussion of how this issue got to be so notable, i.e. covered by independent sources in the international media) weren't just about the IQ gap between races, he said explicitly that people of different races were intelligent to different extents, and that is what the media fallout was focused on: whether or not the so-called races differed in intelligence. I'm not saying any of these parties involved are scientific, and that's the point: since they are not scientific (but the debate about whether so-called races differ in intelligence is), but there is plenty of scientific evidence behind all of it (whether it be in favor of SES explanations or hereditarian explanations) then the subject (race and intelligence) deserves its own article. I'm sorry for losing my cool, but it doesn't seem like we're on the same page and I think you and slr and futurebird are confused as to what this article is and should be about. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that what Alun, Slrubenstein and Futurebird are all alluding to is this interesting bit: the IQ test score gap is notable with regards to the media and press coverage it received - it is indeed very notable in popular and politcal discourse. However, in academic circles the IQ test score gap isn't that notable, it's closer to what one would call a conundrum of science. Even though there are about a dozen scientists who do research on the subject around the world (and their books do receive a lot of attention in the press), it's not otherwise considered a scientifically important topic. Therefore, while there is enough notability to the subject to have an article about the subject in the media, building an article describing in detail the different theories around this result (a great many of them being fringe) threads dangerously close to synthesis. I hope this explanation makes sense to you.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not considered a scientifically important topic? Says who? There are more than a dozen scientists who have published on the topic, but even if there weren't, that's not how we decide whether or not a WP article about a given subject ought to exist. And once again, the media coverage was about the phenomenon and the work published on it. You're describing a situation in which the media covered their own coverage of the topic, which is not what is really going on. If you had read the articles in the New York Times and Slate.com you would know that they weren't talking about public perception of the race-IQ gap or how it is portrayed, they were talking about the topic itself and the scientists and published works. It isn't up to you to decide whether or not the question is academically popular, it is determined by the independent coverage, and in this case, the independent coverage focused on the published work done on the race and IQ disparities; whether that included a mere dozen scientists or more doesn't really matter, it's only important that the issue has been notably covered by independent sources. And again, there is no original synthesis, just read the New York Times and Slate.com: they synthesize the matter for us by explicitly discussing the correlation between the so-called races and measures of intelligence. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be conflating the importance of the media coverage of an issue with its importance in academic circles. If you take, for example, Creationism, it has usually rather wide media coverage. However, in academic circles, this viewpoint is considered that of a tiny minority. So yes, there may be tens or even hundreds of newspaper articles on this subject, but that doesn't vouch for its scientific importance. It does, however, vouch for its political, social and popular importance. And yes, the articles did talk about the research being done on the subject. But due to its political and social importance, this subject receives more media coverage per article published in the scientific press (I'd say nearly every paper written is at some point talked about in the press) for each of maybe a dozen papers published every year (if that). Compare that with the press coverage that a field such as astronomy gets (a few blurbs a year in the popular press - for several thousand publications!). So, no, a subject's weight in the popular press doesn't vouch for its importance in the academic circles.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I hardly think the minority status of creationists within the life-sciences is comparable with that of the non-"SES-causes-IQ-variance" crowd among intelligence researchers, but I think we probably aren't actually in too much disagreement; I'm fairly supportive of reframing this article in terms of its public and socio-political significance. I disagree with those who want simply to dissolve this article and create "SES and IQ" and "Genetics and IQ" (the latter of which already exists).  W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Well let's agree to start two articles, "Socio-economic status and IQ" and "Genetics and IQ". It seems to me that arguments about the validity of racialist concepts are irrelevant to the creation of these two articles. Any discussion as to the global distribution of human genetic variation and whether this can lead to "cleverness" being differentially distributed between continental groups (which would not conform to the known distribution of physical and genetic traits) is a question for the "Genetics and IQ" article. The question then becomes one of how minor is the racialist point of view? Surely this reasoning is sound? Alun (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why dont we have one article that described both these theories, since both these theories are designed to explain the very same set of empirical data, we could call it say Race and intelligence? Lobojo (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously you have not read any of the scientific literature, or else you would not have said this, since each body of literature works with different data.  Please tell me what of the scientific literature you have read?  Have you read Jacobs et. al. 2001?  Reed et. al. 1991?  Sokol et. al. 1995?  Race et. al. 2006?  Plomin et. al 1989?  In what way do they address the same data as those writing on socio-economic status?  This is just one reason for two articles, they examine different kinds of data to analyze different (though complementary) factors.  Another reason is that for each article there are scores of scholarly books and articles and to cover the scintific debates accurately in one article would make the article far, far too long for Wikipedia. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my word, I was just making a joke. Foster got it, but you were so busy trying to figure out how to insult me again that it went right over your head, you made this (unintentionally) funny reply! So thanks. Lobojo (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So, asking you how much of the scientific literature you have read is now an insult?  It is a sorry day when encyclopedi writers think that the thought of doing research is insulting.  Anyway, your non-answer actually answers my question, obviously you haven't read anything. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If we made an article like that, it'd probably end up getting locked while people yelled at each other on the talk page. Aron.Foster (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HAHAHA Lobojo (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we also agree to move the SES/IQ and genetics/IQ information into these articles and only leave summaries and links in the Race and Intelligence one? Aron.Foster (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, as long as they can be shown to be related specifically to the race-IQ phenomenon. I'm all for a fair representation of this issue, and I think my proposal above is perfectly adequate to provide this. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What a very selective memory you must have. Indeed Futurebird has stated in great detail why this article is original research here. You can disagree with it, but if consensus is against you then Futurebird's suggestion will be implemented. Alun (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what to say to someone who is apparently being so willfully ignorant. Perhaps you should reread it, because all she says is that this article is somehow original synthesis with no attempt to prove it, so please forward me a link to her great details. The point is this, though: How is it original synthesis to have an article about the race and intelligence gap when the New York Times, CNN, Slate.com, the BBC (and many more independent sources), and countless other books and articles HAVE ALL DISCUSSED THE RACE-INTELLIGENCE GAP??? You obviously need to reread the statement on original research and so does futurebird if you two are honestly trying to say that there is nothing significant and/or respectable in publication on the race-IQ gap, in which case you are in a colossal state of denial. There's no consensus either, you, futurebird, and slr are simply not responding to specific things I've said. It's becoming harder and harder to assume good faith when you so consistently misrepresent the progression of dialogue on this talk page. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute, this article is not called "race and intelligence gap", it is called "race and intelligence" is it not? If you want to have an article about the actual gap, then we can create one. The point is the actual gap is somewhat irrelevant, what can an article about the gap actually say, except that the gap exists, and of course your citations are fine to confirm the existence of the gap, but non are academic sources that can be used to verify academic research. On the other hand, what is notable is the cause of the gap. So what causes the gap? The truth is no one knows. But what is the actual evidence that the cause of the gap between so called "races" is not exactly the same as the cause of the gap between different socio-economic groups within the same so called "race"? And, as there is a consensus among academic researchers that the cause of the gap between "races" is the same as the cause of the gap between different socio-economic groups within the same so called "race", then this article is unwarranted, because it a priori assumes that the cause is "race" itself. So what are the options? We can do what SLR suggests, we can have an article that deals with SES and the test score gap, which will deal with test score gaps between socio-economic groups, and we can have an article about the Genetics of intelligence, of which very little is known. Alternatively we could have an article called Within and between group variation in IQ and put everything in there, this article would not a priori assume that the cause was "race". Now I understand some of your concerns, there is apparently an observable difference in test scores between people from the same socio-economic group who happen to identify as belonging to different ethnic groups, possibly this needs to be addressed in one or both of the suggested articles somehow. I can find no evidence of you "assuming good faith" at all, furthermore your comment above about "willful ignorance" is very close to a personal attack. Please remain clam. Alun (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alun, please read the WP Original research guidelines. In order for something to have its own article, it must have received notable coverage by independent sources. That's why I mentioned the New York Times and the BBC, etc. to show that the issue of race and intelligence and the gap between races in measures of intelligence is notable because it has been covered extensively by independent sources, and thus it can have its own article. And it's not just the gap itself that is notable, but the entire phenomenon of the correlation between race and intelligence/IQ. James Watson's remarks (and no, I'm not using him as an authority on the matter, I'm using his remarks because they are germane to a discussion of how this issue got to be so notable, i.e. covered by independent sources in the international media) weren't just about the IQ gap between races, he said explicitly that people of different races were intelligent to different extents, and that is what the media fallout was focused on: whether or not the so-called races differed in intelligence. I'm not saying any of these parties involved are scientific, and that's the point: since they are not scientific (but the debate about whether so-called races differ in intelligence is), but there is plenty of scientific evidence behind all of it (whether it be in favor of SES explanations or hereditarian explanations) then the subject (race and intelligence) deserves its own article. I'm sorry for losing my cool, but it doesn't seem like we're on the same page and I think you and slr and futurebird are confused as to what this article is and should be about. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that what Alun, Slrubenstein and Futurebird are all alluding to is this interesting bit: the IQ test score gap is notable with regards to the media and press coverage it received - it is indeed very notable in popular and politcal discourse. However, in academic circles the IQ test score gap isn't that notable, it's closer to what one would call a conundrum of science. Even though there are about a dozen scientists who do research on the subject around the world (and their books do receive a lot of attention in the press), it's not otherwise considered a scientifically important topic. Therefore, while there is enough notability to the subject to have an article about the subject in the media, building an article describing in detail the different theories around this result (a great many of them being fringe) threads dangerously close to synthesis. I hope this explanation makes sense to you.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not considered a scientifically important topic? Says who? There are more than a dozen scientists who have published on the topic, but even if there weren't, that's not how we decide whether or not a WP article about a given subject ought to exist. And once again, the media coverage was about the phenomenon and the work published on it. You're describing a situation in which the media covered their own coverage of the topic, which is not what is really going on. If you had read the articles in the New York Times and Slate.com you would know that they weren't talking about public perception of the race-IQ gap or how it is portrayed, they were talking about the topic itself and the scientists and published works. It isn't up to you to decide whether or not the question is academically popular, it is determined by the independent coverage, and in this case, the independent coverage focused on the published work done on the race and IQ disparities; whether that included a mere dozen scientists or more doesn't really matter, it's only important that the issue has been notably covered by independent sources. And again, there is no original synthesis, just read the New York Times and Slate.com: they synthesize the matter for us by explicitly discussing the correlation between the so-called races and measures of intelligence. W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be conflating the importance of the media coverage of an issue with its importance in academic circles. If you take, for example, Creationism, it has usually rather wide media coverage. However, in academic circles, this viewpoint is considered that of a tiny minority. So yes, there may be tens or even hundreds of newspaper articles on this subject, but that doesn't vouch for its scientific importance. It does, however, vouch for its political, social and popular importance. And yes, the articles did talk about the research being done on the subject. But due to its political and social importance, this subject receives more media coverage per article published in the scientific press (I'd say nearly every paper written is at some point talked about in the press) for each of maybe a dozen papers published every year (if that). Compare that with the press coverage that a field such as astronomy gets (a few blurbs a year in the popular press - for several thousand publications!). So, no, a subject's weight in the popular press doesn't vouch for its importance in the academic circles.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I hardly think the minority status of creationists within the life-sciences is comparable with that of the non-"SES-causes-IQ-variance" crowd among intelligence researchers, but I think we probably aren't actually in too much disagreement; I'm fairly supportive of reframing this article in terms of its public and socio-political significance. I disagree with those who want simply to dissolve this article and create "SES and IQ" and "Genetics and IQ" (the latter of which already exists).  W.M. O'Quinlan (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Al's suggestion

message: I think the whole article is based on faulty premises.  It begins with:
Apart from the obvious affront to good English, the lead makes the mistake of framing this as a scientific issue.  It's primarily a popular issue - people have always assumed that other "races" (or classes) are somehow lesser.  Secondary to that is the fringe "scientific" views of people like Rushton (with their deep methodological flaws).
The article isn't called "modern theories of race and intelligence", it's called "race and intelligence".  It cannot give undue weight to one set of fringe theories.  Granted, if you look at word count, the article devotes a lot to the certain aspects of the history of "race and intelligence" (although even there, it's got a huge "undue weight" problem, since only addresses the issue of black and white in the US).
It's unacceptable to write articles from an "in universe" perspective.  We need to give greater weight to the mainstream scientific perspective, and give appropriate weight to agenda-driven fringe science.  Guettarda (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guettarda, what do you think about the proposals, in the sections above. I agree with you about the framing issue. futurebird (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice post Guettarda. Alun (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Would it be a solution to have three broad sections in this article, two about academic mainstream work, on "ses and race" and on "genetics and race"? A third section could deal with the problems of hysterical media reporting of some of the work? Just an attempt at compromise. Alun (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Brusegadi (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds reasonable to me.  Guettarda (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic structure 

message: Any comments on this diff? Now we have another article again. --can't we just merge this in too? I don't know why it was missed. futurebird (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important information that's too in depth for the main article but should be available to those who are interested. Since we're planning a split of Race and Intelligence anyways, I see nothing wrong with keeping this information where it is for now and merging it with the new articles in the future. Disregard; I hadn't read the AfD discussion. Aron.Foster (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back, simply because the idea was to merge it in here, but this was never done. The artilce has problems but 130 sources down the drain dosen't wash by any standards. Lobojo (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, the result of the AfD was clear, changing the state of the article was a breach of policy. Alun (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no "soft deletion" whatever that might mean, you might have liked that , but the idea was merge, and explicitly NOT delete. The material was never merged back. If you want to delete 130 sources you need an AFD decision to that extent. I nor nobody else needs to get the sources from the history. There are procedures for deleting material from wikipedia and this is just gaming the system. Lobojo (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The merging is due mainly to preserve a track of who has contributed to what.  If you delete a page then only admins can see who wrote what and thats problematic (I think there is an associated license issue; under it, it is better to merge.) Brusegadi (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am going to escalate this matter as people are bahving very badly and playing games with wikipeida policy. Lobojo (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lobojo, this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.  You are being disruptive.  Guettarda (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  what's wrong with mining the article history for any sources we need. If you're adamant that we merge it back in here, then let's get an admin to do that. I don't know what you mean by "people are playing games" futurebird (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  nothing is wrong with it, but it should need to be done. Five weeks ago a choice was made to redirect the page and merge in inforamtion. The first part was done, the second part not. Thus the article was DELETED in the face of consensus at the AfD. Lobojo (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely this sort of "threat" violates Wikipedia behaviour policies? Is it not a threat to edit war? It is a direct "challenge" to confrontation and deliberately ignores the philosophy of consensus building. Furthermore when articles are merged it does not mean that all content needs to be kept, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it needs to give good quality articles, but there are limits to the detail that should be included, it needs to be accessibly to everyone. If Lobojo wants some of the material from the article to be merged into "Race and intelligence" then he can always do it himself. It seems an odd solution to say that "because it hasn't been merged I will restore the article" when the correct response should be to merge the content yourself. Alun (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what sence is that a threat? If people continue to ignore AfD closings, it needs to be escalated to an RFC or something. What a drama queen! None NONE of the content has been merged, not a damn word, and a number of editors have mede it clear that they think this fine, since "merge really meant delete" anyway. Its not Lobojo that wants the material merged, it the WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY that wants it merged as set out in the AfD of five weeks ago. I can't add it the artilce is locked! Lobojo (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no one else can add the content if the article is protected can they? There's no point in complaining that you cannot add the content when no one else can either. The result of the AfD was not to keep the article, so it has been redirected. When this article is unlocked you will be free to move whatever info you like. Until that time the decision of the AfD was not to have all of these pov-forks. That was the decision, that was what the AfD was about. If you want to get this article unlocked then we need to avoid edit wars and come to a consensus about what to do, you have some responsibility in this regard as well. No point in complaining the article is locked if you are not prepared to contribute constructively to the debate about getting it unlocked. Furthermore you need to explain the utility of all of the test score data, we do not need to present every piece of evidence that the test score gap exists, we just need to cite reliable sources to verify that it does exist when we make this claim. So what purpose do these data actually serve? Alun (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test data article is back 

message: Are either of the new articles going to discuss minstrel shows like the current article or is type of information going to be discarded? --Jagz (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most of that stuff would get moved to the articles on racism or scientific racism. Right? It's talking about stereotypes about race and intelligence-- which, under the general heading of this article, is perfectly on topic-- futurebird (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Racism perhaps. It doesn't seem to fit under scientific racism. --Jagz (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early stereotypes 

message: There is no need to create an article on ENVIRONMENT AND INTELLIGENCE as it already exists: it was created in June 2007. There is also an article on Nature or nurture, another public debate, but this time involving academics. There therefore seems to be no point in discussing variants of yet another article on "environment and intelligence" as Slrubenstein has been proposing. All a bit of a storm in a teacup really. Mathsci (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Please fix the Charles Murray wikilink. Disambiguate to Charles Murray (author). Thanxs. =) Jumping  cheese 06:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix 

message: There are already articles on the Genetics of intelligence and Environment and intelligence. Racial aspects can be briefly discussed in those articles. We should be able to begin the process of deleting the current article. --Jagz (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The issue of differences in average intelligence between the races, regardless of causes, is important. I think there needs to be an article on wikipedia discussing the current state of knowledge on that issue, seeing as how most people in the general population are convinced there isn't any difference at all. Aron.Foster (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal to not have an article with the name "Race and Intelligence" won 6 to 4. --Jagz (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope my vote was counted in favour of your proposal :) Mathsci (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting the article 

message: Per request at my talk page, I have removed the protection status on this article. Please discuss controversial edits before making them on this talk page. If the article becomes embattled again, please let me know at my talk page or register another request for protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wooohoo!!! Edit War!!!  :) Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err...how about we try to avoid that?--Ramdrake (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my point, actually.  Guettarda (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guessed as much. I was just translating for those who might be humour-challenged. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: YEEEHaw! futurebird (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As usual, I think Kevin makes a very constructive and important point. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *A stalemate is a better word than cooperation. If every edit is going to be discussed, it will take years before there is a decent article. The discussion about the future of the article has been going on for over a month without action or a definitive game plan. Just use good faith in the edits and revert if there is a significant problem like in all the other articles I have been involved in. Slrubenstein has been involved with the article for several years but seems to be unable to provide the leadership necessary to move the article forward. --Jagz (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Jagz, I think that you bring a good balance to the discussion, but your actions have been questionable and you tend to polarize your opposition.  Chill-out; pissing on people's legs won't convert people, it just makes them wetter and smellier opponents.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check back in in a few months then as I can find better ways to waste my time. --Jagz (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd prefer that you hang around and be patient.  I think that you really have done some good research.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: For balance, although I regard it as in extremely poor taste, I concocted the following extra stereotype, which uses the same method of sources (media and popular culture) as the other stereotypes. It has been carefully designed to be equally pointless, offensive, inaccurate and unencyclopedic:
=====American intelligence stereotypes=====
The American people are often stereotyped by the British as brash ignorant loud-mouthed rednecks. . Other unflattering characterisations can be found in the novels of Evelyn Waugh and Max Beerbohm, whose Rhodes Scholar Mr. Abimelech V. Oover in Zuleika Dobson cannot prevent himself from spouting pompous long-winded neologisms . 
The section on stereotypes is disgraceful and has no place on the wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with at least a cleanup, but have felt that it is off-topic.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be desirable to know how this article can in fact be edited. Does every edit require a vote? Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems premature to fine tune what is likely to undergo major shifts in organization and message.  I'm asking that we (a) discuss major changes and (b) postpone fine-tuning.  I'm thinking that we should build a list of proposed changes and see where we can establish consensus.  I didn't oppose unprotecting the article since our efforts to work in a sandbox have so badly stalled, but as Morrridden warned, she will clamp this down at the first signs of battle.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, with that understanding I will revert the article to the bad version, as is customary on WP. However, this section is appalling: who calls themselves English these days? I suppose some editors at some stage must have added this spicy savoury to balance the unpalatable pseudoscientific hors d'oeuvres :)  Mathsci (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stereotypes revisited 

message: The American people are often stereotyped by the British as brash ignorant loud-mouthed rednecks. . Other unflattering characterisations can be found in the novels of Evelyn Waugh and Max Beerbohm, whose Rhodes Scholar Mr. Abimelech V. Oover in Zuleika Dobson cannot prevent himself from spouting pompous long-winded neologisms . 
The section on stereotypes is disgraceful and has no place on the wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with at least a cleanup, but have felt that it is off-topic.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be desirable to know how this article can in fact be edited. Does every edit require a vote? Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems premature to fine tune what is likely to undergo major shifts in organization and message.  I'm asking that we (a) discuss major changes and (b) postpone fine-tuning.  I'm thinking that we should build a list of proposed changes and see where we can establish consensus.  I didn't oppose unprotecting the article since our efforts to work in a sandbox have so badly stalled, but as Morrridden warned, she will clamp this down at the first signs of battle.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, with that understanding I will revert the article to the bad version, as is customary on WP. However, this section is appalling: who calls themselves English these days? I suppose some editors at some stage must have added this spicy savoury to balance the unpalatable pseudoscientific hors d'oeuvres :)  Mathsci (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: American intelligence stereotypes

message: * The references need to be restored urgently, because the article is at present unreadable. Although it's hard to tell at the moment, it does seem that the 2006 book of Lynn, Race differences in intelligence, has been used as a source. A review of this book by a reputed scholar has drawn attention to Lynn's manipulation of data, some of it data gathered by the reviewer. Such books cannot be used unquestioningly as reliable sources. Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It appears that N. J. Mackintosh is the critic.  A G-search yields little info on him, though what I see hints at his good reputation.  In many cases good biographies here at WP have been built while evaluating sources.  Perhaps we could build an article on Professor Macinitosh. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lynn might be a reasonable inclusion in a reference list or other reading section, but not inline citations.  I can see discussing his work, but not relying on it as a source of fact. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has a home page . Google actually reveals quite a lot: he is an animal behaviouralist, amongst other things; he has written IQ and Human Intelligence, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998. 429 pp. ; his initials stand for Nicholas John; he became a fellow of King's College, Cambridge in 1981; he was made FRS in 1987, etc, etc.   (To be fair I used extra inside information here.) Mathsci (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you think that we can build an article on him?  If you can give me the references etc.  If you are busy, I can build and you can fine tune. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His name should certainly be added to the list of Fellows of the Royal Society and you could start a biographical stub, in the hope that it would be fleshed out by some expert in his field. I do know people who probably know him fairly well, but that route is out of bounds. His bio must be sketched in one of his books, viewable on google, amazon or in the flesh. Otherwise there might be a Royal Society Biography available on demand. Here's his entry from the International Who's Who that I retrieved. Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring references 

message: I did a google scholar search for the most recent articles with key words "race" and "IQ" These are the first few results with my commentary. How should we sum these up? 
* The Totality of Available Evidence Shows the Race IQ Gap Still Remains (Psychological Science 2006) J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen
** Everything these two guys write is regarded as controversial.
** Basic position seems to be that the gap has narrowed in a century.
** Article isn't available for free on line (costs $44) but this proof can give us the gist of the content.
** The article criticizes the results of Fynn who showed that the gap was closing. 
** Depending on how one accounts for SES factors the gap can be shown to be closing, or remaining the same.
** No mention of genetics.
* The association of dental caries with blood lead in children when adjusted for IQ and neurobehavioral performance (Science of The Total Environment  2007) Martin et. al.
** Fairly non-controversial article about the impact of lead exposure on IQ mentions the fact that black children are exposed to more lead. Suggests this may play a role in the gap.
** This shows that these kind of findings continue to be published. 
** only came up in the search because race is one of many factors considered. There is a lot of research along these lines, but the focus is not on race. Doing this kind of research isn't controversial.
** Not about genetics.
* The Bell Curve: On Race, Social Class, and Epidemiologic Research C Muntaner, FJ Nieto, PO'Campo - American Journal of Epidemiology, 2006
** I didn't look in to this as it seems to be a book review. 
* Testing the genetic hypothesis of group mean IQ differences in South Africa: Racial admixture and cross-situational consistency J. Philippe Rushton
** Rushton, again. 
** The paper shows that mixed-race people in South Africa have IQ scores that are about the average of scores of whites an blacks. 
** No mention of genetics in the abstract.
* Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005) Nisbett - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2005
** Strong criticism for Rushton and Jensen
* Intelligence, race, and genetics RJ Sternberg, EL Grigorenko, KK Kidd - American Psychologist 2005
** Criticism for Murray and Jensen
* Race and intelligence: The fallacies behind the race-IQ controversy 
** Book review for a book from 1973? I skipped it.
* Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability Rushton Jensen Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2005
** Asserts that a genetic cause cannot be ruled out.
* Race and IQ RS COOPER - Am. Psychol, 2005
**This is a really solid source and it covers a lot of ground. It's published in a "good" journal. This is one of the articles that looks at the debate as a whole rather than focusing on particulars.
* IQ variations across time and race are explained by literacy differences D Marks - 2007 - precedings.nature.com
** Rejects the idea that nutrition or health factors are the primary cause (so the paper about lead levels is a little controversial after all!)
** Links IQ to education  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As already discussed, could you please use an academic database to compile a list of sources? If, like Aron.Foster, you are a math graduate student, you will have access to  academic search machines, as discussed above. Google scholar is unacceptable: it does not search scholarly literature in a systematic way.  Please learn about these search machines like ISI Web of Knowledge and then use them. (They are analogous to the search machines like mathscinet and Zentralblatt MATH, which are probably be known to you as the two prinicipal search machines for mathematics articles - Google scholar is no substitute.)  What you have produced above is not at all what is required. Please read what Slrubenstein has said about bias before attempting further literature searches. Mathsci (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mathsci - Google scholar is an imperfect tool.  I am certain that there are many more articles on this set of topics or some major aspect of them in many of the journals I named above.  That Google Scholar returns practically no journals from the list suggests to me that it is missing most of the current research.  In any event, I stated my position above:I give more weight to articles in the journals I listed.  I made this claim without knowing anything about the content of such articles but rather on the basis of the influence and notability of the journals themselves, which to me is the least biased way to proceed, if what we are after are notable views among researchers. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is a somewhat hectic time of year. The electronic resource I used with a UK academic proxy was here . I haven't investigated what happens if I use a US academic account, but that shouldn't be too hard to figure out, either directly from a university web site or by finding a user-friendly librarian in a central university library. Good luck and happy hunting, Mathsci (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Kevin, that is an excellent idea. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I found: Please name the top 3 sources in this list and explain your reasons 

message: I've copied the old reference/bibliography list to Talk:Race and intelligence/references.  This was slated for deletion at AfD, and thus blanked and redirected here.  I'm wondering why this is not properly reinstated as it is way too long to be appended to an article.  It seems like a good resource.  If we agree on reinstatement we can asking the Admin who closed the AfD for permission to revert his blank/redirect. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Kevin, that is an excellent idea. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old reference/bibliography page

message: As per a request from Kevin Murray, I've reverted my minor changes on the main page. Now, I reverted because I don't want to cause conflict, but I don't think formatting changes really need discussion. So now we arrive at the big question: do we require every change to be discussed here on the talk page, or do we set some bar below which changes don't require discussion? I'd like to suggest that we set the bar at changing sentence structure is ok, as long as it doesn't change the tone (positively or negatively). Changing the tone, adding or removing sections, etc. should be discussed here.
My changes were the removal of a dead picture link, and deletion of an unnecessary semi-colon and comma. Thnughts? Aron.Foster (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * In any other article I would agree.  I suggest that we just discuss and ask one person to make the changes. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see a problem with using this template. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest that someone start making changes to the article. It seems to be in a holding pattern. Editors will lose interest. --Jagz (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedural issues 

message: If the editors are going to continue to revert changes in this below par article then they need to demonstrate a good faith effort at improving the article. There has been no discussion recently about improving the article. There has been zero progress made in actually improving the article since the editors adopted the policy of reverting substantial changes. Habitually reverting the article is soon going to be looked at as disruptive behavior that stymies progress instead of being part of a good faith effort to improve the article. --Jagz (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good faith 

message: I propose that the article be reverted to the following 11 July 2005 version, when the article was a featured article candidate: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&oldid=18633210 --Jagz (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment: Most articles can becomes featured article candidates, you just have to nominate them.  So, I feel that using that criteria is just a bogus way to legitimize the choice of that particular version.  Anyone interested, the discussion is here.  I feel that in that discussion many objected on grounds of neutrality so we should try to keep on working here.  I have not been very active in the editing and I feel that Jagz really wants to make progress towards something so I suggest that those interested make some edits and start moving somewhere.  Also, Jagz, if no one else responds you should be bold and make edits that you deem necessary.  I think reverting to the 2005 version is extreme, but you should be bold with the small changes.  Happy editing, Brusegadi (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Revert article to a 2005 version 

message: The fact that there is a relation between High status and low status and High test scores and low test scores, does not necessarily mean that the low status races have to have low scores because they are low status, nor those it mean that these groups would have a higher score if they were high status. With all likelyhood, they have low status because they have low scores. There is a reason why one group has a high status and the other does not. Its that nature thing again-were the strongest survives, witch is the smartest in this case. The high status group is the high status group just because of this differences in test scores. The low scores group are low status because they are low score. There is a reason why the high stutus group is the high status group, they are smarter, or superior, witch is proven by the tests. The fact that the charts are the same should be a "well da'ah". It proves the fact that darwinism exists in societies as well, infact, in all of the societies tested.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.153.168 (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not have a revert war over this comment; why don't we instead leave it, talk about how it's unsigned flamebait, and move elsewhere? (Me fail English? That's Unlogical!) Aron.Foster (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, you can't remove someone's comments just because they're controversial. --Jagz (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it depends on how hard you enforce WP:TALK.  In an article like this one it should be enforced in a broader way because we have too many who just want to piss people off.  The comment is not controversial, its bait, and its "unlogical" and poorly written. Brusegadi (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then just write a comment like Aron.Foster did above. --Jagz (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlogical conclusion 

message: I am going to remove the examples of media portrayal of stereotypes. I have already moved this information to the Stereotype article. I will keep a brief summary along with a link to the Stereotype article. --Jagz (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not received comments so I proceed to remove the information as discussed. --Jagz (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stereotypes 

message: Here is evidence provided in a request for arbitration for edit-warring on race-related articles. It says:
"Per request for specificity on the talk page, the users who are most commonly involved in revert wars on these articles are Dbachmann, Deeceevoice, and Ramdrake, with Jeeny and Futurebird also contributing some, but not as many, reverts. Egyegy, Muntuwandi, Taharqa, and Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka, and other also join from time to time. This list is by no means exhuastive."
I believe that some of these individuals form edit-warring gangs to get around the 3RR policy. --Jagz (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit-warring on race-related articles 

message: Some editors appear to be overusing the word fringe. Theories that are not mainstream are not necessarily fringe theories. See WP:FRINGE. --Jagz (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:FRINGE argument is difficult or impossible to resolve because it's so difficult to prove. Those who think intelligence differences are entirely environmental will cite the preponderance of published journals and studies that reach that conclusion; those who believe in a genetic component will mention the enormous press and attention the possible genetic component gets, and the bias in the field against even acknowledging that it's a possibility. Aron.Foster (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, they don't want to get Al Sharpton stirred up. --Jagz (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know of any participant in this discussion who has claimed that 100% of variation in IQ scores is environmental.  In fact, most of the current scholarship - mainstream scholarship - on IQ scores is not even concerned with the debate "is it environmental or is it genetic."  There is a body of literature, and I provided many citations above, that debate what the heritability of IQ is and that also debates a very specific environmental factor, namely the fetal environment, in differences between monochorionic and dichorionic twins.  There is another body of literature that is critical of actual IQ tests and the ways IQ results have been used to characterize people of different social groups (generally either races or classes); these people are not rejecting the claim that there is a genetic component to IQ, they are however rejecting the claim that the genetic component is relevant to the phenomena they are investigating.  Given that those scientists who are investigating heritability are not addressing differences between social groups, I'd say there is no "nature versus nurture" debate, there are rather two separate lines of research right now.  Since people in either line of research are not criticizing people in the other line of research, I have no reason to believe that either set of researchers rejects the claims of the other set.  Now we come to the word "fringe."  There is indeed a fringe group that mixes up claims about heritability and social groups.  They are fring not because they are "not mainstream."  They are fringe because they are not trained in th area of research in which they claim to have expertise, do not publish in the major peer-reviewed journals that do publish articles on either of these lines of research (heritability and fetal environment on the one hand, and the interpretation of IQ results for different social groups on the other), and they are not cited by established scholars.  Rushton, for example, not only was not able to publish his opinions in a major peer-reviewed journal, his publisher actually had to give away free copies of his book.  That is right - scholars, and university libraries, who regularly spend thirty, forty, or fifty dollars on an academic book (that's right, they are not Dell Paperbacks!), wouldn't even buy the book.  He had to give away free copies.  These to me are all indicators of "fringe." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What audience do you think Wikipedia articles should be written for? Fourth-graders, experts in the field, etc.? --Jagz (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My comment was a direct response to your comment, and Aron's.  Your comment is a non-sequitor, it does not follow from mine.  Let's keep this thread on point.  if you want to open another discussion on another topic, create a new section. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should not be making up your own criteria of what a fringe theory is, instead refer to WP:FRINGE. Also, I believe that the Rushton books that were given away were abridged versions. --Jagz (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What a phenominally biased way to express this. You frame the debate as if it is between a group on the one hand who claim that variation in IQ is 100% environmental, while on the other is another group that claims "a genetic component". This at best displays ignorance, and at worst a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. I don't know of a single person who has ever claimed that "intelligence differences are entirely environmental". "Those who believe in a genetic component" would therefore include all reliable researchers. As anyone knows who has read even a small amount about this subject it is impossible to differentiate between biologically inherited ability and environmentally inherited ability, the best anyone can do is to try and estimate the relative contributions of "biologically inherited" vs. environmentally stimulated ability, and it is here that there seems to be a dispute. On the one hand a small group of academics claim to have evidence that about 80% of intellectual ability is "biologically inherited", on the other hand a much larger consensus of scientists claim that the "biologically inherited" component of a person's intellectual ability is about 40%. One the other hand a recent study found that the within group variance for the children of affluent people was estimated at 60% "genetic", while the within group variance for the children of poor people was estimated at 40% genetic. Their conclusions are obvious, the more environmental opportunities children have to reach their full potential, the greater the influence of innate ability, but given a poor environment, then innate ability is not given the opportunity to flourish. Clearly no academic claims there is a dichotomy between "nature" and "nurture" as Aron is claiming, there are only very crude attempts to estimate the relative contributions of innate ability vs. environmental effects. The fact is that the overwhelming consensus in the academic community is that environment is fundamentally important to a child's ability to learn and progress, a small group of researchers claim the opposite, that environment is of little import, so we should say this in the article, should we not? I've said this before, we are discussing the difference between a minority point of view and a tiny minority point of view. If it is decided that the likes of Jensen and Rushton comprise only a tiny minority, then their  beliefs need not be included, if we decide that their beliefs comprise a minority point of view, then their beliefs may be accorded a small section in the article as per policy. The "race" thing is just a side issue of the belief in an 80% "biologically inherited" ability is it not? Of course this suffers from the obvious flaw that ideas of "biological race" have been systematically and comprehensively disproven over the last 50 years or so. Alun (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was unnecessary to add all this drama to the discussion. --Jagz (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so why did you do it? Alun (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed on all points. Thanks for the reminder. Alun (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is crap and you are both zealots. --Jagz (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I can't find where I have insulted you, but if you feel I have, then I appologise. Some researchers claim that all intelligence differences are overwhelmingly (80%) "genetic" in origin, they use this claim to make a further claim that the largest component of intelligence differences between African-American, Asian-American and European-American must also be overwhelmingly genetic. The point is not that they make this claim, the point is that the people who make this claim do not represent mainstream opinion, it is at least a minority, if not a tiny minority point of view, as such it should not be given undue weight. This is clear. The fundamental point is that this article is not about that particular group of people's work, though the argument can be made that their claims might be considered worthy of inclusion in a small section of their own. I don't know how fringe these claims are, but they certainly are not mainstream. I do know that just a few weeks ago a radio programme broadcast by NPR discussing just this ("Race and IQ" from "On Point" by WBUR Boston, the podcast may still be available for download) made absolutely no reference to either Jensen or Rushton, and made it clear that this subject is about disparities in wealth and opportunity. Furthermore the claims about a genetic component do not represent work by geneticists. I don't know what evidence they have for making this claim, I do know that it is virtually impossible to differentiate between what is genetic and what is not genetic in this, and also that just because a group of researchers claim only to be able to identify a 20% environmental effect, this does not necessarily imply that the rest of the difference in intellectual ability is "proven" to be "innate", it could just as easily imply that they are just not very good at differentiating between what is an environmental effect and what is not and environmental effect. Genetics and anthropology show us that the concept of "race" is biologically nonsense, and is a house of cards, they also show us that differences between groups of people represent two distinct types, differences that are neutral, (caused by Genetic drift and Founder effect etc.) and those that are under selection, such as HaemoglobinS and skin pigmentation. Those under selection have identifiable causes, such as the protection from Plasmodium falciparum infection or protection from Folic acid degradation by strong UV light. Note that traits under selection are determined by environmental factors, which are not distributed "racially", skin colour is distributed by UV intensity and HaemoglobinS by exposure of people to the anopholes parasite, both traits cut across stereotypical "racial" boundaries. Those that are neutral are random and have no significance beyond chance. The best essay I read on this was written in the 1970's by Ashley Montague and Theodosius Dobzhansky and it makes the obvious point that any genes for "intelligence" must occur in all populations because they will be under positive selection in all populations (because the children of intelligent people will always better survive). The upshot of this will be that all genes for "intelligence" will always tend to be distributed throughout all populations due to the positive selection of the people carrying these genes. There is no human environment where there is a negative selection for the most intelligent people. This essay has been reprinted in the book "Race and IQ" edited by Montague himself. Alun (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me sum it up for you, Aron: there is no sense to having an article on genetic explanations for differences in IQ results between races - not because there is no genetic component to IQ (Alun and I and I think everyone else here has stated that there is, and I have provided a list of mainstream scholarly research on just this topic), but because races are not biological groups.  They are social groups and the mainstream research on IQ differences gbetween social groups understandably looks at social factors.  This is a simple fact (a simple observation about scientific research).  It in no way implies that there is no genetic component to intelligence. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, you said succinctly what I was trying and failing to say. Alun (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, there is a genetic component on the average to our social constructs of race. This is especially true when discussing indigenous races. The question is whether these small genetic differences include differences which affect the average intelligence (most commonly measured by IQ) of races. --Jagz (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem, Aron, is, that neither Rushton and Jensen are geneticists, which may be why they either do not understand or understand and reject the science of population genetics ... that is, they are either misrepresenting the research by geneticists, or are presenting a wholly original theory that is simply rejected by mainstream science.  I am refering to their claim that the hereditarian view holds that x % of the difference between groups is genetic.  Geneticists do have a concept, called heritability, which is a measure of the degree to which genes account for phenotypic variation.  However, heritability applies only to variation within a group.  It cannot be used to explain differences between groups.  This is just basic population genetics.  Anyone who claims otherwise is either misrepresenting population genetics, or is simply making a claim that has nothing to do with research by population geneticists.  This is why, as far as arguments about genetics and heritability go, Jensen and Rushton are fringe. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that we should be judging someone's expertise on a subject by what they studied for their PhD or what their job title is. Also, you need to use WP:FRINGE for guidance on what a fringe theory is according to Wikipedia standards. Until you start being more compromising you are not going to get anywhere ever. --Jagz (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually we really should be judging their expertise based on what their PhD and research is. This is how we judge a source to be reliable or not. Jensen and Rushton are psychologists with an interest in psychometrics. Neither seems to have even any expertise of either genetics or evolution, and neither claims such an expertise. Speaking of compromises, you have had the most uncompromising and obstreperous attitude of anyone here, coupled little or no understanding of the subject at hand. Alun (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe 

message: I have been watching this article from the sidelines for some time. It appears to me that the level of scholarship reqired to effectively edit this complex topic is, at this stage, beyond most WP editors. It may be that as WP editor culture develops the necessary skills and attitudes will become available in sufficient quantities. Am interested in what other editors think this skill set would include. Is it beyond what is suggested in WP:POLICY? How much familiarity with genetics, the history of psychology, sociology and science, and access to online scientific journals would be necessary. How would effective editors deal with a group of ineffective/ignorant editors attempting to edit? How would a group of effective editors prevent themselves being swamped by a constant stream of tangential, unfocused, ignorant discusion flowing through the discusion page? SmithBlue (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly believe that credentials are not an issue at Wikipedia.  One need not have a PhD. in population genetics, psychology, or sociology to edit this article.  Surely, we do not demand that someone have a PhD. in math or physics in order to edit Maxwell's equations or Gauss's law!  That said, surely we expect an editor to understand math and physics well, if they are to contribute to those articles.  Articles like Maxwell's equations and Gauss's law must be accurate and reflect the state of the art in mathematicians' and physicists' understanding of these things, and should be based on sound research by editors capable of doing sound research, right?  I would expect nothing less for this article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe it is important to decide who the target audience is for the article and write it for their benefit. The article is not for the benefit of the editors. If you try to write it like a scholarly journal you are not going to connect with a lot of the readers and a lot of the editors are not capable of writing the article at that level because most are not experts. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has a policy on this. --Jagz (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Non sequitor.  Please stick to the topic.  Are you repeating the same trollish tactic you did in the section above, "Fringe," where instead of responding to other people's points you just change the subject?  First of all, it is very much Wikipedia's policy that we write articles for editors since anyone can edit Wikipedia and all readers of Wikipedia articles are, potentially, editors.  Second, no one has ever said that this article should be written "like a scholarly journal."  I defy you to quote even one sentence in which anyone has suggested that this be written "like a scholaly journal."  Or, by "scholarly journal" are you referring to what I wrote immediately before your comment, that the article should be ccurate and well-researched?  Please be clear: are you saying that the article should be inaccurate and poorly-researched? Is that what you mean when you say it should not be written like a scholarly journal?  If that is not what you mean, I see no point or sense to your comment, it has no connection then to what SmithBlue or I wrote.  I repeat what I wrote bfore: If you do not want to respond to what others are discussing, then start a new section to introduce your new point. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Slurbenstein, will you please find another article to work on. You have been involved in this article for 6 years and what do you have to show for it. The article is a well known piece of garbage. Your arrogant ramblings on this Talk page are unhelpful. --Jagz (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Jagz, another non-sequitor.  Please focus.  if you have nothing to say related to this thread, then just don't say anything. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying it would be in the best interest of the article for you to stop participating. --Jagz (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualities/skills of editors who may produce a successful Race and intelligence article 

message: I think the section on the "Flynn Effect" needs real expansion.  The New Yorker recently published an article by Malcolm Gladwell reviewing a recent book by Flynn that emphasizes not just that IQ's have gone up over time, butthat the standard IQ test is renormed ("100" is recalibrated periodically so that it remains the average score) periodically.  This means that the results from IQ tests administered in the 1950s cannot be compared with results from the 1970s or the present, without adjustment.  yet, many studies that compare IQs of different races do just that - compare scores from different times, without taking into account the renorming of the test.  here is one excerpt from Gladwell's article:
:For instance, Flynn shows what happens when we recognize that I.Q. is not a freestanding number but a value attached to a specific time and a specific test. When an I.Q. test is created, he reminds us, it is calibrated or “normed” so that the test-takers in the fiftieth percentile—those exactly at the median—are assigned a score of 100. But since I.Q.s are always rising, the only way to keep that hundred-point benchmark is periodically to make the tests more difficult—to “renorm” them. The original WISC was normed in the late nineteen-forties. It was then renormed in the early nineteen-seventies, as the WISC-R; renormed a third time in the late eighties, as the WISC III; and renormed again a few years ago, as the WISC IV—with each version just a little harder than its predecessor. The notion that anyone “has” an I.Q. of a certain number, then, is meaningless unless you know which WISC he took, and when he took it, since there’s a substantial difference between getting a 130 on the WISC IV and getting a 130 on the much easier WISC.
:.............  
:The fact that the I.Q.s of Chinese-Americans also seemed to be elevated has led I.Q. fundamentalists to posit the existence of an international I.Q. pyramid, with Asians at the top, European whites next, and Hispanics and blacks at the bottom.
:Here was a question tailor-made for James Flynn’s accounting skills. He looked first at Lynn’s data, and realized that the comparison was skewed. Lynn was comparing American I.Q. estimates based on a representative sample of schoolchildren with Japanese estimates based on an upper-income, heavily urban sample. Recalculated, the Japanese average came in not at 106.6 but at 99.2. Then Flynn turned his attention to the Chinese-American estimates. They turned out to be based on a 1975 study in San Francisco’s Chinatown using something called the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test. But the Lorge-Thorndike test was normed in the nineteen-fifties. For children in the nineteen-seventies, it would have been a piece of cake. When the Chinese-American scores were reassessed using up-to-date intelligence metrics, Flynn found, they came in at 97 verbal and 100 nonverbal. Chinese-Americans had slightly lower I.Q.s than white Americans.
:The Asian-American success story had suddenly been turned on its head. The numbers now suggested, Flynn said, that they had succeeded not because of their higher I.Q.s. but despite their lower I.Q.s. Asians were overachievers. In a nifty piece of statistical analysis, Flynn then worked out just how great that overachievement was. Among whites, virtually everyone who joins the ranks of the managerial, professional, and technical occupations has an I.Q. of 97 or above. Among Chinese-Americans, that threshold is 90. A Chinese-American with an I.Q. of 90, it would appear, does as much with it as a white American with an I.Q. of 97.
:There should be no great mystery about Asian achievement. It has to do with hard work and dedication to higher education, and belonging to a culture that stresses professional success. But Flynn makes one more observation. The children of that first successful wave of Asian-Americans really did have I.Q.s that were higher than everyone else’s—coming in somewhere around 103. Having worked their way into the upper reaches of the occupational scale, and taken note of how much the professions value abstract thinking, Asian-American parents have evidently made sure that their own children wore scientific spectacles. “Chinese Americans are an ethnic group for whom high achievement preceded high I.Q. rather than the reverse,” Flynn concludes, reminding us that in our discussions of the relationship between I.Q. and success we often confuse causes and effects. “It is not easy to view the history of their achievements without emotion,” he writes. That is exactly right. To ascribe Asian success to some abstract number is to trivialize it. 
:Two weeks ago, Flynn came to Manhattan to debate Charles Murray at a forum sponsored by the Manhattan Institute. Their subject was the black-white I.Q. gap in America. During the twenty-five years after the Second World War, that gap closed considerably. The I.Q.s of white Americans rose, as part of the general worldwide Flynn effect, but the I.Q.s of black Americans rose faster. Then, for about a period of twenty-five years, that trend stalled—and the question was why. 
:Murray showed a series of PowerPoint slides, each representing different statistical formulations of the I.Q. gap. He appeared to be pessimistic that the racial difference would narrow in the future. “By the nineteen-seventies, you had gotten most of the juice out of the environment that you were going to get,” he said. That gap, he seemed to think, reflected some inherent difference between the races. “Starting in the nineteen-seventies, to put it very crudely, you had a higher proportion of black kids being born to really dumb mothers,” he said. When the debate’s moderator, Jane Waldfogel, informed him that the most recent data showed that the race gap had begun to close again, Murray seemed unimpressed, as if the possibility that blacks could ever make further progress was inconceivable.
:Flynn took a different approach. The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.
:That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older. 
Does someone have Flynn's book and other work?  It would be better to work from the actual source, except for Gladwell's reporting of a public event.  Suggestions for how to incorporate this in? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Flynn Effect