Talk:Mainstream Science on Intelligence

message: Currently, this article contains the following statement:
As a source for this claim, it cites Mainstream Science on Intelligence. I've read the work in question, and I would like for someone to point out exactly which passage supports the claim that Mainstream Science on Intelligence was written as a defence of the findings of the The Bell Curve. I do not believe such a passage can be found. Below, I quote those sections of Mainstream Science on Intelligence which refer to The Bell Curve:
While the author points out that the controversy over The Bell Curve served as the occasion for the writing of Mainstream Science on Intelligence, no where does she say that it was written as a support for the findings of the same. If this had been the intent, it is highly unlikely that so many respected experts would have signed the statement at such short notice. Instead, it was, as the author points out, a statement directed at clarifying the misconceptions being tossed about as established fact in the popular media.
If I have overlooked something, then I am certainly willing to reconsider my opinion. But as it stands, I see the statement in question as a misrepresentation of the facts which needs to be corrected. 
Related to this is the other major fault in this article, as I see it: the section "Controversy". As far as I can tell, this section has nothing to do with Mainstream Science on Intelligence, but is instead a short collection of random bits of information related to The Bell Curve. Granted that Mainstream Science on Intelligence was not written as a defense of The Bell Curve, I see no justification for the inclusion of the material contained in this section, other than perhaps as background information on why Mainstream Science on Intelligence was written. I also see no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Mainstream Science on Intelligence "represents the side of the debate that supports the claims and conclusions by Herrnstein and Murray." This is gross misrepresentation of the intent of the author and the co-signers as described in the text itself.
Again, if I have overlooked something, then I remain willing to change my mind. But, without some clarification, these are errors which require correction. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After more than a week with no response, I went ahead and made the changes presented above. I also added a new section which summarizes the findings of the statement. If comments on or criticism of the statement can be sourced, then please add it in a new section ("Reception" might be an appropriate title). Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent job! David.Kane (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bell Curve and other inaccuracies 

message: I have recently reviewed WP:BLP. Note in particular these sentences: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." "To ensure that material about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor ::wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article."
With that as background, I am about to delete the section about Donald Campbell's claims about Arthur Jensen. The key sentence is this quote from Campbell: "Arthur R. Jensen, one of the cosigners of the article, has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites: Rote learning for one, conceptual problem solving for the other." I consider this "poorly sourced" because of Campbell's documented  antipathy toward Jensen.
For example, I (Jensen) can’t recall another psychologist beside myself who has the unique distinction of ever having been openly denounced by a presiding president of the APA. This occurred in 1976 at the APA’s Open Meeting traditionally held at its annual convention. The convention program for that year announced that on the following day I was to deliver an invited address on bias in mental testing, which was the main subject of my research during that period. At the Open Meeting, the preceding evening, the then APA President, Donald Campbell, said he agreed that I should be banned as an invited speaker at any future APA conventions; he also disparaged my “IQ,” and said he hoped that there would be a great many attending my address and that there would be plenty of hissing and booing!
To be clear, I am not denying that Campbell made these claims about Jensen, nor that Laosa has accurately reported the claims that Campbell made. And, if Jensen were dead, this would be enough to justify the inclusion. But I have doubts (say, 25%) that what Campbell says is true. WP:BLP makes clear that extra-ordinary claims require clear proof. It is not enough for us to show that Campbell said that Jensen believes that all blacks should be educated different from all whites. We need evidence that, in truth, Jensen believes this. (In fact, I think that Jensen believes that low IQ students should be educated differently from high IQ students, but that is not the same thing, obviously.)
Following the procedure laid out in WP:BLP, do not add back in this material until consensus has been reached. I will bring this controversy to the attention of WP:BLP/N. With luck, they will be able to provide some guidance. David.Kane (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are writing is incorrect and in this case you are already quite aware of that. You made  exactly the same spurious claims about the Jensen's well documented recommendation of "rote learning for blacks" in another article History of the race and intelligence controversy and there accepted that you were wrong, You are now repeating he same argument  here. In this case as explained above, there is no BLP violation, Such editing is tendentious and disruptive (repeating the same argument which you yourself have conceded was wrong elsewhere). There is no extraordinary claim - that is just your own very extreme personal point of view. Please stop coming to this article edit war with no intention of discussing content. That is totally unhelpful behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) I had not closely studied WP:BLP before. I now see that it has very strict requirements with regard to living persons. So allowances I may have made in previous discussions are moot. 2) History of the race and intelligence controversy now says "they should be taught by relying on their ability to associate rather than understand, i.e. learning by rote, not through conceptual explanation." In that sentence, the "they" refers (albeit not as clearly as I would like) to low IQ students. And that is correct! Jensen did believe (and write) that low IQ students should be taught differently than high IQ students. In other words, the complaints that I had about that article are the same (more or less) as the ones that I have here. 3) Do you conceded that WP:BLP insists that the material under dispute be removed from the article until we have had time to discuss? David.Kane (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

text: So much drama! MathSci: I have no objection to this edit because it is true. Jensen did, in fact, write "policy recommendations concerning rote learning." If you would work collaboratively with other editors, we could make a lot more progress. (Editors new to this debate can find background here.) David.Kane (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No drama, just sources and information. Let's just remember that SPA editing on this page recommenced with User:Victor Chmara removing this sentence: "Campbell also pointed out that as far as influence on policy was concerned, already in 1972 Arthur Jensen, one of the cosignatories, had recommended the policy of rote learning for blacks and conceptual problem solving for whites." That could have been changed to "rote learning for those with lower intelligence". Editing on normal articles isn't done by blanking sourced content. That is a sign of disruptive editing and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. To remove the quote, you had to create drama by forum shopping at WP:BLPN, suggesting that Donald T. Campbell, a psychologist probably more eminent than Jensen, published malicious falsehoods about Jensen. That was not the case and you had absolutely no reason for supposing it to be true. Anyway this is not the venue to discuss these matters: let's leave that to the ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP and claims about Jensen attributed to Campbell 

message: One primary problem with this field of study that goes beyond the flawed methods, skewed results and clear teleology is the obvious ethical problem. Science should at least make some effort at objectivity, but devising theories claiming to 'prove that the group historically responsible for racial oppression in the US are intellectually 'superior' to the group that has been historically oppressed suggests an obvious conflict of interest. No black academics support this position.Ackees (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No black academics signed this 

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the  Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. One thing to keep in mind is that the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" editorial, as this article makes clear, didn't speak for all psychologists, and what the signers thought in 1994 in reaction to press reports at that time may not be what the living signers think today about the same issues. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence