Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 50

message: Okay, I don't think this is going to work-- if you are going to try to take control of this process, by first making changes yourself then reverting any changes you don't like, I don't see how this will be helpful. Adding the curves is a comparatively  non-controversial change. If you want to work with a 'prototype,' why not work with the one I've created? Why not make some suggestions about that prototype? 
What do you think of the new intro? If you don't think it works, please explain why.
Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07
Frankly, I think that things are moving along rather well here-- It's going to take a long time but we almost have a compromise on one of the bullet points. 
I agree with a lot of the things you removed at your draft-- but I don't think this method of working is going to be a good idea-- I don't want people to go off in some hard to find place to edit-- and I want see all of the comments right here on the talk page.
Could you outline what you deleted and why so other users can weigh in on it? futurebird 22:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Kevin Murray 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not going to work, clearly

message: Okay, Maybe I'm being too hasty here-- what do others think? Can this work? Please weigh in... futurebird 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll still say it's not a good thing to do to restart this article from the ground up. I don't think deletions will work if performed by any editor before they have gathered consensus. This is still trying to put the cart in front of the horses. I'd rather Kevin make a summary of all the stuff he proposes to delete and put it here. I especially liked the detailed concerns about the citations Futurebird started to outline. Guys, this article has been kept from major changes for at least 1 to 2 years. I don't think we can expect to work out a refashioning of the article in days or even weeks. Like you, I want to see this article more balanced (towards the other walks of science besides psychology and psychometrics, and towards a better historical context to start with) but I feel we must start at the base, i.e. with the material in this article and NPOVise it. This will give us a clearer idea of how much detail in this article is too much detail (there is currently way too much detail, IMHO), and we can also work on building up the other sections (with the help of some of the article material that we can expand upon). I would suggest keeping the work on the lead or the end, as otherwise we will likely have to rewrite it to some extent. This latest proposal from Kevin has some merit, but changes need to reach consensus in order to be implemented, and not be imposed by one editor, no matter how much we trust them.--Ramdrake 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope it's non controversial that WP:Summary style is the proper way to handle a topic with too much detail for a single readable article. "Deletion" is not a way to reach NPOV. Secondarily, it may be helpful to temporarily reintegrate all of the material from the sub-articles into this main article for the sake of centralized editing. I haven't thought this through well, so let me know if that's an obviously bad idea. --W.R.N. 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the page would take waaaaay to long to load if we did that, it'd be a pain to edit... I agree, let's talk about NPOVing and "moving content out to new subsections" rather than just deleting. futurebird 01:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To be clear, I'm suggesting that merging everything in for editing is a bad idea, but "not just deleting" is, of course, a good idea (and it's THE LAW!) futurebird 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On principle, I agree that summary style would be the way to go, again making sure we attribute all that's being said on both sides. I also like the idea of reintegrating all the subarticles to have a more complete view of the material that is readily available to us already. We can spin stuff off again as needed, and some of the spinoffs are likely to be different this time. Again, there may be good reasons why any or all of these might be bad ideas, but I can't find any right now. And FB, FWIW, yes it would be a pain, but it would be temporary and I suspect we may find it worth the pain. ;) --Ramdrake 01:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Was I too hasty to say it can't work?

message: * FB I think that you have achieved a generally neutral content and tone; however, some of this is too detailed for an intorduction and might well be the preface for the history section.  I still object to the graphic in the intro and question its value elsewhere, although I'm not completely opposed.  
* I'd like to see the intro section cut by half or more in summary of what is to come in the article.  I do think that a disclaimer of validity is important too.
::--Kevin Murray 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to the graphic too, but with a good caption it could be just fine. It is one of the most famous images related to this topic. And I think there are quite a few people who would be unhappy if it is left out. (I'm not one of them) I think we should compromise on the graphic and have a caption that adds some context, while still keeping it in. futurebird 02:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of [[Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07 ]] Futurebird's proposed intro

message: "Race and intelligence is a controversial area of intelligence research studying the nature, origins, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability."
Can we agree to change it to--
"Race and intelligence are broad and variously defined terms used to classify and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of study and speculation for western science, sociology, and philosophy since the 19th century."
Making this change right now would give me a lot more confidence in the process. It is one of the biggest problems I have with the article at present. Please comment. 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WRN, unless you propose a counter-proposal that in some way addresses JK and Futurebird's concerns, you are not being productive.  Indeed, you risk seeming uncompromising.  I understand you won't conpromise on your commitment to accuracy as well as our core policies.  I mean compromising as to wording and presentation and organization.  JK and Futurebird have forwarded many proposals since the page was protected.  How many proposals have you forwarded?  How many counterproposals?  How many times have you tried to meet them half-way?  I am asking because I see no evidence of any of this but may easily have missed something and want to give you a chance to correct me.  If mediation fails and this goes to ArbCom, my guess is they will look with favor on anyone who has madde good faith efforts to compromise, and not look with favor on anyone who seems unwilling to collaborate with other editors.  This is a serious matter given how long this page has been blocked.  You need to contribute to a solution either by proposing compromise edits or at least a process through which you will work with Futurebird and JK. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with your assessment. First, there's an implicit suggestion in my "No." The current sentence is better than the proposed one. Second, I've made numerous attempts to explain that you can't possibly change the lead before you change the article in the fashion that FB suggests. He doesn't argue that the changed sentence better matches the existing article but that it better matches an article he imagines we will create. No one is bright enough -- not me at least -- to synthesize the many hundreds of publications that go into this article and would go into a future alternative one and come up with the appropriate 3-4 paragraph summary of that article which balances all topics and all views fairly. Not without the intermediate steps of actually changing the article a piece at a time. My comments explaining the "no" should make it clear how FB has understandably failed at that attempt. Third, I've made repeated attempts to resolve the two edits which actually locked the page. For my troubles I've had only JK not understand my suggested compromises and zero input from other editors. I have agreeded to a high degree in almost all cases with Ramdrake's proposals. Thus, here again is my main suggestion: resolve the edits that locked the page and adopt Ramdrake's proposals for the approach to editing content. But, you can't compromise on policy. Fourth, I don't really need to spell out here the problems with the previous suggestions by JK and FB. --W.R.N. 18:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're trying to work on a single sentence that many editors find inappropriate.  Are you saying you don't have any specific suggestions on how to change that sentence at all?  I think that the original lock of the page isn't quite relevant at this point, given the great deal of conversation regarding problems with the entire article.  Can you please provide at least one alternative to the current sentence? --JereKrischel 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second sentence is better. The first sentence implies that some intelligence researchers are the only one who ever have discussed this topic. It could be appropriate for an article title "Research on race and intelligence". Even there it would be doubtful, many recent peer-reviewed articles have questioned at least the race concept. However, an article with the current titles means a much wider scope, including history, media portrayal, use by racists, and so on. Also, I see no reason to limit the scope to 19th century or later. Claims that certain races are less intelligent are much older than that.Ultramarine 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, ultra. I am aware that these things are older than the 19th century, but I could not find a good source for the ideas of inferiority of specific races with respect to intelligence that was older than the 19th century. There are bountiful sources on general inferiority, but I felt to infer that this meant intellectual inferiority was too close to being OR. However, you know of a good source-- well, I'd be more than happy to add it. futurebird 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you think of the modified version below? JK and I have tried to address some of your concerns while still opening up the scope of this article to more than just scientific theories, but also the other ways race is related to intelligence. futurebird 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC test case: ''the first sentence''

message: * No. First, that the definitions and understandings of "race" and "intelligence" have varied with history is not as important as the contemporary understanding of the terms (see light or gravity for terms that also have had varying definitions and understandings with time and which are not yet fully understood). For example, while exact definitions of race and intelligence are currently debated, much agreement exists. For example, ostensive definitions of race are generally concordant in English speaking audiences -- we understand each other when we use racial labels. As a quantitative trait that varies between individuals, intelligence is very well defined as it relates to g, the understanding of the term that forms the basis for the vast majority of our scientific understanding of human intelligence. Second, the distinction between "western science, sociology, and philosophy" appears to be arbitrary (sociology isn't "western science"? there's a meaningful difference between western science and other science?) and without particular relevance to the topic. Speculation, rather than science, about racial/ethnic difference in intelligence is documented much deeper into human history than the 19th century. The science of intelligence really only began at the beginning of the 20th century. Mixing pre-scientific speculation with scientific findings is particularly inappropriate. --W.R.N. 05:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WRN, unless you propose a counter-proposal that in some way addresses JK and Futurebird's concerns, you are not being productive.  Indeed, you risk seeming uncompromising.  I understand you won't conpromise on your commitment to accuracy as well as our core policies.  I mean compromising as to wording and presentation and organization.  JK and Futurebird have forwarded many proposals since the page was protected.  How many proposals have you forwarded?  How many counterproposals?  How many times have you tried to meet them half-way?  I am asking because I see no evidence of any of this but may easily have missed something and want to give you a chance to correct me.  If mediation fails and this goes to ArbCom, my guess is they will look with favor on anyone who has madde good faith efforts to compromise, and not look with favor on anyone who seems unwilling to collaborate with other editors.  This is a serious matter given how long this page has been blocked.  You need to contribute to a solution either by proposing compromise edits or at least a process through which you will work with Futurebird and JK. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with your assessment. First, there's an implicit suggestion in my "No." The current sentence is better than the proposed one. Second, I've made numerous attempts to explain that you can't possibly change the lead before you change the article in the fashion that FB suggests. He doesn't argue that the changed sentence better matches the existing article but that it better matches an article he imagines we will create. No one is bright enough -- not me at least -- to synthesize the many hundreds of publications that go into this article and would go into a future alternative one and come up with the appropriate 3-4 paragraph summary of that article which balances all topics and all views fairly. Not without the intermediate steps of actually changing the article a piece at a time. My comments explaining the "no" should make it clear how FB has understandably failed at that attempt. Third, I've made repeated attempts to resolve the two edits which actually locked the page. For my troubles I've had only JK not understand my suggested compromises and zero input from other editors. I have agreeded to a high degree in almost all cases with Ramdrake's proposals. Thus, here again is my main suggestion: resolve the edits that locked the page and adopt Ramdrake's proposals for the approach to editing content. But, you can't compromise on policy. Fourth, I don't really need to spell out here the problems with the previous suggestions by JK and FB. --W.R.N. 18:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're trying to work on a single sentence that many editors find inappropriate.  Are you saying you don't have any specific suggestions on how to change that sentence at all?  I think that the original lock of the page isn't quite relevant at this point, given the great deal of conversation regarding problems with the entire article.  Can you please provide at least one alternative to the current sentence? --JereKrischel 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second sentence is better. The first sentence implies that some intelligence researchers are the only one who ever have discussed this topic. It could be appropriate for an article title "Research on race and intelligence". Even there it would be doubtful, many recent peer-reviewed articles have questioned at least the race concept. However, an article with the current titles means a much wider scope, including history, media portrayal, use by racists, and so on. Also, I see no reason to limit the scope to 19th century or later. Claims that certain races are less intelligent are much older than that.Ultramarine 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, ultra. I am aware that these things are older than the 19th century, but I could not find a good source for the ideas of inferiority of specific races with respect to intelligence that was older than the 19th century. There are bountiful sources on general inferiority, but I felt to infer that this meant intellectual inferiority was too close to being OR. However, you know of a good source-- well, I'd be more than happy to add it. futurebird 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you think of the modified version below? JK and I have tried to address some of your concerns while still opening up the scope of this article to more than just scientific theories, but also the other ways race is related to intelligence. futurebird 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Okay. Here are my final thoughts on the move to merge everything. I will be willing to do this and participate, if JK, Jamal, Schwael, Ramdrake and SLR and WD is happy with the process and if the issues that are currently up in the air on this page are resolved. I and a few other users have made a number of concrete proposals, both large and small, can we work these out before we do anything drastic?
The proposals are:
* Change Media section- change to match sub-article
* Change Utility of research- change to match sub-article
* Possible revision of text about race as a proxy-I've proposed two revisions here, if they don't work... why? 
* New Intro Sentence
I'd like to see some change happen soon-- I feel as if I'm being ignored at times, and this process has been long and disorganized. In any case I'm trying to be cooprative and listen to the ideas and feedback of others. Could we just do this first and then move on to the major plan for this meerger-- that is if  JK, Jamal, Schwael, Ramdrake approve...futurebird 07:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FB, you're out-pacing my time availability right now. Most of the changes are workable (can be worked out), but the suggested changes to the race section are not very good. I don't have time to work on that now, and as it requires the most work, let's set that aside for right now. --W.R.N. 20:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This "move to merge" a working version

message: *JereKrischel and Futurebird are willing to participate if others are as well, specifically WRN, JK and Jamal.  I would like to see more people as well.
*To clarify my role, I don’t see myself as a participant or decision maker, but a moderator who helps to focus the discussion and bring about a consensus.  I think that a “fair” format will have to be flexible enough to evolve through the process.
*I arbitrarily tried to cut-down the article and remove POV issues to get us to a starting point, but I would be equally agreeable to starting with the article as it stands now, or with a blank page based on the consensus of the participants.
--Kevin Murray 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update: My proposal to work together at [[User:Kevin murray IQ draft]]

message: This is the current section:
Some researchers argue media coverage of intelligence-related research is often inaccurate and misleading. Snyderman and Rothman conducted a study of this phenomenon in 1988, drawing from their 1987 survey of expert opinion of intelligence-related topics. Media attention given to William Shockley in the mid 1980's often cited his Nobel Laureate status, but frequently omitted that the prize was given for physics, not medicine.[citation needed]
Can we change it to this?
Race and intelligence are sometimes portrayed as related in media. People of various races have been portrayed as more or less intelligent in media such as films, books, and newspapers. Likewise, reporting on research into race and intelligence has been criticized: either for giving scientific theories of race too much credit, or for rejecting the theories of some researchers in the name of racial harmony.
I think this section of the main article should be expanded to include some examples, however for now can we at least change it to reflect the revsions made by Jamal and I at Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) ? futurebird 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work, futurebird.  The sub-article looks very good, and I've made some updates to the Snyderman and Rothman (study), pulling some of the information from the main article down into the sub-article. --JereKrischel 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree, it's time to make this change. And big thanks to Jere for all of the things he's added to this sub-article too!JJJamal 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks fine.Ultramarine 17:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK with me. P0M 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Media portrayal section

message: I wonder if it might be more appropriate to put somewhere in the article a reference to  Race and Genetics?  I'd also like to see that article worked on a bit by folks in this group, as it seems a little lopsided, perhaps more inappropriately so.  Schwael 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Race article already gives a fairly complete presentation of this issue. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race and Genetics 

message: This is a small change that has nothing to do with adding new text or revising anything. So I hope we can all agree on this change. The templates:
* 
* 
contain a listing for "Public controversy", it redirects to Race and intelligence (explanations). Could we remove this link, since anyone can get to the explanations sub-article by clicking on "Explanations"? It's really confusing... futurebird 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contained mostly duplication of info from other pages. I moved the rest to "Accusations of bias". Title was extremely strange, implying that there is some kind of public controvery and misunderstanding regarding R&I not shared by the wiser researchers. No support for this notion was presented in the text.Ultramarine 21:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple change we can ALL agree on: templates

message: I've made these changes, since the page is now unlocked (I requested that it be unlocked late last night, all of the debate in here was getting silly) Let's all be rational and not get in to edit wars OK? Otherwise it will be locked again... and we know how much fun that is. 
Regarding these nav. boxes. I've added Stereotype threat to the box-- I feel it would be a good subsection under "explanations" in the main article... however I'm wary of adding any more content to this article as it is too long. What are your thoughts on this?
futurebird 16:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contained mostly duplication of info from other pages. I moved the rest to "Accusations of bias". Title was extremely strange, implying that there is some kind of public controvery and misunderstanding regarding R&I not shared by the wiser researchers. No support for this notion was presented in the text.Ultramarine 21:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes made

message: only 1 bell curve was featured on the cover of TBC, not two. the relation of TBC to the lead image appears tenuous -- they both talk about IQ, which has a normal distribution of scores. is there a reason to mention it there? also, the claim that comparing IQ scores of different groups is tantamount to scientific racism is not one expressed by, for example, psychologists when writing the APA report. is there any evidence it is a significant opinion among scholars? if so, which groups can it be attributed to? historians??? --W.R.N. 19:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen "The Bell Curve" is what got me all mixed up in this non-sense topic in the first place. That book was all over the news. Most people I know still cringe each time it is mentioned. It's gotta be in this article right at the top. Because that's what the people are going to be looking for here. In fact maybe this page should just go right to the page on The Bell Curve! I don't even like graphing normal curves anymore because of that book.. Jesus!JJJamal 02:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption should clearly be "These are idealized normal curves comparing the IQs of Blacks and Whites in the US in 1981".  Romper 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead image caption 

message: ramdrake suggested a modification to the lead image. here's my attempt at that suggestion. if we aren't going to have four curves, then probably shouldn't single out any particular groups. --W.R.N. 19:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would work better with the caption and reduce the number of people coming here saying "WHY DO YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE???" ... but I need to think about it. other people... share your thoughts.... futurebird 20:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not gonna stop until we close this stupid gap, Susan. JJJamal 02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The notion that those categories are "overly aggregated" isn't a workable criticism for the lead because research on less aggregated groups is thin on the ground. The other concerns are workable. I'll give it more thought, but I think I'll just come back to the conclusion that a graph with 4 curves is the best way to address those other concerns. --W.R.N. 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * are there any measures of intelligence other than IQ that any substantial minority of people agree on? psychologists only discuss IQ type tests in the content of group differences. is there some other group with a competing claim to having measured race differences in intelligence? this is a difference between specific and nonspecific criticisms. the nonspecific criticism that X doesn't like the use of race and Y doesn't like the use of intelligence, in general, doesn't give us (editors) reason to not directly discuss race and IQ as so many other sources do. --W.R.N. 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Should we have a sub-article Race and IQ (Research) for the more specific discussion of any observed differences?  Perhaps we should narrowly tailor our focus, and keep only a very general discussion of intelligence in the main article... --JereKrischel 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * a priori crafting of article content won't work. you throw what's been said about the topic into the article, organize it, summary it where appropriate, and let the thing reflect the literature as a result of your efforts. we already have a subarticle dedicated to the nature (psychometric, academic, biological, etc.) of the gaps. NPOV doesn't mean giving each topic equal space, but proportional representation. what would you suppose is the IQ to non-IQ ratio in the literature? --W.R.N. 17:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, if I were to venture a guess, it's a significant proportion on both sides - the issue really comes out when people use different tests, of which only some purport to measure anything comparable to IQ (brain size and reaction time, for example).  In any case, I would suggest that as per summary style, there is enough material on Race and IQ (Research) to merit a sub-article. --JereKrischel 18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead image itself