Talk:The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy

message: An experienced Wikipedian who monitors Article for Deletion discussions has convinced me to stop recommending deletion of this article. I agree with his view of the current state of the article: it looks like POV-pushing, and the article needs to be renamed to the title of the book by Snyderman and Rothman and to be rewritten almost from the ground up. Some of the sources now cited in the article will still be useful. It will be very useful for other editors to have the actual article by S and R, and their actual book, at hand as editing continues, as I do. Other  reliable sources related to the topic will also be useful, and all of you are welcome to  recommend more sources. See you here and on the article page itself as the AfD fizzles out for lack of support and the article editing resumes. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The  AfD result was (once again) no consensus. Let's discuss how to improve the article. If I hear no objection, I will soon rename the article to be the same as the name of the book produced by Snyderman and Rothman, and I will look to the WikiProject on books for guidance on how to improve the article. I appreciate suggestions from other editors here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support your suggestion for new name.--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you can see, done. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I no longer support deletion of this article, but I do support a rename and a top-to-bottom rewrite with broader sourcing. 

message: While we discuss other edits, I'll refer to  WikiProject Books for information about how to put together a Wikipedia article about a book. You are all welcome to advise me on how to do this right. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm adding WikiProject Books standard templates and Infoboxes to the article and talk page 

message: The figure I removed appears to be synthesis, and misrepresents the data by excluding the number of people who did not respond to the question. aprock (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed figure 

message: The phrase "The study found that psychologists were not in agreement about the heritability of intelligence" conflicts with the following sentence which states "almost all felt that it played a substantial role" and is WP:OR. BlackHades (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence continues: " ... but half of those that felt qualified to reply in this section agreed that the there was not enough evidence to estimate heritability accurately.".  aprock (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it would make more sense for it to be a part of that phrase instead of making the implication that there's no agreement for everything. This is WP:OR. Although to insert that in for the 2nd half, the 1st half has to also state that there is a consensus agreement. You can't do one without the other. But it would make even more sense to just leave it the way it was. There was nothing wrong with the way it was. Your change has removed NPOV. BlackHades (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a part of that phrase.  Is English not your primary language? aprock (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it yours? Either make it part of the 2nd half or don't insert it in. If you're going to insert it in the 2nd half, balance out the 1st half. It's not that hard. BlackHades (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. One part has agreement, the other doesn't. I made it more clear. BlackHades (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit isn't even supported by the source.  The poll has nothing to say about "substantial". aprock (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize your revert still includes "substantial" right? BlackHades (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my mistake, I misread the sentence.  I'll self-revert. aprock (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confliction in paragraph.