Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 15

message: I think "my" system of giving references to an external shared reference page now works. Thanks for feedback so far.
There is a trivial editing task ahead, which would encompass giving all the footnotes another check-up.  I have started that, but again have become somewhat frustrated by the Wikipedia:Footnote3 system. (Mind you, it's very good within the confines of Wikimedia software, and even my convoluted brain finds no way to improve it.) What annoys me especially are the footnotes that consist of nothing else than a single further reference, i.e., footnotes whose contents is of the form
16. Snyderstein and Goldfarb (1845)
These are now just an annoying extra click. 
Could we adopt a mixed system? 
# When a foonote (1) contains extra information, or (2) points many more than just one or two reference then we keep the current system
# When a footnote contains nothing more than an Author–Year citation (possibly with a page number) then we kill it, and move the reference back up into the body text.
Did I explain this well? So body text now has two forms. Either it looks like this:
A statement meant to "outline mainstream science on intelligence" [41] was issued the same year. ...
Notes
...
41. . Of the 100 respondents, 52% signed, 7% indicated that elements of the statement do not represent the mainstream, and 11% did not know enough to say. An additional 14% declined to sign despite generally agreeing with the content, with 8% fearing the personal and professional consequences of signing, and 6% disagreeing with the mode of presentation. Another 4% disagreed with the concept of general intelligence itself, regarding it as “not a useful concept." 12% gave no explanation or did not want to sign "at this time." Thirty-one additional invitees did not respond before the deadline. See also pp. 32-34  in  and Chapter XII in  .
...
This got a footnote because the footnote itself is really long and contains several complicated references.
On this other hand, if we are just pointing to the literature, I propose the following style:
A statement meant to "outline mainstream science on intelligence" () was issued the same year. 
Granted, the body text becomes a bit longer (actually, the template would allow quite a number of fancy tricks with smaller fonts and superscripts and whatnot). But it (1) saves the annoying extra click, (2) is more informative, and (3) is much easier to maintain when the body text is moved around, as we are doing quite a lot.
I completely realise that this mixed approach to notes is not standard. But it is simpler and safer, and would increase the likelihood of us actually having the references in order. It a technologically induced constraint, but sometimes that's a good enough argument. Arbor 12:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From Cruft: Words ending in -cruft (e.g. fancruft, schoolcruft, bandcruft), referring to detailed, generally trivial information relating to a particular subject, appears to be a neologism created on Wikipedia.  Arbor 16:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotecruft

message: Phew. I moved stuff around, I hope Jokestress and Ultramarine are OK with this. (I am really trying to read your minds here.) I used the slightly "more cleaned-up" version from the Controversy page, but there are at least three issues of very bad referencing that I would like the cognoscenti to consider: (moved the list from the Controversy page). It's really one of our worst-written and worst-referenced sections just now, so please help me do something about that.
* The footnote called "Rusthon" points to Joseph L Graves, "What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory," Anthropological Theory 2, no. 2 (2002): 131–54; Leonard Lieberman, "How 'Caucasoids' got such big crania and why they shrank. From Morton to Rushton.," Current Anthropology 42, no. 1 (February 2001): 69–95; Zack Cernovsky, "On the similarities of American blacks and whites: A reply to J.P. Rushton," Journal of Black Studies 25 (1995): 672.
:All all three necessary? Which one includes the porn and Penthouse references? Is this really a good summary of the scholarly malfeasance that Rushton is criticised for? I would prefer just a single references, instead of 3 that say the same.
::The porn and penthouse refernce is the one that is publicly available. I see no problem with having several supporting references. Ultramarine 17:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is beacuse you removed the referencec. Ultramarine 17:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This page is extremely cumbersome. I have a suggestion and no idea how it might be implemented. I'd love to see this look more like a nested thread on a bulletin board or something, with the top talk page listing the heading (and maybe how many new responses), and those links taking someone to that heading on its own page. I got to thinking about it after seeing how Arbor made the footnotes and references work, which is very cool. I will be unavailable most of today, but I wanted to throw this out there. Jokestress 16:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page suggestion 

message: This accusation sounds like it could be political mischief; has anyone looked into this?  The user who added this appears to have gotten it from this Zack Cernovsky article.
*"Some of Rushton's references to scientific literature with respects to racial differences in sexual characteristics turned out to be references to a nonscientific semipornographic book and to an article in the Penthouse Forum" (Cernovsky)--Nectarflowed T 11:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it would help to state the reference details of the book and the article. hitssquad 17:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cernovsky attributes the claim to Weizmann, F, Wiener, N. I., Wiesenthal, D. L., & Ziegler, M. (1991). Eggs, eggplants, and eggheads: A rejoinder to Rushton. Canadian Psychology, 32, 43-50.--Nectarflowed T 23:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rushton semipornographic accusation

message: This is mostly a news flash that might interest some of you. (No consequences about the material we present here are implied.)
One of the things that interests me about the Race and intelligence issue the its perception among sceptics (i.e., members of the Sceptic Society and similar organisations). The Skeptic dictionary (to which we link) is a good presentation of the viewpoint traditionally entertained by a large number of skeptics (large consonant with Shermer)—a viewpoint I myself have followed (and repeated) with great conviction. I think that up to the early 90s, one could have said "the sceptic society is very critical of race and intelligence research" or something similar. However, at least since the Miele–Jensen book this is no longer true, and the "skeptic society" (however we want to define that group of fine indivuduals (which includes myself)) no longer has a clear POV on the matter.
However, the Skepdic entry remains as it has been, at least in print. The web edition (to which we link from the front page) has contained for a while now a very critical counterpoint to the entry basically attacking the entry for many of the vices traditionally scorned by skeptics. Some new things have appeared on that page, however. First, the page now links to our very own Race and intelligence page (or rather a derived version. That's great news and a pat on the back for the fine editors on this page. 
It also links to the June PPPL issue. For a time now it has linked to the "Does race exist?"  debate between two anthropology professors. I think this is good news for all. The skepdic entry tries to present a much broader number of viewpoints than before, which should be consonant with the mission statement on that movement. Arbor 18:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are talking about this article, I don't see mention of Wikipedia. Can you cite the link? Also, skepticism is an immutable position or a philosophy, not a POV. That's not to say that scientific skeptics (like me) don't have a POV. Jokestress 19:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just sent him a note to consider changing it to this page. He cites me in one of his other entries, and he is very good about clarity and precision. Jokestress 20:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I just checked, and the link has been changed to mention Wikipedia. (Pats Jokestress’ back.) Arbor 20:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New links on the Skepdic webpage

message: Just made a couple of changes to the first two paragraphs. Mostly added links. The only notable change (to me at least) was a lead-in sentence to explain why so much of the article is about IQ scores. Jokestress 02:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI changes to first two paragraphs 

message: The main difference between the  July 15th version Arbor pointed to and the current version is the inclusion of the debated assumptions.  Jokestress has noted that the header should function as a stand-alone abstract.  Rikurzhen has summarized the argument against including the race debate as "The only question for the herediatarian hypothesis is whether genetic difference between "races" is plausible."  Studies like the Tang study and Rosenberg et al's Genetic Structure of Human Populations seem to verify that plausibility.
Regarding the IQ debate, the header makes it clear that the differences under discussion are not in 'intelligence' itself, but in "intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability."  The relevant question from there seems to be 'are measures of cognitive ability useful measurements?'  The answer to that question (if it's the right question) appears to be, yes, IQ is considered to have significant predictive power.  Gottfredson summarizes: "Intelligence as measured by IQ tests is the single most effective predictor known of individual performance at school and on the job. It also predicts many other aspects of well-being, including a person's chances of divorcing, dropping out of high school, being unemployed or having illegitimate children.".--Nectar T 00:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Include in header or in basic concepts?