Talk:Race and intelligence
{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template. Template:Todo priority
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 June2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | Race and intelligence received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
 | This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
 | Race and intelligence was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}. |
 Archives |
|---|
FAQ: article name change?
See:Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 22#The_Huge_Problem_with_this_article:_IQ and Archive_13.
Bruce Lahn backs off statements
Hi all. Long time no see. From WSJ (via Wired:
- Dr. Lahn has drawn sharp fire from other leading genetics researchers. They say the genetic differences he found may not signify any recent evolution -- and even if they do, it is too big a leap to suggest any link to intelligence. "This is not the place you want to report a weak association that might or might not stand up," says Francis Collins, director of the genome program at the National Institutes of Health.
- Several scientific groups have set out to disprove or challenge Dr. Lahn's discoveries. His own university now says it is abandoning a patent application it filed to cover a DNA-based intelligence test that drew on his work.
Antonio Regalado (June 16, 2006). Scientist's Study Of Brain Genes Sparks a Backlash. Wall Street Journal
Interesting quote from his university's patent office: "We really don't want to end up on the front page...for doing eugenics." Jokestress 04:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this paragraph captures Lahn's view of the situation:
- The 37-year-old Dr. Lahn says his research papers, published in Science last September, offered no view on race and intelligence. He personally believes it is possible that some populations will have more advantageous intelligence genes than others. And he thinks that "society will have to grapple with some very difficult facts" as scientific data accumulate. Yet Dr. Lahn, who left China after participating in prodemocracy protests, says intellectual "police" in the U.S. make such questions difficult to pursue.
--Rikurzhen 04:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think this paragraph captures Lahn's view of the situation:
- Dr. Lahn says he once tried testing himself for which version of the brain genes he has. The experiment's outcome was blurry "but it wasn't looking good," he says.
- Jokestress 00:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think this paragraph captures Lahn's view of the situation:
- Or rather, these respective paragraphs sell your own respective POVs... --Ryan Delaney talk 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Jokestress titled this section "Bruce Lahn backs off statements", which is false, and so I thought it was important to clear that up. The first text she provided reports criticisms of Lahn and reports his university's decision not to patent his discovery. The text I provided gives Lahn's acutal words, which show something quite different -- according to him he's backed off his research because it is too controverial. But to the issue of whether he's backed off his statements, you'll find a response[1] to criticism[2] defending his papers in the latest issue of Science. To back off his statements, he would have to retract/ammend his papers, which he clearly is not doing. In Joketress' response to my text, she quoted Lahn as saying that he got an indeterminate result from genotyping hiself, not that his overall data or conclusions are unclear. Lahn is Chineese, and so the prior probability that he caries the ASPM D haplotype is low, making the outcome he reported not unexpected. --Rikurzhen 18:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Reference consistency
Can these references be implemented properly, consistent with the referencing style applied for the rest of the article (AYref)?--Nectar 07:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Could you explain that? I've never used AYref before...I'd love to learn a new template! --JereKrischel 08:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, the system was something Arbor put together (IIRC) to deal with the massive amount of referencing being generated for this article. I think it can be seen how it works (it's pretty simple) by looking at the tag in the article ( {AYref|name|date} ) and looking at the corresponding tag of the reference it links to at the references page.--Nectar 08:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The style guides I've looked at recommend footnotes occur after punctuation, and this is the style suggested at the WP style page,[3] though they say there's no concensus on WP. Does it sound good to standardize this article's footnotes after the punctuation?--Nectar 07:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think we should. I've been reading through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for things to improve. --Rikurzhen 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Cultural explanations / Culture-only explanations
Culture-only explanations excludes some scientists who emphasize cultural explanations but don't necessarily exclude some genetic influence. Around the time Lulu and others were considering these changes, we added: "Reynolds (2000) suggests up to 20% genetic influence be included in the cultural explanation." The 28% in the Snyderman and Rothman survey who responded "Data are insufficient" (a larger group than the "Entirely environmental" 17%) probably also get represented better when these sections are treated more broadly.--Nectar 05:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
copyright tag on FranzBoas.jpg needs to be updated
copyright tag needs to be updated --Rikurzhen 08:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've notified the uploader, though s/he appears to only be intermittently active.--Nectar 10:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
gordon 1997 - moved from text
Template:AYref examined a population-IQ-outcome model to explain the effects of intelligence on difference between populations in the prevalences of certain outcomes. Where the model fits, differences in outcomes are found to be commensurate with differences in IQ. The model was found to fit prevalences of juvenile delinquency, adult crime, single parenthood, HIV infection, poverty, belief in conspiracy rumors, and key opinions from polls about the O.J. Simpson trial and the earlier Tawana Brawley case. Controlling for IQ largely eliminated group differences in these outcomes.
Controlling for IQ chart
The chart depicting outcomes for blacks, whites, and latinos controlled for IQ shows the figures in the third column to be intermediate between figures in the first and second columns.[4] Any reason not to move the third column between the first two?--Nectar 10:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
let's do it. --Rikurzhen 06:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Bell curves
[From archive]
- "The curves extend across the entire X-axis (from <55 to >145) for all groups and do not indicate a maximum or minimum IQ for any group."
These tails clearly taper off, indicating descreasing frequency, rather than indicating a "maximum" or "minimum". Including every pet comment someone has makes the article unreadable. If any other editors disagree, can you weigh in?--Nectar 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- The tails aren't very clear - perhaps maybe we could create a new graph that made the asymptotic relationship more obvious, and lose the wording? Is there a source for the data used to create the graph? --JereKrischel 20:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- That might be a good idea. Until then, explaining that there are intelligent people from all minorities is not a "pet comment". Obviously this is important to point out.Ultramarine 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- There are very few people at +/- 3 SD. That's a limiting factor. But no one thought it was a problem for a long time until someone else chimed in with that misunderstanding. --Rikurzhen 20:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The curves in this article's graph visibly extend across the entire X-axis. This is what it looks like when a normal distribution is drawn so that it may be implied otherwise:
When an editor originally added that comment the graph was slightly less clear, so the image was altered. --Nectar 22:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Nectar wrote Is "the most recent large-scale collection of data" the best description?
Not quite. There's a new WAIS normalization, but the data doesn't appear to be published. I think the new WISC has been published, but that's children not adults. The 97 AFQT is more recent, but AFAIK Murray (2005) is the only publication of the BW gap from there (and the BW gap is the same, ~1 sd). Murray mentions the WJ data, but it gives a similar picture to the Reynolds data. Whatever the adult BW gap is today, it's going to look almost exactly like our graph. --Rikurzhen 23:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- ok. It seems it may be confusing to readers why the lead image is using 1981 data if an explanation isn't given. Also, I think the 'debate' caveat we currently have gives a poor impression of the field.. presenting the expert community as not being able to get past opposite views even on what the gap looks like. It'd be nice to bypass these issues if possible. Is it really not viable to use more recent data, like the 97 AFQT? If not, perhaps the details of the relationship between the Reynolds data and today's data can be explained in footnotes.--Nectar 01:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- We can cite the 97 AFQT, just see how Murray cites it. --Rikurzhen 03:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Give me a week and I may have time to put together all the new IQ data I can find. --Rikurzhen 03:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
newest BW IQ data
| Test | d | White mean | Black mean | N | Age | Year | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall g | 1.10 | - | - | 6,246,729 | Adults | Various | Roth, Bevier, Bobko et al. (2001) |
| AFQT '79 | 1.21 | ? | ? | ? | Adults | 1979 | reported in Herrnstein and Murray (1994) |
| AFQT '97 | 0.97 | ? | ? | ? | Adults | 1997 | reported in Murray (2005) |
| WAIS R | 1.01 | 101.4 | 86.5 | 1,880 | Adults | 1981 | Reynolds et al (1987) |
| WAIS III | ? | ? | ? | ? | Adults | 1997 | ? |
| WJ | 1.05 | ? | ? | ? | Adults & Children | 2001 | reported in Murray (2005); Schrank, F.A., K.S. McGrew, and R.W. Woodcock. 2001. Technical Abstract (Woodcock-Johnson III Assessment Service Bulletin No. 2). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. |
| WJ | 0.99 | ? | ? | ? | Children | 2001 | reported in Murray (2005); Schrank, F.A., K.S. McGrew, and R.W. Woodcock. 2001. Technical Abstract (Woodcock-Johnson III Assessment Service Bulletin No. 2). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. |
| WISC IV | 0.78 | 103.2 | 91.7 | 1,745 | Children | 2003 | Prifitera, A., L.G. Weiss, D.H. Saklofske, et al. 2005. "The WISC-IV in the clinical assessment context." Pp. 3–32 in WISC-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner Perspectives, edited by A. Prifitera, D. H. Saklofske, and L. G. Weiss. |
Looks like Reynolds is the newest, largest data set for which we have actual IQ values for adults. --Rikurzhen 06:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Intro length
The length of the intro will probably be one of the first things discussed in the article's next peer review. The paragraph covering the controversy seems to presently be the least concise part. The two sentences advancing accusations of political bias seem to be sufficiently covered by the sentences preceding them:
- Some critics examine the fairness and validity of cognitive testing and racial categorization, as well as the reliability of the studies and the motives of the authors, on both sides. Some critics fear the misuse of the research, question its utility, or feel that comparing the intelligence of racial groups is itself unethical.
Any arguments against removing the political accusations that follow the above sentences?--Nectar 04:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
submit for peer review
submit for peer review? --Rikurzhen 18:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think there are a couple of things that may still be able to be improved. I'd like to take a crack at maybe making the Within societies section more clear. I think the caption of the lead graph is somewhat confusing, as it seems those on the cultural side currently generally attribute the adult b-w gap as being one standard deviation (e.g. the recently added Fryer and Levitt study), rather than subscribing to Nisbett's proposal.--Nectar 09:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
too big
We're approaching the recommended size limits for the body text (WP:SIZE). I suggest that Race_and_intelligence#Cultural_explanations can be more concisely summarized to bring it down to the size of the other sections. In particular, there are 3 paragraphs that give lengthy descriptions of less noteworthy topics: (1) "Many anthropologists...", (2) "A recent theory hypothesizes..." and the new paragraph (3) "A recent, newly available...". These should be reduced from paragraphs to single sentences or sentence fragments and described as "other evidence" as is done in the Genetic explanations section. I've already copied the material to the sub-article, so we should be set for the re-write. --Rikurzhen 06:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- That would give undue weight to the pro-genetic argments who are unfairly spread all over the article. For example, the article mentions the gene studies and the 1987 survery two times. If the article is too long, then such redundancy should be the first to go.Ultramarine 15:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bigger != better. Bigger ~ P(no one will bother to read it). This is paritcularly problematic for large blocks of text, which the cultural explanations section has become. Making this section more concise will increase the chance that anyone will bother to read it. --Rikurzhen 19:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- We can certainly move some parts to the rest of the article. Again, if anything should be deleted it is the duplication of pro-genetic arguments.Ultramarine 19:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Important things should be discussed in any and all sections that are relevant to them. (In your examples, recent evolution is essential to race, and expert/journalist opinion is essential to media portrayal.) Nothing should be deleted if its important. But you can often convey the important information with less text and less complexity, which provides an improvement to readability. (For example, the genetics section coveys a sense of the scope of the arguments without detailing each one by listing them in a single sentence: Other evidence, such as transracial adoption, ..., and evolutionary explanations have also been proposed to indicate a genetic contribution to the IQ gaps and explain how these arose.) Minimizing length and complexity is key for a summary style article like this. Pasted below is the relevant from the article size guide which explains this. (Bolding by me.) --Rikurzhen 21:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- We can certainly move some parts to the rest of the article. Again, if anything should be deleted it is the duplication of pro-genetic arguments.Ultramarine 19:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bigger != better. Bigger ~ P(no one will bother to read it). This is paritcularly problematic for large blocks of text, which the cultural explanations section has become. Making this section more concise will increase the chance that anyone will bother to read it. --Rikurzhen 19:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
From WP:SIZE:
- Two common types of exception are articles summarizing certain fields, and lists. These act as summaries and starting points for a field, and in the case of some broad subjects or lists, either do not have a natural division point, or two shorter articles would possibly not be as useful as one complete one.
- In such cases, the article should none the less be kept short where possible. Major subsections should use summary style where a separate article for a subtopic is reasonable, and the article should be written with greater than usual attention to readability.
- Readers of such subjects will often expect them to be involved, and will often accept this, provided the article is well written, created with a sensible structure and style, and is an appropriate length for the topic. However, long and very long articles should nonetheless be avoided where possible, and their length or complexity minimized where not. Encouragement of overly long articles is not stylistically desirable as a general rule, and most articles do not require such length. Readability is still the key criterion.
- This is not an excuse for giving undue weight to one side. The pro-genetic arguments are voiced in many places outside the supposed section and amazingly also duplicated several times. If something should be removed, it should be the undue weight to these arguments. Ultramarine 23:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you can find any point duplicated in a section it's not relevant for, please bring it up.--Nectar 23:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ironically, giving a consistent level of detail (i.e. minimal summary style) to opposing views is essential to avoiding giving undue weight to one. You appear to be arguing that the culture section needs to describe individual (new, unique) arguments at length in order to keep size with the genetics section, which describes things in a less detailed way. This in fact gives undue weight to the cultural arguments, which I must add is the minority view. However, I'm not particularly concerned about that consideration, as it is a small matter at the margins. What is of concern is that the article needs to be readable and understandable by someone who wants to get an understanding of the topic without dedicating hours to reading. An article that is too long makes unreasonable demands on the reader, who should be able to get a readable summary from an encyclopedia article with moderate reading time. Meanwhile, the sub-articles allow unlimited space for documenting all of the details that someone looking for detailed research would want. Thus, we should tighten up the text in that section, making the level of detail proportional to the importance of the topic. The Flynn effect needs a detailed description, which the opinions of the ancient Romans doesn't. --Rikurzhen 01:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- If anything should be considered new and unique, then look at the duplicated section about brain genes that may or may not have anything to do with IQ. That should be moved to the subarticles. The same regarding what some persons thought 20 years ago about this subject, irrelevant for the current status of the field.Ultramarine 01:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- We should also greatly expand the section about the Pioneer fund which has funded all major pro-geneticists and has numerous other fascinating connections. For example, looking at the publisher of Lynn's latest book, who also published one of Kevin MacDonald's books about Jews, shows that controlled by person connected to the fund.Ultramarine 01:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is not an excuse for giving undue weight to one side. The pro-genetic arguments are voiced in many places outside the supposed section and amazingly also duplicated several times. If something should be removed, it should be the undue weight to these arguments. Ultramarine 23:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- The author of the Washington Post article about Lahn certainly thinks the evolution data is highly relevant to race and intelligence. --Rikurzhen 02:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? Why are you changing the subject and to what? Ultramarine 02:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wrote that in the wrong spot --Rikurzhen 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? Why are you changing the subject and to what? Ultramarine 02:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- The author of the Washington Post article about Lahn certainly thinks the evolution data is highly relevant to race and intelligence. --Rikurzhen 02:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Be careful about violating WP:NOR. --Rikurzhen 02:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 | This page in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. |
- The conference threw into stark relief the increasing synergy between British and American racists. Those who had tired of the speeches or merely wished to stretch their legs could peruse the stalls at the back of the hall, many of which were giving away mountains of free literature. One of the first we encountered was the Occidental Quarterly stall run by James Russell, a member of its editorial board. Also on Occidental Quarterly’s board are Derek Turner and the controversial Leeds university don Frank Ellis. Coincidentally the stall next to Russell was that of Washington Summit Publishers (WSP) run by yet another Occidental Quarterly editorial board member, Louis Andrews of Augusta, Georgia. It is Andrews who manages the American distribution of Right Now!. WSP publishes Race Differences in Intelligence by Richard Lynn, emeritus professor at the University of Ulster, who like Taylor is a recipient of Pioneer Fund grants. WSP also reprints “classic” Aryan and eugenic tracts including a homily to the antisemitic philosopher Count de Gobineau as a pioneer of genetics.[5]Ultramarine 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- We should incorporate more information regarding the Pioneer fund.Ultramarine 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
referencing
BTW, Ultramarine, can you reference your sources consistent with the referencing style applied for the rest of the article (AYref)?--Nectar 23:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- They are cited adequately. You can change it yourself if you want another style.Ultramarine 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- It breaks with professional standards to alternate between different referencing styles, and for this reason WP:CITE states: "Do not change from Harvard referencing to footnotes or vice versa without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor." This is the same reason why WP articles choose US or British spelling and stick with it, rather than switching back and forth mid-article.--Nectar 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your reference style is not one of the 3 allowed in Wikipedia. It lists the references on another page, something unique for this article. It has extensive arguments hidden in the footnotes which creates problems since the text also refers to subarticles. Preferably, everything should be converted Harvard and all submaterial moved to the subarticles or placed in the main text. I certainly do not endorse the strange system currently in use.Ultramarine 23:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- It breaks with professional standards to alternate between different referencing styles, and for this reason WP:CITE states: "Do not change from Harvard referencing to footnotes or vice versa without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor." This is the same reason why WP articles choose US or British spelling and stick with it, rather than switching back and forth mid-article.--Nectar 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
There are 192 unique AYref tags in the main article. Moving those references to this page would add about 60k to the page size, which would bring this page to a size greater than 160k (that's 5x the 32k warning threshold). The AYref system is a useful solution to this problem, which is actually easier to use than normal Harvard referencing as you can add full references to the reference page at the same time that you write the content. It's especially useful for a summary style page, which this is, as it make referencing standardization much easier across the multiple pages that cover the topic. --Rikurzhen 01:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- This just shows that an enormous amount of detail is hidden in the footnotes. Again, this confusing since the main text at the same time refers to the subarticles. The material in the footnoes, including the references, should be moved to the subarticles. There is no need for extensive references in a text that summarize a subarticle.Ultramarine 01:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- That makes no sense. Text "hidden" in footnotes is more accessible and more immediately connected to what it is detailing than text written in the sub-articles. Moreover, between this thread and the one above, you appear to be advocting for less and more details (respectively). --Rikurzhen 01:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- It confusing that the text refers to two different other texts. It should be consolidated to one place, the subarticles. Also, there is no need for detailed references in the main article, duplicating the subarticle. If moving the hidden arguments and references in the notes to the subarticles, then there is no need to have a non-Wikpedia reference style.Ultramarine 01:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- That makes no sense. Text "hidden" in footnotes is more accessible and more immediately connected to what it is detailing than text written in the sub-articles. Moreover, between this thread and the one above, you appear to be advocting for less and more details (respectively). --Rikurzhen 01:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
referencing and summary style
UL, your actions belie your arguments. If you believed that the article should consist only of unreferenced summaries, you would not have ignored the subarticles for the past months while you added text to the main article. You would not have argued against my call for improving the readability by summarizing unnecessary detail. It seems plain to me and probably to everyone else--including you--that Summary Style + descriptive footnotes + reference footnotes is better than Summary Style alone. Despite your rhetoric about footnotes (i.e. text at the bottom of the page) being "hidden", material written in a footnote is more proximal to the majority of readers than material written in a sub-article alone. Our current system maximizes readability and verifiability. If we can improve the readability further by tightening up the summary style a notch, we will have a model article. --Rikurzhen 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Having a text refering to two different other texts with more detail is confusing. Not following Wikpedia rules for citation is not good either. Both can be avoided by moving the details in the notes and many of the references to the subarticles.Ultramarine 02:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't believe you've thought this thru. The details in the footnotes of any section certainly should also be in the corresponding subarticle, but it doesn't follow that the footnotes should be removed along with the footnoted references. --Rikurzhen 02:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is summary article. No need to have details duplicated in the footnotes and the subarticles.Ultramarine 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course compliance with WP:V is the "need". I don't have a count, but it looks like the modal footnote is just a Author-Date reference. The next most common footnote is a supporting quote, an explanation of the data supporting a summarized claims, or an explanation of how a calculation was performed, and etc. Only a small fraction of footnotes presents an expansion of the main text into the footnotes. These few footnotes are in a optional class, but I don't see what harm they could do. --Rikurzhen 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's useful for readers to be able to get more information about specific statements that they're interested in or skeptical toward, even if they're not interested enough to read all the sub-articles.--Nectar 05:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's important to keep in mind WP articles have no authorial credibility of their own, so statements are only worth the quality of their referencing.--Nectar 05:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Material should not be duplicated. References should follow the style guidelines.Ultramarine 05:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is summary article. No need to have details duplicated in the footnotes and the subarticles.Ultramarine 02:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't believe you've thought this thru. The details in the footnotes of any section certainly should also be in the corresponding subarticle, but it doesn't follow that the footnotes should be removed along with the footnoted references. --Rikurzhen 02:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
back to the topic
the cultural explanations section should be tightened up for the sake of readability. --Rikurzhen 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, the pro-genetic arguments have much more need for this.Ultramarine 05:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- ? The cultural explanations section is much longer and less concise than the genetic explanations sections. If you can find any genetic points that are covered in sections in which they aren't clearly relevant, please bring it up.--Nectar 05:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, the pro-genetic arguments are more or less subly spread all over the article. For example, the 20 years old opinions about the field are duplicated in three places and the dubious brain genes are repeated in two places.Ultramarine 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- aren't clearly relevant? As per above, there will be some overlap between sections. You can't discuss media portrayal w/o contrasting it to expert opinions. You can't discuss race w/o mentioning human evolution. --Rikurzhen 05:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- No need to mention a 20 years old survey 3 tmes. Ultramarine 05:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- As we've discussed at length in the past. There are overlapping but distinct references for each instance. For example, S&R 1987 is discussed in expert opinion while S&R 1988 is media portrayal. Also, as we've discussed in the past, there's no evidence that the S&R work is out-dated. To the contrary, there's every indication that R&I is still highly controverisal and misrepresented in the media.
- This is a distraction from the fact that the cultural section needs work, does it not? --Rikurzhen 05:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- "there's every indication that R&I is still highly controverisal and misrepresented in the media." Spare me your original research. This is really an distraction to hide unpleasant arguments against the genetic position.Ultramarine 05:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's neither productive nor polite of you. --Rikurzhen 05:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Let me express it clearly: I am not interested in your personal opinions and original research.Ultramarine 05:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- ? We thus far have two recent sources commenting on media representation of group IQ differences research, Sackett et al. (popular media, scientific journals, and textbooks are media) and Murray 2005. On the other hand, you haven't provided any evidence supporting your original interpretation.--Nectar 05:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am talking about the 20 years old survey which may have actually included some IQ researchers, among others. This is repeated 3 times. Why not instead reapeat 3 times that some IQ researchers are comfy with for example the British National Party?Ultramarine 06:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- ? We thus far have two recent sources commenting on media representation of group IQ differences research, Sackett et al. (popular media, scientific journals, and textbooks are media) and Murray 2005. On the other hand, you haven't provided any evidence supporting your original interpretation.--Nectar 05:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Let me express it clearly: I am not interested in your personal opinions and original research.Ultramarine 05:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's neither productive nor polite of you. --Rikurzhen 05:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- "there's every indication that R&I is still highly controverisal and misrepresented in the media." Spare me your original research. This is really an distraction to hide unpleasant arguments against the genetic position.Ultramarine 05:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- No need to mention a 20 years old survey 3 tmes. Ultramarine 05:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- aren't clearly relevant? As per above, there will be some overlap between sections. You can't discuss media portrayal w/o contrasting it to expert opinions. You can't discuss race w/o mentioning human evolution. --Rikurzhen 05:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, the pro-genetic arguments are more or less subly spread all over the article. For example, the 20 years old opinions about the field are duplicated in three places and the dubious brain genes are repeated in two places.Ultramarine 05:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- ? The cultural explanations section is much longer and less concise than the genetic explanations sections. If you can find any genetic points that are covered in sections in which they aren't clearly relevant, please bring it up.--Nectar 05:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The point about the two recent sources commenting on media representation is that they support the relevance of the 1987 survey of experts in fields related to intelligence research, whereas there is no support for it having diminished relevance. (That was a response to your (withdrawn?) comment "spare me your original research.")
Let's go through this step by step. The 1987 survey is discussed in the appropriate section, and the subsequent 1988 survey - in accordance with its different thesis - is discussed in the different appropriate section. Like many other points, the latter survey is also summarized in the intro. Noting that Rushton gave a speech about his research at an AmRen conference is an accusation of bias. If you can show accusations of bias are relevant in more than just one way (accusations of bias), then they could be relevant to other sections besides their own section and their summary in the intro.--Nectar 06:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sackett only reports that a particular study has been misreported. Murray's article is not in scientifc peer-reviewd journal. Only the 20 years old survey of persons using IQ tests support your position. It is undue weight to report this old study 3 times in the man article. Look how long the sectins on media representation is and how little mention there is about the Pioneer fund.Ultramarine 19:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sackett et al.'s findings regarding broad media treatment of one of the most popular topics within R&I support the findings of the 1988 survey, and they argue it reflects a systemic trend. An article in a non-scientific source is sufficient to report the views of the author. Keep in mind that you've been arguing a study that apparently hasn't even been published (Fryer and Levitt) should get prominent treatment in the article. Your second question doesn't seem to have read my last post.--Nectar 21:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Stereotype threat" is not one of the most popular topics. The 20 years old survey of some persons using IQ tests is irrelevant for what researchers think today. Regarding the Pioneer fund, image that there were lots of research showing the beneficial effects of smoking. The research is sponsored by the tobacco industry. Obviously this should be discussed in length. But the article now violates NPOV by not discussing this, instead, for instance, having an extremely long section about media portrayal with pro-genetic arguments.Ultramarine 21:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the article violates NPOV by ignoring the response: "Twenty-nine mischaracterizations of any research finding are 29 too many. However, using the frequency of these mischaracterizations to signal concern, whille ignoring the large amount of information that would allay that concern, only furthers misunderstanding. Sackett et al. (2004) ignored the large number of discussions in the relevant literatures and media reports that do not overattribute the race gap to stereotype threat—discussions that vastly outnumber 29."[6]Ultramarine 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- 1. Re:"Stereotype threat" is not one of the most popular topics.
- Here's Sackett et al.'s evaluation of its prominance:
- In recent years, the theory of stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995) has received a great amount of scientific and popular attention as a potential contributor to mean differences in test scores. Although the term was first introduced into the literature only in 1995, stereotype threat is covered in two thirds of a sample of current introductory psychology textbooks that we describe later in this article, indicating extraordinarily rapid incorporation of the concept into the psychological mainstream.
- 2. Re:The 20 years old survey of some persons using IQ tests is irrelevant for what researchers think today.
- OK, you don't mean "irrelevant," you mean "of limited relevance." Why don't we take a look at the sources we have? We have two recent sources agreeing with it, two sources in the 90s agreeing with it,[7] and zero arguing against it. Just provide a reference for your argument that can counter-balance these 4 references, and that should do it!
- 3. Re:But the article now violates NPOV by not discussing this
- The article discusses this in the accusations of bias section and in the intro.
- 4. That quote does not appear in the reference you gave.--Nectar 22:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- 1. Does not state that it is one of the most popular topics. Especially not in current research.
- 2. A twenty years old survery is irrelevant in any field. Especially as this was of persons using IQ tests, not only IQ researchers. Again, Murray states his POV in a not scientific journal, thus uninteresting except as the view of one person. Regarding the stereotype study, the opposing comments are unfarily excluded.
- 3. It does not give due weight to this. Look at the lengths. Regarding the Pioneer fund, image that there were lots of research showing the beneficial effects of smoking. The research is sponsored by the tobacco industry. Obviously this should be discussed in length. But the article now violates NPOV by not discussing this, instead, for instance, having an extremely long section about media portrayal with pro-genetic arguments.
- 4. Scroll down to comments.Ultramarine 23:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sackett et al.'s findings regarding broad media treatment of one of the most popular topics within R&I support the findings of the 1988 survey, and they argue it reflects a systemic trend. An article in a non-scientific source is sufficient to report the views of the author. Keep in mind that you've been arguing a study that apparently hasn't even been published (Fryer and Levitt) should get prominent treatment in the article. Your second question doesn't seem to have read my last post.--Nectar 21:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
1. "...has received a great amount of scientific and popular attention" is equivelant to 'a prominent explanation.' (This study can probably be considered current since it was published in 2004.)
2a. 20 year old surveys can be highly relevant when they're the most recent surveys. Measures of expertise accounted for little or no variance in responses, so that doesn't seem like it could be a concern. So far we just have your opinion against 4 references that comment on the issue.
2b. Once you remove the unpublished study you've added to the article and stop citing anti-racist magazines, you can then make arguments that only scientific journals can be considered (though it wouldn't make a difference).
3a. Re:Obviously this should be discussed in length. Any original argument that goes against the sources we have needs to be treated very carefully. The serious arguments that are made against the Pioneer Fund - such as in Tuckers preeminent book on the subject - are that the fund is using science funding to further an inappropriate political agenda. So far that's the only argument we have. (An argument is a conclusion based on premises, not just a description w/o a conclusion.)
3b. That's a stretch to say media portrayal is only relevant to one side of the debate instead of to the topic as a whole, but if it were true, that wouldn't disqualify it as a section.
4. That quote from Steele and Aronson is defending stereotype threat in general, not stereotype threat in the literature that discusses the b-w gap. Sackett et al respond:
- "Steele and Aronson (2004) assert that because there are now over 100 research studies on stereotype threat, our focus on the first article on the topic results in a serious bias. However, they later acknowledge that their article is one of few stereotype threat studies focusing on African Americans. As the African American–White score gap was the topic of our article, we see our focus on this pivotal and highly cited article as entirely appropriate."[8]
--Nectar 12:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
1. Does is still not as one of the most popular topics. Also, as noted below, the study is misleading.
2. The only indication of what the current researchers think is the 20 years old survey of people using IQ tests, that may have included researchers.
3. Again, imagine that there were lots of research showing the beneficial effects of smoking. The research is sponsored by the tobacco industry. Obviously this should be discussed in length. But the article now violates NPOV by not discussing this, instead, for instance, having an extremely long section about media portrayal with pro-genetic arguments.
4. So there is disagreement. I will add this to the article.Ultramarine 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- 1. Your are correct that the statement is not equivalent to one of the "most" popular topics, that's why this article states it's one of the "more" popular topics.
- 2. That's not a legitimate interpretation, given the clear explanations you've received above. The survey was of scholars in specialities related to IQ. If you have a different source arguing differently, please provide it.
- 3. That's against Wikipedia policy to implement original arguments that go against all of our available sources (see WP:CITE and WP:V).
- 4. No. That quote from Steele and Aronson is (correctly) defending stereotype threat in general, not stereotype threat in the literature that discusses the b-w gap. This article's statements only refer to stereotype threat in the context of race and intelligence.--Nectar 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- 1. Ok. We should state that this is the view of some researchers, not the result of scholarly study.
- 2. The survey was person using IQ tests. It was certainly not only a survey only of IQ and race researchers.
- 3. Again, numerous critics thinks that the research is flawed due to the source of funding.
- 4. ": "Twenty-nine mischaracterizations of any research finding are 29 too many. However, using the frequency of these mischaracterizations to signal concern, whille ignoring the large amount of information that would allay that concern, only furthers misunderstanding. Sackett et al. (2004) ignored the large number of discussions in the relevant literatures and media reports that do not overattribute the race gap to stereotype threat—discussions that vastly outnumber 29."Ultramarine 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is the study finding extremely small differences in young children deleted from the introduction? Ultramarine 00:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
back to the topic again
the cultural explanations section should be tightened up for the sake of readability. --Rikurzhen 19:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- My questions above should be answered.Ultramarine 20:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I believe your questions, which were on a separate topic (hence, "back to the topic again"), were resolved. For example, mention of age in the lead, which I tend to think was surpfluous, has been cut completely. More to the point, we need to fix the readability problem. --Rikurzhen 20:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- These questions are related. There are are many more problems with the pro-genetec arguments which are also given undue weight.Ultramarine 20:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I believe we've discussed your claim of undue weight at lenght, but I does nothing to address the readability issue. You can't dismiss what I think is a problem by pointing to something else that you think is a problem. --Rikurzhen 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagee. This is an attempt to give even more undue weight to pro-genetic arguments by reducing the counter-arguments. Thus, related.Ultramarine 21:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- If the cultural section were more readable, then the arguments would be stronger -- either by providing the right balance of empahsis or by simply converting (word-for-word) unimportant details into clear summarized argument. Unnecessary detail confuses and overwhelmes the reader, making them give up on reading the article -- hence the use of summary style. --Rikurzhen 21:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, this is an attempt to to give even more undue weight to pro-genetic arguments by reducing the counter-arguments. Why are you refusing to answer the questions above? Ultramarine 21:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nectar has answer you at length. AFAIK, that thread is exhausted.
- I'm undoing your changes to the media portrayal section. Your edit is highly inappropriate.
- Readability is an improvement. Your insistence of maintaining a less readable text is contrary to best practices. --22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have recieved no good answer. Again, this is an attempt to give even more undue weight to pro-genetic arguments by reducing the counter-arguments. It is more important to prune the pro-genetic arguments in order to restore NPOV.Ultramarine 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Who's talking about "pruneing". brevity is both the soul of wit and of readability in long WP articles. the section is too wordy, delving into irrevant mineutia, and it needs to be simplified. --Rikurzhen 00:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have recieved no good answer. Again, this is an attempt to give even more undue weight to pro-genetic arguments by reducing the counter-arguments. It is more important to prune the pro-genetic arguments in order to restore NPOV.Ultramarine 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, this is an attempt to to give even more undue weight to pro-genetic arguments by reducing the counter-arguments. Why are you refusing to answer the questions above? Ultramarine 21:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- If the cultural section were more readable, then the arguments would be stronger -- either by providing the right balance of empahsis or by simply converting (word-for-word) unimportant details into clear summarized argument. Unnecessary detail confuses and overwhelmes the reader, making them give up on reading the article -- hence the use of summary style. --Rikurzhen 21:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagee. This is an attempt to give even more undue weight to pro-genetic arguments by reducing the counter-arguments. Thus, related.Ultramarine 21:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I believe we've discussed your claim of undue weight at lenght, but I does nothing to address the readability issue. You can't dismiss what I think is a problem by pointing to something else that you think is a problem. --Rikurzhen 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- These questions are related. There are are many more problems with the pro-genetec arguments which are also given undue weight.Ultramarine 20:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I believe your questions, which were on a separate topic (hence, "back to the topic again"), were resolved. For example, mention of age in the lead, which I tend to think was surpfluous, has been cut completely. More to the point, we need to fix the readability problem. --Rikurzhen 20:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Rikurzhen, I think some of the points Ultramarine is trying to make revolve around the fact that all researchers on the pro-genetic side get their funding from a single source (which is unusual in the world of science funding), whereas the researchers on the opposite side get their funding from a variety of sources (if you know otherwise, please name one researcher on the pro-genetic side who isn't a Pioneer grantee). Moreover, this one source (the Pioneer Fund) has been associated and at times at least partly constituted of people with overtly racist viewpoints.
- Inasmuch as a precedent can be found, it sounds like some of the older research on the effects of tobacco which pointed out the benefits of smoking... while being funded by tobacco companies (to paraphrase an argument Ultramarine already raised). This alone is enough to cast grave doubts about the legitimacy of the results, especially if one takes into accounts all the papers ever written in an attempt to debunk the methodology of the pro-genetic researchers.
- That 53% of the respondents in the 1987 survey thought the reason for the BW IQ gap is partly genetic is a far cry from some of the wording in the article, which would leave one to believe that the majority opinion is that the cause is almost if not wholly genetic. First, 53% is closer to a tie than a majority, and second partially-genetic by no means should be construed to signify the researchers thought most of the difference was genetic.
- I've been watching this article for sometime now, even though I haven't been participating much, and I find that there is a constant pressure for the POV to creep towards the genetic explanation, if not to fully endorse the racial views of Rushton, Lynn and company. For this, reason, I will be putting back the NPOV template. And please don't revert it by saying it's not been discussed. I think you'll find my reasons explained at reasonable length here. --Ramdrake 01:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
"I think some of the points Ultramarine is trying to make revolve around the fact that all researchers on the pro-genetic side get their funding from a single source" -- I believe you must be mistaken. That would certainly be an amazing and noteworthy fact. --Rikurzhen 01:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
ramdrake, here is the actual data from teh 1988 book: --Rikurzhen 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC) File:Snyderman-rothman-opinion.PNG
i'll continue to look for actionable items in your comment, but i don't see any. --Rikurzhen 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? That is not a graph of current IQ and race researchers and was not when it was made 20 years ago. Ultramarine 01:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please name a prominent race and IQ researcher supporting the genetic argument who have not been recieved money from the fund.Ultramarine 01:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- No one will be able to understand the NPOV tag if you hide the discussion in this thread. Herrnstein and Murray come to mind. As with everything else, it's not safe to build conclusions based on vague ideas. It's better to summarize published opinions, rather than make them up ourselves. --Rikurzhen 01:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of Loehlin, for example, having received Pioneer Funding.--Nectar 01:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Herrnstein and Murray only quoted research funded by the Pioneer Fund in their popular book.Ultramarine 02:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- As far I know, also Loehlin also only quoted research funded by the Pioneer Fund. What article are you thinking about?Ultramarine 02:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
1.Ramdrake, your argument appears to be "Pioneer funding biases these results." The references we have, such as Tucker's prominent book on the subject, do not make that argument. Can you provide a quote from a reference that makes that argument?
2a.Re:53% is closer to a tie than a majority. 53% qualifies as a majority (particularly when the 'environmental only' response only had 17%). 2b.Re:partially-genetic by no means should be construed to signify the researchers thought most of the difference was genetic 'Partially genetic' means partially genetic and nothing more. It's significant because the most visible sources on the subject tend to argue partially-genetic has no scientific support. Now, if you did want to try to gauge the average portion of genetic influence supposed by the respondents, the first place to look would probably be comparing their average estimates for the heritability of IQ differences within the white population and within the black population. The average within the black population was only slightly lower than the estimate for within the White population, which suggests they view the supposed heritable contribution to the gap as being significant (unless even economically privilaged people with gifted IQs were subject equally to the environmental effects that putatively lower the scores of other blacks).--Nectar 01:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is well-known that the source can bias the results, as in tobacco research. Respectable journals require disclosure of funding. So should Wikipedia.
- Again, the 20 years old survey was not of IQ and race researchers but, for example, of persons using IQ tests.Ultramarine 02:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- 1.If you don't want to comply with WP:NOR, don't advocate these additions for the article.
- 2.I've created a section to discuss this below.--Nectar 02:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
References and links
I think the following two examples from the article incorporate links into references well.
- For online references with page numbers: Template:AYref, pp. 332-334
- Template:AYref, pp. 332-334 [9]
Seems to make sources more accessible and 'open source' for interested readers. Any thoughts on adopting these styles?--Nectar 23:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- The asterick may be unnecessary? --Rikurzhen 02:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I thought the asterisk may look more tidy once the normal link numbers go into the double digits, but it could be unnecessary to break with convention:
- --Nectar 04:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Rushton and the "white preservationists"
More material should be included on what the pro-genetic researchers really want. See this: [11]Ultramarine 05:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
pioneer fund in lead section
the WP:LEAD now says The largest source of funding for proponents of the partly genetic interpretation, the Pioneer Fund, has been criticized for having a eugenic and racist history and political agenda.
What is the evidentiary basis for (1) this claim and (2) the prominence it is given in the article? Perhaps an accounting of all of the salient data about what has been said on this topic would make it clear. A response from UL that consists of an analogy to tobacco research will not be sufficient to convince me of its importance. --Rikurzhen 19:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Read the Pioneer fund and the references there.Ultramarine 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see partisan web sites. Where can I read that Pioneer is the "largest" source? I suspect that it is a substantial source, but largest? Source for whom? Where can I read about the importance of Pioneer to R&I research? Every time I look to Tucker (2000) I fail to see support for salience. --Rikurzhen 20:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- The source of the criticism is acadmic books and institutions. We can change to "one of the largest". Ultramarine 20:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Tucker 2000? Where in Tucker? What about Neisser 2004? An accounting of the actual evidence here on the talk page, as I requested, would help sort this out. You argue that these statements are supported, but I don't see that when I look. Please show me. --Rikurzhen 20:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly what are you asking for? The racist history of the fund is well documented and that it has given millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars to most of the pro-genetic researchers mentioned in the article, like Rushton, Lynn, and Jensen.Ultramarine 20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Many organizations related to genetics have a history related to eugenics -- for example, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. I want to see the actual reference in the published literature that supports the relevance of these things. In what sense are they relevant? I suspect the answer is "very narrowly". --Rikurzhen 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not many organisations have sponsored Nazists with large sums of money.Ultramarine 20:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Many organizations related to genetics have a history related to eugenics -- for example, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. I want to see the actual reference in the published literature that supports the relevance of these things. In what sense are they relevant? I suspect the answer is "very narrowly". --Rikurzhen 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly what are you asking for? The racist history of the fund is well documented and that it has given millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars to most of the pro-genetic researchers mentioned in the article, like Rushton, Lynn, and Jensen.Ultramarine 20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Tucker 2000? Where in Tucker? What about Neisser 2004? An accounting of the actual evidence here on the talk page, as I requested, would help sort this out. You argue that these statements are supported, but I don't see that when I look. Please show me. --Rikurzhen 20:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- The source of the criticism is acadmic books and institutions. We can change to "one of the largest". Ultramarine 20:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see partisan web sites. Where can I read that Pioneer is the "largest" source? I suspect that it is a substantial source, but largest? Source for whom? Where can I read about the importance of Pioneer to R&I research? Every time I look to Tucker (2000) I fail to see support for salience. --Rikurzhen 20:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
you wrote this phrase a few hours ago. I want to be told on what basis this conclusion is formed in enough detail for me to evaluate its neutrality and factual accuracy. i've told you that my own examination of this, which is probably less thorough than yours, failed to support this addition. please provide me with the citations, quotations, etc. that I need to make the judgement. in essence, argue the case for me in terms of what's published, with logos (relevant) not ethos or pathos (irrelevant). --Rikurzhen 21:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is all there, with references, in the Pioneer fund article.Ultramarine 21:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- If that's all there is, then I have to dispute your edit. The relationship of Pioneer's history to this article, and the fact that it has funded R&I research, does not rise to the level of the lead. The salience is never drawn in the literature, and even the net good/evil of Pioneer is a matter of dispute that splits along non-traditional lines. --Rikurzhen 21:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, the racist and anti-semitic history of the fund is well established and that it has given millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars to most of the pro-genetic researchers mentioned in the article, like Rushton, Lynn, and Jensen. As well as to well-known Neo-Nazists.Ultramarine 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- ? Description without a premise or conclusion doesn't constitute an argument.--Nectar 21:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Everything stated is sourced. See the Pioneer fund article.Ultramarine 21:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- If that were true, then you should have no problem presenting the argument here for me to evaluate. An hour has been spent requesting you to outline such an argument. --Rikurzhen 21:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you are asking for? Is this a denial of the racist and anti-semitic history of the fund and its sponsorship of most of the prominent pro-genetic researchers? Ultramarine 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your edit juxtaposes two arguably true facts, implying that they are related to one another (and by putting it in the lead implying this argument is highly relevant to R&I). Who makes the implied argument and who says it is important to R&I. Outline the argument so it can be evaulated for accuracy and neutrality. --Rikurzhen 21:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Let me try my telepathic ability. You are trying to say that this article should only deal with current status of research. But then sections like history, media portrayal, and implications should be deleted. This is what you are arguing? Ultramarine 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Tucker's thesis largely criticized the fund, but not the researchers or their research. Has anyone advanced a logical argument that the Pioneer Fund issues bear on the research?--Nectar 22:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously the fund is a very important part of the history, for example.Ultramarine 22:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- If it were history that was important, then why would a claim about research support be juxtaposed with a claim about history? Why would that little bit of history rise to the importance of the lead section? --Rikurzhen 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Do you deny that this is an important part of the history? Of course, it is an important part of other sections also.Ultramarine 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- The topic at hand is the lead. --Rikurzhen 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is an important part of the history and also for example implications, the connections with Neo-Nazis has repeatedly been shown. Thus, it should be mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine 22:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Earlier you wrote The source of the criticism is acadmic books and institutions. If you stand by that, then you should have no problem outlining the facts and arguments here on the talk page, with special emphasis on which authors make exactly which arguments. Juxtaposing facts in a way to make a novel argument would be a violation of WP:NOR. --Rikurzhen 22:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- The history of the fund, including the sponsoring Neo-Nazis, can be found here: Pioneer fund. It is also noted that many of the persons connected to the fund has connections with Nazism and that the research is used by Neo-Nazi groups.Ultramarine 22:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Who makes such an argument? On what basis in the published literature can these claims be evaulated for relevance and importance (plus accuracy and neutrality)? I've already said that I don't see such answers in the Pioneer fund article. It should be easy for you to outline them if they are valid. --Rikurzhen 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, see the Pioneer fund. The connections with Nazism is mentioned repeatedly and sourced.Ultramarine 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Who makes such an argument? On what basis in the published literature can these claims be evaulated for relevance and importance (plus accuracy and neutrality)? I've already said that I don't see such answers in the Pioneer fund article. It should be easy for you to outline them if they are valid. --Rikurzhen 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- The history of the fund, including the sponsoring Neo-Nazis, can be found here: Pioneer fund. It is also noted that many of the persons connected to the fund has connections with Nazism and that the research is used by Neo-Nazi groups.Ultramarine 22:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Earlier you wrote The source of the criticism is acadmic books and institutions. If you stand by that, then you should have no problem outlining the facts and arguments here on the talk page, with special emphasis on which authors make exactly which arguments. Juxtaposing facts in a way to make a novel argument would be a violation of WP:NOR. --Rikurzhen 22:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is an important part of the history and also for example implications, the connections with Neo-Nazis has repeatedly been shown. Thus, it should be mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine 22:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- The topic at hand is the lead. --Rikurzhen 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Do you deny that this is an important part of the history? Of course, it is an important part of other sections also.Ultramarine 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- If it were history that was important, then why would a claim about research support be juxtaposed with a claim about history? Why would that little bit of history rise to the importance of the lead section? --Rikurzhen 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously the fund is a very important part of the history, for example.Ultramarine 22:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Tucker's thesis largely criticized the fund, but not the researchers or their research. Has anyone advanced a logical argument that the Pioneer Fund issues bear on the research?--Nectar 22:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Let me try my telepathic ability. You are trying to say that this article should only deal with current status of research. But then sections like history, media portrayal, and implications should be deleted. This is what you are arguing? Ultramarine 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your edit juxtaposes two arguably true facts, implying that they are related to one another (and by putting it in the lead implying this argument is highly relevant to R&I). Who makes the implied argument and who says it is important to R&I. Outline the argument so it can be evaulated for accuracy and neutrality. --Rikurzhen 21:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you are asking for? Is this a denial of the racist and anti-semitic history of the fund and its sponsorship of most of the prominent pro-genetic researchers? Ultramarine 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- If that were true, then you should have no problem presenting the argument here for me to evaluate. An hour has been spent requesting you to outline such an argument. --Rikurzhen 21:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Everything stated is sourced. See the Pioneer fund article.Ultramarine 21:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- ? Description without a premise or conclusion doesn't constitute an argument.--Nectar 21:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, the racist and anti-semitic history of the fund is well established and that it has given millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars to most of the pro-genetic researchers mentioned in the article, like Rushton, Lynn, and Jensen. As well as to well-known Neo-Nazists.Ultramarine 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- If that's all there is, then I have to dispute your edit. The relationship of Pioneer's history to this article, and the fact that it has funded R&I research, does not rise to the level of the lead. The salience is never drawn in the literature, and even the net good/evil of Pioneer is a matter of dispute that splits along non-traditional lines. --Rikurzhen 21:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess I have to repeat myself. This was added to the lead:
- The largest source of funding for proponents of the partly genetic interpretation, the Pioneer Fund, has been criticized for having a eugenic and racist history and political agenda.
I asked:
- What is the evidentiary basis for (1) this claim and (2) the prominence it is given in the article? Perhaps an accounting of all of the salient data about what has been said on this topic would make it clear.
There are many institutions with disreputable pasts, espeically in the genetics-eugenics context. What author makes the link between the history of Pioneer and the bias of its grantees? A link is implied by the juxtaposition of these claims and by mentioning the history of Pioneer in this article.
It would be inappropriate, for example, to say: Jim Watson, co-discover of the structure of DNA, runs Cold Sping Harbor Labs, an institution that supported eugenics, from which he and other pro-GE scientists have received millions of dollars.
IANAL but I guess that WP could be subject to a libel suit for writing something like that. --Rikurzhen 23:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, the racist history of the fund should be mentioned. It is well documented. Since it is a major sponoser of all pro-genetic researchers, who have received millions, this is an important part of the history. Furthermore, the research is used by Neo-Nazi groups. This is important for implications. I have certainly not said the all the grantees are Nazists.Ultramarine 23:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- All those things might be important, if an argument for their relevance could be attributed to a published source. --Rikurzhen 23:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, these statements are sourced in Pioneer fund.Ultramarine 23:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- All of those individual facts about Jim Watson are also source, but the arrangement of them produces a disalloweable novel argument. The material in the PF article isn't sufficient to support your contentions. --Rikurzhen 00:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, everything there is sourced. Do you deny that it is important for the history? Do you deny the connections with Nazism? Ultramarine 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can neither confirm nor deny any claims without sources that make the same arguments that you're writing. Not sources only about PF, but about the relationship of PF to R&I, especially the claims wrt bias. --Rikurzhen 00:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- What claim of bias? You are reading something not stated. Again, the racist Fund is certainly important in the history since it has given millions to individual researchers. This research is used by Neo-Nazis.Ultramarine 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- PF is discussed in the section "Accusations of bias". AFAIK, PF is not discussed in "History", and the reponse of fringe groups to R&I research is not discussed at all. Why then did you put the text in the lead that you did? If you no longer think it's appropriate for the lead, just say that so I can stop asking. --Rikurzhen 01:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- There was no statement about bias in the intro. But I agree with Ramdrake. That much of the funding showing particular results comes from a single and biased source creates grave doubts about the reliability of the results. Thus, the Fund is important for at least 3 reasons: history, implications, and bias. It should certainly be prominently mentioned in intro.Ultramarine 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- PF is discussed in the section "Accusations of bias". AFAIK, PF is not discussed in "History", and the reponse of fringe groups to R&I research is not discussed at all. Why then did you put the text in the lead that you did? If you no longer think it's appropriate for the lead, just say that so I can stop asking. --Rikurzhen 01:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- What claim of bias? You are reading something not stated. Again, the racist Fund is certainly important in the history since it has given millions to individual researchers. This research is used by Neo-Nazis.Ultramarine 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can neither confirm nor deny any claims without sources that make the same arguments that you're writing. Not sources only about PF, but about the relationship of PF to R&I, especially the claims wrt bias. --Rikurzhen 00:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, everything there is sourced. Do you deny that it is important for the history? Do you deny the connections with Nazism? Ultramarine 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- All of those individual facts about Jim Watson are also source, but the arrangement of them produces a disalloweable novel argument. The material in the PF article isn't sufficient to support your contentions. --Rikurzhen 00:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, these statements are sourced in Pioneer fund.Ultramarine 23:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- All those things might be important, if an argument for their relevance could be attributed to a published source. --Rikurzhen 23:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, the references we have, such as Tucker's prominent book on the subject, disagree with your argument. In accordance with WP:NOR, can you an you provide a reference along with a quote that makes that argument?--Nectar 02:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is well-known that the source can bias the results, as in tobacco research. Respectable journals require disclosure of funding. So should Wikipedia. Also not the Fund is important for history and implications, not only possible bias. Thus, it should be in the intro. Is there something dangerous about mentioning this to the readers? Ultramarine 02:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you're arguing against the references we have from scientists on your side of the debate and you don't want to comply with WP:NOR, don't advocate these additions for the article.--Nectar 02:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- But to some academics who have attempted to untangle Rushton's work, there's a bigger question than whether or not a scientist received money from an organization like the Pioneer Fund. "Scientists can sometimes be incredibly arrogant," said Dr. Fred Weizmann, "because they think they are exempt from being influenced by those who fund them. "The real question is not did the Pioneer Fund make you alter your scientific findings but why did the Pioneer Fund fund you?" Weizmann is a psychology professor at York University who has analysed the scientific data used by Rushton. He describes Rushton's work as "lousy science." "It's not so much a question of whether or not they influence an individual scientist but rather the scientists they choose to fund in the first place," Weizmann added.[12]Ultramarine 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you're arguing against the references we have from scientists on your side of the debate and you don't want to comply with WP:NOR, don't advocate these additions for the article.--Nectar 02:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Pinker; RDiI
- However, I do agree that article contains numerous dubious sources. I therefore think that the numerous statements by Pinker should be removed. More importantly, the extremely dubious long section about the book "Race Differences in Intelligence" should immediately be removed. It is certainly not published by any academic publisher but by publisher producing anti-semitic books. I will shortly remove this very dubious book. State objections here and explain why.Ultramarine 23:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- How could Pinker be a dubious source? Cognitive ability testing outside of the US and other wealthy countries is pretty important. The status of the RDiI data derives from the author who surveyed it and the reviews the book (e.g. Template:AYref) and it's predecessor, IQatWoN, received in the journals. If you can name a source that surveys even a tenth of the global cognitive ability data surveyed in that book, that would be a good addition.--Nectar 23:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Blogs and similar sources are not a reliable sources. Nor is a non-acadmic publisher producing anti-semitic works. It not I who should name a reliable source, but you. Ultramarine 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- The book has been reviewed in both Intelligence and PAID. --Rikurzhen 00:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Eh, Mein Kampf has also been been reviewed numerous times. Only reliable sources are allowed in Wikipedia. A publisher producing anti-semtic workds is not.Ultramarine 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- If it's good enough for Intelligence and PAID then it's good enough for WP.--Nectar 01:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- A review is certainly not an endorsement. Why have Lynn not used a respectable academic publisher for his books about worldwide IQ scores?Ultramarine 01:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Respected academic publishers are generally reluctant to print books that tend to cause protests, "hate speech" criminal investigations in some countries, and death threats. Even Jensen had difficulty finding a publisher for his The g Factor, so these books' treatment in scientific journals may be a better gauge then the degree of influence of the publisher. .. Most recently, Template:AYref explicitly endorsed the surveyed data, and yes, utilizing the IQatWoN data in their own arguments counts as "endorsement." --Nectar 01:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- That has always been the excuse of cranks. Freedom of Speech is well protected in the US, as evidenced by numerous Nazi and Racist webpages. Rushton et all has published in numerous journals, so the argument that they are censored is simply false. No academic paper has used Lynn's latest book.Ultramarine 01:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I assume you're just being partisan for the sake of partisanship. Researchers have not been investigated under "hate crime" laws in the US, but they have been in other countries, such as Canada. Death threats have certainly occurred regularly in this field in the US. If you have questions about the credibility of RDiI, see Template:AYref .--Nectar 02:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why must the pro-genetic researchers publish their books in Canada? Do all of them live there? Can they avoid death threats if they do not use an academic publisher?Ultramarine 02:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Controversy strong enough to create the phenomenon listed above tends to be a deterrent to respected publishers that have a lot to lose.--Nectar 02:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, this is simply false. The Pioneer fund grantees have published in numerous journals. They are not censored. Cite a reliable source if you claim so. There is simply no excuse for not using an academic publisher.Ultramarine 02:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why must the pro-genetic researchers publish their books in Canada? Do all of them live there? Can they avoid death threats if they do not use an academic publisher?Ultramarine 02:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I assume you're just being partisan for the sake of partisanship. Researchers have not been investigated under "hate crime" laws in the US, but they have been in other countries, such as Canada. Death threats have certainly occurred regularly in this field in the US. If you have questions about the credibility of RDiI, see Template:AYref .--Nectar 02:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- That has always been the excuse of cranks. Freedom of Speech is well protected in the US, as evidenced by numerous Nazi and Racist webpages. Rushton et all has published in numerous journals, so the argument that they are censored is simply false. No academic paper has used Lynn's latest book.Ultramarine 01:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Respected academic publishers are generally reluctant to print books that tend to cause protests, "hate speech" criminal investigations in some countries, and death threats. Even Jensen had difficulty finding a publisher for his The g Factor, so these books' treatment in scientific journals may be a better gauge then the degree of influence of the publisher. .. Most recently, Template:AYref explicitly endorsed the surveyed data, and yes, utilizing the IQatWoN data in their own arguments counts as "endorsement." --Nectar 01:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- A review is certainly not an endorsement. Why have Lynn not used a respectable academic publisher for his books about worldwide IQ scores?Ultramarine 01:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- If it's good enough for Intelligence and PAID then it's good enough for WP.--Nectar 01:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Eh, Mein Kampf has also been been reviewed numerous times. Only reliable sources are allowed in Wikipedia. A publisher producing anti-semtic workds is not.Ultramarine 01:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- The book has been reviewed in both Intelligence and PAID. --Rikurzhen 00:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Blogs and similar sources are not a reliable sources. Nor is a non-acadmic publisher producing anti-semitic works. It not I who should name a reliable source, but you. Ultramarine 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- How could Pinker be a dubious source? Cognitive ability testing outside of the US and other wealthy countries is pretty important. The status of the RDiI data derives from the author who surveyed it and the reviews the book (e.g. Template:AYref) and it's predecessor, IQatWoN, received in the journals. If you can name a source that surveys even a tenth of the global cognitive ability data surveyed in that book, that would be a good addition.--Nectar 23:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- However, I do agree that article contains numerous dubious sources. I therefore think that the numerous statements by Pinker should be removed. More importantly, the extremely dubious long section about the book "Race Differences in Intelligence" should immediately be removed. It is certainly not published by any academic publisher but by publisher producing anti-semitic books. I will shortly remove this very dubious book. State objections here and explain why.Ultramarine 23:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Snyderman and Rothman
Snyderman and Rothman
[Copied from Talk:J. Philippe Rushton ]
- Once more, the 20 years old survey of some persons using IQ tests is not evidence of what researchers think today.Ultramarine 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your claims about the survey being "irrelevant" aren't legitimate. The survey is the most recent gauge of the expert community's actual opinion and is supported by 4 more recent references, whereas you've provided zero references for your many original claims. If you'd like to actually read the survey so that you don't have to make inaccurate claims about it that can be arranged. This is discussed ad infinitum here.--Nectar 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- You provided none more relevant source for what the researchers think today. A twenty years old survey is uninteresting. Imagine if there was a 20 years old survey of meterologists, farmers, climate researchers, and others studying the weather. Is that interesting for if there is a majority support for global warming among climate researchers today? Ultramarine 22:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your claims about the survey being "irrelevant" aren't legitimate. The survey is the most recent gauge of the expert community's actual opinion and is supported by 4 more recent references, whereas you've provided zero references for your many original claims. If you'd like to actually read the survey so that you don't have to make inaccurate claims about it that can be arranged. This is discussed ad infinitum here.--Nectar 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Once more, the 20 years old survey of some persons using IQ tests is not evidence of what researchers think today.Ultramarine 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The hypotheses Wikipedia editors tend to regard as being the most persuasive on the environmental side were intact prior to the 1987 survey, and the claims that the partially genetic hypothesis has no support were already being made. Much has occured since then, but I'm not going to list the major events. Partisan WP editors will argue opinion has since skewed to which ever side they're on, but the default position in rhetoric would probably be that each side has an equal claim to opinion skewing to their side.
Recent events like the publication of Pinker's Blank Slate, the discovery of what appears to be behavioral genetic ethnic variation (Harpending and Cochran 2002), and the high profile reception of Cochran et al.'s Ashkenazi intelligence theory would disqualify any simple claims about the large percentage gaps between specialists' responses reversing. The strongest reference we have on this subject is Sternberg's 1995 acknowledgement of the results.[13] --Nectar 08:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)