Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence

message: I have requested (several days ago) for assistance with this mediation, as my health is still uneven and I am unable to give this the time I would strongly prefer. Unfortunately, the other Mediation Committee members are busy, and no one has yet been able to assist. I appreciate your continued patience and assure you that although this is proceeding slowly,I have not abandoned you. Thanks much to all of you for understanding. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: ===JereKrischel's suggestion===
 0. lead - 3-6 paragraphs
 1. background/history (subarticle - Race and intelligence (history))
      - 2-3 paragraphs
 1.1. intelligence (main: IQ, intelligence)
      - 1-2 paragraphs
 1.2. race (main: race)
      - 1-2 paragraphs
 2. research (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Research)
      - 2-3 paragraphs
 3. media portrayal (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)
      - 2-3 paragraphs
 4. controversies (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Controversies)
      - 2-3 paragraphs
 5. end material (subarticle - R&I (references) or switch to footnote ref system)
In my view, research contains three major sub-articles:
*Race and intelligence (explanations) - an outline of the various hypotheses
*Race and intelligence (test data) - an outline of research results, hopefully sans any assertions of meaning (save that for the next section)
*Race and intelligence (interpretations) - specific interpretations of data.  This would include a large number of meta-analysis wars had by several researchers of R&I
My concerns generally circle around whether or not this article is primarily about "Race and intelligence research", or "Race and intelligence".  One seems much more expansive than the other, and without organizing the research portion into distinct areas, I think that excessively detailed arguments wind haphazardly throughout the structure.
For example, without segregating "interpretations" from "test data", we have problems where one editor will make a citation to a certain study, and a claim about what that study means.  Then another editor will make a citation refuting that claim, and possibly citing another study and making additional claims of their own.  This can go on endlessly (and does in many places right now).  I think this "ad hoc, argue every point, counter point, and counter counter point" methodology leads to a disjointed series of articles.
On the other hand, if under "test data", we simply stated the GRE test results (without claiming they proved a specific hypothesis), or IQ test data, we can avoid this furball.  Under "interpretations", we can more easily summarize conflicting interpretations about various categories of data, rather than conflicting interpretations about each specific point made in every journal article over the past 20 years.
I also think the basis of this specific dispute is because of a fear that my proposed structure diminishes the importance of research on R&I.  Although inevitably placing research at something besides the root level will diminish its dominance of the article, I don't believe that this is being done in bad faith (specifically to denigrate research that asserts genetic causes to racial gaps), or that a loss of dominance is a loss of any importance.
====Disagreements with futurebird====
I think that "interpretations" is a research topic, and shouldn't necessarily be under "controversies".  I guess I see "interpretations" as being specific to study citations, and controversies being more broad.  For example, one researcher may interpret some set of test data as showing 60% genetic contribution to the B-W gap.  Another may interpret that same set of test data as showing 0% genetic contribution to the B-W gap.  The "controversy" section would probably deal with one researcher insisting that blacks are inferior to whites genetically, without specifically speaking of a given study...a lot of the "aggregationalists" such as Rushton would fall into this category.  This kind of division I think allows us to avoid a spiral of death, where a controversy is named, a few studies cited, then a few counter studies cited, then counter counter studies, etc, etc, etc.  If we keep the specific details of "interpretations" to specific details around single studies, and keep the controversies more general, we may be able to avoid this anti-pattern currently in the article.
The sections I see under "controversies" are:
*Race and intelligence (Utility of research)
*Race and intelligence (Potential for bias) (poorly named, alternative suggestions welcome)
*"Policy Implications" (currently no sub-article)
*other sections without sub-articles
Utility of research is the general category of disputes about the fundamental questions being asked - the meta-questions of "what is race?", "is race real?", "do the answers to these questions really have any meaning?", etc.
Potential for bias is a terrible name, but essentially seems to be a catch-all for ad-hominem attacks on the other side - I think maybe WRN is right that these sections need to be organized in some different manner.
====Disagreements with WRN====
Regarding "consequences" or "significance" or "practical importance" of group differences., I have some severe difficulties with those characterizations.  The pattern ostensibly cited is the "practical validity" pattern - where "validity" is the correlation between score and outcome.  The model for this is "the practical validity of IQ", where we measure IQ scores and outcomes such as income, health, marriage, number of children, etc.
This idea of "practical validity" doesn't apply very well to a category with a dual nature, since the direction of what is considered a "score" is a matter of POV.  For example, in a number of hereditarian books and papers, arguments about how IQ differences between groups correlate with non-IQ differences between groups are made.  In short form, the illustration they seek to show is "when IQ is controlled for, these gaps between races in Y diminish by X".  This prejudges the question by both implying that IQ is a natural function of race, and that it isn't racism which causes differences.
You can turn it around, and seek to show "when race is controlled for, these gaps between high and low IQ groups in Y diminish by X". (I.e., high IQ people may be richer than low IQ people, but if control for how "black" someone is, you find that the gap diminishes, implying that people are richer or poorer based on race, not IQ.)
The assertion of "consequences" or "significance" or "practical importance" is a specific interpretation of the data.
===Comments - Kevin Murray===
--Kevin Murray 23:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What should the organization of the main article be? 

message: --Kevin Murray 23:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments - Kevin Murray

message: ===WRN's version===
;general:
# The article uses and should use summary style, which "focuses on topics". The main article (Race and intelligence) should be "a primer on a whole topic". It should have many daughter subarticles, with summary sections left in the main article headed by a link to the daughter articles.
# It would be preferable for every significant topic to have a summary section in the main article and its own subarticle. My idea of significant is expansive -- I would prefer to see that every topic about which a significant amount of material can we written be given its own main-article facing summary section.
;specifics:
* both race and intelligence/IQ should have summary sections in the main article to provide salient background, akin to summary style
* a subarticle and main-article summary section are definitely needed for each of the following:
**history
**"test data"
**explanations
**"interpretations"
**media portrayal
* one or more subarticles and main-article summary sections are needed for the material in
**utility of research
**potential for bias
**other "controversies"
*if the current reference system is maintained, Race and intelligence (References) is also needed
;possible issues of contention, and areas of doubt
* no research article -- 
** the purpose of a top level research article is ostensibly to provide a summary of all "research", but the research itself includes 2 (or 3) largely independent topics. the clearest case of this is "test data" and explanations. all major sources that summarize the literature appear to separate these issues. The APA report has two sections ("Mean Scores of Different Ethnic Groups" and "Interpreting Group Differences") which correspond to these two topics. The WSJ statement has two sections ("Group Differences" and "Source and Stability of Between-Group Differences"). Jensen (1998) has two chapters ("Population differences in g" and "Population differences in g: causal hypotheses"). And so on. The dividing line we chose between the two versus the lines chosen by each of these sources is a little fuzzy, but the importance of separating discussion of them should be clear.
** however, i think a case can be made for having a "research" super-article which provides a more technical summary of all of the same material that appears in a general-audience summary on the main page. i have no objections to this use of a technically-oriented research summary-article, if it doesn't otherwise alter the organization I've outlined.
* "interpretations" as a top level item -- I believe the content of this article fails to fit appropriately in either of the other two "research"-related topics and it is not directly subsumed in any other topic. Like media portrayal, it should be a separate top-level topic. in current and previous discussion of this article, i believe there is a consistent misunderstanding or confusion of what the article's contents are/are not. it is not the same as a "public policy" discussion. the title "interpretations" is a mislabeling. it is actually better called "consequences" or "significance" or "practical importance" of group differences.
* controversies topic -- the distinction between "utility of research" and "potential for bias" has become blurred, and the other content of "controversies" is growing. The controversies topic is clearly expansive, but those particular sub-articles may no longer be the appropriate way to divide that topic. a reassessment should be made and the material may need to be reapportioned into some number of differently divided subarticles. any major subarticles should have main-article facing summaries and the remaining "other" controversies should be summarized briefly in the main article as well.
==== comments ====
* Kevin's comment re: Populations and Intelligence -- there are advantages and disadvantages of that, which are probably better answered at a later time. if going down that route, Population Differences in Intelligence would be more specific.
* FB's comment re: But, Race and intelligence research still needs it's own subarticle. -- there are now a number of permutations on that idea. Can you give a specific suggestion?
* I don't know anyone who claims that "Race and intelligence" is a topic limited to only recent research results, but research results are clearly the largest single aspect of this topic, receiving the largest fraction of the attention in scholarly sources.
* I believe Ultramarine may be agreeing with my assessment. Or perhaps I am agreeing with Ultramarine's assessment. The exception being the "interpretations" article doesn't appear in Ultramarine's outline. The issue of a "research" subarticle appears to still be an issue of contention. The only use I can see for it is as a nontechnical summary of the entire research topic, but this isn't necessarily a good idea.
===Futurebird's thoughts===
#Race and intelligence research needs it's own subarticle. If there is no section for research the main article will seem like an article that is only about research. Some sources question the very fact that research is being done at all. Other sources see the topic differently, as one related to the history of racial prejudice as much as a question of science. Still other sources are interested in the way that the media portray the intelligence of people of different races, rather than the findings of studies. Research is, of course, one of the most important aspects of this topic, but it is not the only area. Research should have a big section in the main article, but it still needs it's own subsection. Subsections of the research article should be linked to the main article. It should be expansive in some of the same ways WRN has described, but it should avoid inadvertently making a statement about what aspects of the topic are the most important through the structure of the article.
#Race and intelligence (utility of research) and Race and intelligence (potential for bias) are confused topics at this point. (I do agree with WRN on this, in some ways) I'm open to suggestions about what we should do with these topics, so long as the material in them remains in the controversies section, or in a sub-section of the controversies section. Naming these articles will be a sensitive matter.
#Race and intelligence (interpretations) belongs in the Race and intelligence (Controversies) section, not in the section for research. This section explains the interpretations that various scholars have of the gap. All of the explanations (both liberal and conservative) are slightly political and controversial in nature. There is no agreement about how gaps ought to be understood among academics. The work in this section isn't about experiments, but rather it about comparing data from experiments that others have done and then drawing conclusions about what should or should not be done.futurebird 03:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should the organization structure/relationships of the many articles be? 

message: #Race and intelligence research needs it's own subarticle. If there is no section for research the main article will seem like an article that is only about research. Some sources question the very fact that research is being done at all. Other sources see the topic differently, as one related to the history of racial prejudice as much as a question of science. Still other sources are interested in the way that the media portray the intelligence of people of different races, rather than the findings of studies. Research is, of course, one of the most important aspects of this topic, but it is not the only area. Research should have a big section in the main article, but it still needs it's own subsection. Subsections of the research article should be linked to the main article. It should be expansive in some of the same ways WRN has described, but it should avoid inadvertently making a statement about what aspects of the topic are the most important through the structure of the article.
#Race and intelligence (utility of research) and Race and intelligence (potential for bias) are confused topics at this point. (I do agree with WRN on this, in some ways) I'm open to suggestions about what we should do with these topics, so long as the material in them remains in the controversies section, or in a sub-section of the controversies section. Naming these articles will be a sensitive matter.
#Race and intelligence (interpretations) belongs in the Race and intelligence (Controversies) section, not in the section for research. This section explains the interpretations that various scholars have of the gap. All of the explanations (both liberal and conservative) are slightly political and controversial in nature. There is no agreement about how gaps ought to be understood among academics. The work in this section isn't about experiments, but rather it about comparing data from experiments that others have done and then drawing conclusions about what should or should not be done.futurebird 03:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Futurebird's thoughts

message: * I'm willing to compromise given the points raised by JK and have Race and intelligence (interpretations) be a sub-section of research. But, Race and intelligence research still needs it's own subarticle.futurebird 13:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise and comments

message: I hate to be impatient, but a few of us are wondering if this process has stalled? futurebird 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stalled?

message: --Kevin Murray 14:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments - Kevin Murray

message: * The main page should not give the impression that the topic "Race and intelligence" is only a topic for scientific research. I don't care about the names of the subpages, however it is organised this should be the final result.
* The history section should tell the history history of the entire topic. Not just the research. I think if we did what Kevin is suggesting we'd end up with two history sections. Let's keep it all in one place. 
* The test data section is not working. I think it should be split and merged. 
JJJamal 11:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments - JJJamal

message: *The most important point is that "Race and intelligence" is not a topic limited to only recent research results, as sometimes have been argued. It also inlcludes, for example, racial stereotypes throughout history, use in media and by racists, and motivations and funding of research.
*My proposed structure would be:
**Race and Intelligence
***Race and Intelligence (Historical views and their influence)
***Race and Intelligence (Current media portrayal)
***Race and Intelligence (Average racial differences on intelligence related measures)
***Race and Intelligence (Explanations for average racial differences on intelligence related measures)
***Race and Intelligence (Controversies surrounding research)
I do not think there is a need for a "Race and Intelligence (Research)" article since it will only repeat material already in other articles and "Race and Intelligence" is already a summary article.Ultramarine 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments - Ultramarine