Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 16

message: I'm not sure what happened at a quick glance, but the footnotes did not match up with the article. To fix this, I removed the following:
# J. Philippe Rushton, "Race, Intelligence and the Brain: The Errors and Omissions of the 'Revised' Edition of S.J. Gould's The Measure of Man," Journal of Individual Differences 23, no. 1 (1997): 169–80.
# Phil Gasper, "A scientist of the people," SocialistWorker.org, June 7, 2002.
# Goosed-Up Graphics: A generalization of the Lie Factor, graphs from Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin, by Stephen Jay Gould (Three Rivers, MI: Three Rivers Press, 1997): 109, fig. 16.
# , ,  
# "Racial Scientist Rushton Takes Over Pioneer Fund," Bethune Institute for Anti-Fascist Studies, January 2003.
# Linda S. Gottfredson,   "The General Intelligence Factor," Scientific American.
Did these possibly get moved to one of the related articles (and hopefully copied there correctly)? In any case, they didn't seem to correspond to any of the items currently in the text. --Michael Snow 22:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: To be honest, I can not understand why there is an informational website that can be altered, and subjected to change by any individual on this planet? Who's bright idea was this???
 
I have come to this site on many occasions, with the sole intention of leaving the dumbest contribution I could possibly think up. Usually my posts will include words like "poo-poo, and pee-pee," but nobody seems to notice. This site is absolutely rediculous, and a concentrated effort should be made to close it down. 
I have also heard that many racists will use this site as their own personal reference to others; I think this is because racists are free to change and munipulate details as they please. An overwhemling amount of false information can be found via this website, and something needs to be done to put an end to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.168.189 (talk • contribs) September 19, 2005
:Most of your graffiti was probably undone by others within minutes. The same arguments that show that Wikipedia should be rubbish apply to the internet in general, to newspapers, and even to "traditional" encyclopedias. Despite the theory that Wikipedia should be rubbish, the reality is that it's actually good, or at least better than most alternatives. If you actually have an error to report on this article, such as an incorrect reference or unfair summary of some scientific research, I'd like to hear it. If you just want to rant about Wikipedia, read this article about Wikipedia itself, especially the Wikipedia#Further reading section.
:I don't care whether this article is read by racists, rapists, paedophiles, terrorists or homophobes. It's either a well written, accurate, neutral article, or it isn't. I happen to think it is a good article. Racists can make their own websites, and publish their own newspapers or buy their own TV networks. You'd be better off calling to shut down many TV networks before attacking Wikipedia.
:Your questions, and my responses, should probably be deleted from this thread sooner or later. They are irrelevant to this article. --Aaron McDaid 11:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki is not a place to come for serious information

message: Can someone with the data put a y- axis label on the chart? I'd also like to note in the footnote that the chart does not have the same N value for each group, since I don't think that's clear to a casual reader and (slightly) affects the margin of error on each. I don't think that needs to go in the caption. Jokestress 00:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The values of the Y-axis won't make any sense. The area under each curve is 1, and the max of each curve is around 0.4 --Rikurzhen 00:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The N for each group??? Are you thinking of the normalization data? Because the Asian and Hispanic curves don't come from that dataset. Also, Roth 2001 has N > 1e6 for the Black-White gap, so there's no reason to mention the N value from a particular study. --Rikurzhen 00:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart 

message: The first sentence currently describes race and intelligence research as an interdisciplinary field, and previously described it as an area of intelligence research.  Interdisciplinary field seems less helpful in helping the reader categorize this area.  Are we referring to other fields in the social sciences?  As long as the area is primarily within intelligence research or psychometrics, it seems fine to leave it at that in the header.  --Nectar T 06:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For a while this said race and intelligence was an area of social science research, but since so much of this article discusses genetics, biology, and statistical models as well, it seemed more accurate to say interdisciplinary. See also my comment to Arbor earlier about how evolution is an interdisciplinary field in the same way as this one. Granted, most of the people doing the work are psychologists, but the field seems to be shifting rapidly as new technologies bring in people from other disciplines. Jokestress 07:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interdisciplinary field