Talk:David Marks (psychologist)

message: Isn't the discussion page a good place to dispute and/or add factual information about oneself?  That way, you're not editing the page (i.e. autobiographically), you are simply pointing out incorrect information.  For Example: the article states that I graduated from X in the year Y.  Actually, I graduated from X in the year Z with a degree in A.  ...or is that against wikipolicy or frowned upon as well? Trigam41 20:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: A question to a relevant administrator : Why is the question book image and statement from May 2007 still showing?
The article has been updated and contains independent references and sources across a variety of verifiable publications. 
An administrator needs to review this and remove the question book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expressionofinterest (talk • contribs) 12:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question_book-3.svg‎ 

message: An administrator has added a text document with a red question mark and the statement "This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations." To this reader this appears to be untrue as there are many in-text citations in APA style which is acknowledged as an acceptable citation style in the discipline of psychology.
Is there some misunderstanding about what constitutes acceptable in-text citations? Sorry about the unsigned edit above - I forgot. Expressionofinterest  —Preceding comment was added at 20:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WP:CITE#HOW says, "Any style or system is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent." I didn't notice the APA style references. --Geniac (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg‎ (SVG file, nominally 48 × 48 pixels, file size: 20 KB)

message: I noticed there is a tag on this page for unclear inline citations. When I started to format the citations, I realized that much of the content on the page reads as original content, not as secondary sources. I am in the process of researching this page to rewrite it more in line with Wiki policies for using secondary source material. My intent is to maintain the information contained in the body of the page as much as possible, but that will depend on what secondary sources I can find to back up the statements: newspaper articles, journals, books and book reviews, etc. Please let me know if you have any reliable secondary sources that should be considered for inclusion on the page. Best regards. SojoQ (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of those pages that at first looks okay, then when you get into it you realize that it needs a lot of work. SojoQ  I'm going to watch over your shoulder if its okay with you?Sgerbic (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sgerbic That's totally fine with me. I generally research a page, write up some notes, then make a big overhaul in one day. But, given the talk history on this page, I'm thinking a better approach is to work the rewrites in sections to make the changes more obvious. My hope, like I said before, is to keep a lot of the content if I can, just maybe reword it, if necessary. I'd like to start by adding two sections: one for Select Books and one for Select Articles Dr. Marks has written. I will also look into the current reference list and rework the citations to fit recommended formatting. Until we can see what needs to be done to support the content of the page (in terms of secondary sources), I will hold off on any major changes to the content. Sound like a good way to proceed? SojoQ (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to seeing what you come up with.Sgerbic (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I have added the two sections and reformatted the references on the page. The next step is to go through and work on inline citations and secondary sources for the content. The page also needs an infobox and images, if any can be found with the appropriate permissions. SojoQ (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an update. I've folded some of the external links and additional reading sources into the text, so they now appear in the reference section. I still have more to do. The page looks different, but I haven't removed any substantial content at this point. Some of the links are broken, so, hopefully, I can find supportive references. There are existing pages for The Psychology of the Psychic and the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire and, I believe some of the information included about those topics on the Dr. Marks page could be moved to the corresponding pages. I haven't checked, yet, for the other works. I'm starting to go section-by-section and will continue to make updates to the page. Best Regards, SojoQ (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: SojoQ you have done amazing work on this page. I see no reason to continue having the tag on this page, I'll remove it now.Sgerbic (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline Citations and Original Content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on David Marks (psychologist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110210233507/http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ischp/ to http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ischp/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202055210/http://www.healthmatters.org.uk/issue50/organisedthinking to http://www.healthmatters.org.uk/issue50/organisedthinking
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: While I understand that Wikipedia's goal is to remain in a Neutral Point of View, I think it's important to at the very least mention the inconsistencies with Marks' hypothesis about the Flynn Effect. Firstly, we know across time, Measurement Invariance (MI) of IQ has failed meaning that equivalent IQ scores 40 years apart have very different causes and origins and second, we also know that MI holds across race meaning that a white person's IQ is a measure of the same thing as a black person's IQ.
Sources on these claims:
Good Analysis and includes many studies even though it is a Reddit article. However, I do not under any circumstances request that this be included in the article due to Reddit's lack of credibility. Include the sources themselves.
Time: 
Wicherts et al 2004
Beaujan et al 2006
Race:
Valencia & Suzuki 2002, Chapter 5
Lubke et al 2003
This evidence runs extraordinarily contradictory to Marks' hypothesis so much so that it can be taken as an outright invalidation if one is to interpret these properly. However, I will request that one's interpretation of these findings is left to the curious reader should the following proposed edit be eventually added into the Wikipedia article:
"However, these findings are contradicted by evidence showing violations of Measurement Invariance across time but not on race Wicherts et al 2004; Beaujan et al 2006; Valencia & Suzuki 2002, Chapter 5; Lubke et al 2003). This would mean that the Flynn Effect is independent of the between racial variance in IQ and therefore would mean that Marks' hypothesis can only explain the race gaps at most assuming that literacy differences are not themselves caused by IQ, which was not established by Marks."
It should be fitting to add onto the bottom of this paragraph as well: 
"The alleged association between race and intelligence and also the Flynn effect both have a similar explanation: literacy differences across race and across time are, Marks believes, the cause of both. Racial IQ differences are converging as the literacy skills within two populations become more equal. Thus racial differences have an environmental cause, just like the Flynn effect. Essentially, both the Flynn effect and racial differences in measured IQ are artefacts of literacy differences. As the literacy of Western populations declines, as appears to be the case currently, then Marks' literacy theory of IQ scores predicts that average IQ test scores is expected to decline, and the Flynn effect will go into reverse, which is exactly what recent studies have found."
Another change, but a far more minor one, is to cite the Marks, 2010 paper as well as Kaufman's analysis: Marks, 2010.
I'm happy to answer any questions or concerns about these edits you may have. NikolaiSKarkaroff (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some questions, but as you've been blocked for your dog-whistle-politics edits, I suppose it's unlikely that you'll be available to answer them. JimKaatFan (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Inconsistencies of Marks, 2010 with all the other evidence out there