Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence (book)

message: Of pure interest, what is the rationel for not including the graph from the book? It is what the book wanted to "prove", and it found the typical correlation of 0.4 decimal with brain size and IQ that others found - helmuth nyborg, phillip rushtoh, earl hunt etc.....MicroMacroMania (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your phrase, "It is what the book wanted to 'prove'", basically sums up why not to put the graph into Wikipedia article text. The reviews of the book, uniformly negative on the part of all the independent reviews, point out that the book aimed to prove something before the authors gathered their data, and the data were very poor. It's not a reliable source. If we had independent, reliable, secondary sources that had all published the same graph to assert the same factual statements about the world, we would have something to put in Wikipedia article text, but here we do not. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having the graph from the book 

message: Many leftists try again and again to delete the main informations of this book on the article page. They delete the picture of the book, they delete the table, they want to minimizer this article and to maximizer the negative critics. Race differences in intelligence receive a fully positive reception from specialists of intelligence, from all the great names in intelligence (Gottfredson University of Delaware, Rushton University of Western Ontario, Nyborg University of Aartus, Serge Larivée University of Montreal, Thomas J. Bouchard Jr. University of Minnesota, John B. Carroll University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii, David B. Cohen, University of Texas at Austin...). Could a moderator do something against this ? Like exclude them ?   
80.236.246.37 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We are an encyclopedia, we do not give unadorned center stage to terrible "data" that has no actual academic or scholarly value.  WP:UNDUE / WP:FRINGE. see the above section and the numerous others in talk archives  -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Repeated ideologic vandalism


message: "Reviews of the book fault the selection of data used, the methodology, and the conclusions drawn from the data, resulting in criticism that it is "the sort of book that gives IQ testing a bad name."
Ok, but it shouldn't be in the intro, as it's not the case for other pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:LEAD summarizes the article's body (and may include a summary of the criticism in it).  —PaleoNeonate – 09:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a conventional wikipedia page 

message: DELETE 2nd Paragraph   
as it  Quotes a surreptitious charged SMEAR with NO Quote Links and is NOT indicative of the general academic literature consensus
DELETE
Reviews of the book fault the selection of data used, the methodology, and the conclusions drawn from the data, resulting in criticism that it is "the sort of book that gives IQ testing a bad name."     
<===  NO QUOTE SUBSTANTIATION  ie CONTRIVED or FRAUDULENT ATTRIBUTION
indeed the main other academics in this area including the preeminent Professor Murray of the Bell Curve Fame have roundly praised Lynns methodology which said praise is  precisely quoted in the articles  contents Vademecum15 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. The 2nd paragraph is a summary of the contents of the article, the quote is referenced in the section "Reception".--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2019