Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:04, 21 June 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race and intelligence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104Auto-archiving period: 7 days

	Race and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 14, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept June 24, 2005 Peer review Reviewed July 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed December 4, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Is there really a scientific consensus that there is no evidence for a genetic link between race and intelligence? Yes, and for a number of reasons. Primarily: No evidence for such a connection has ever been published. A statement signed by 143 senior human population geneticists states categorically that genetics research in no way supports the view that "recent natural selection has led to worldwide differences in I.Q. test results". (See this, this, and this for context.) As understanding of the human genome and the science of population genetics advances, it has become increasingly clear that race is not a biologically meaningful way to categorize human population groups. See for example this statement by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Even if we take ancestral population groups to be proxies for race, most subject-matter experts agree that cognitive differences between such such groups are unlikely to exist. A group of prominent geneticists explain why here. Extensive evidence has been published which indicates that observed differences in IQ test performance between racial groups are environmental in origin. A group of leading psychologists summarizes some of these findings here. Most researchers view the idea of a genetic connection between race and intelligence as scientifically obsolete. See e.g. this statement by the editorial board of Nature. Isn't it true that different races have different average IQ test scores? On average and in certain contexts, yes, though these differences have fluctuated and in many cases steadily decreased over time. Crucially, the existence of such average differences today does not mean what racialists have asserted that it means (i.e. that races can be ranked according to their genetic predisposition for intelligence). Most IQ test data comes from North America and Europe, where non-White individuals represent ethnic minorities and often carry systemic burdens which are known to affect test performance. Studies which purport to compare the IQ averages of various nations are considered methodologically dubious and extremely unreliable. Further, important discoveries in the past several decades, such as the Flynn effect and the steady narrowing of the gap between low-scoring and high-scoring groups, as well as the ways in which disparities such as access to prenatal care and early childhood education affect IQ, have led to an understanding that environmental factors are sufficient to account for observed between-group differences. And isn't IQ a measure of intelligence? Not exactly. IQ tests are designed to measure intelligence, but it is widely acknowledged that they measure only a very limited range of an individual's cognitive capacity. They do not measure mental adaptability or creativity, for example. You can read more about the limitations of IQ measurements here. These caveats need to be kept in mind when extrapolating from IQ measurements to statements about intelligence. But even if we were to take IQ to be a measure of intelligence, there would still be no good reason to assert a genetic link between race and intelligence (for all the reasons stated elsewhere in this FAQ). Isn't there research showing that there are genetic differences between races? Yes and no. A geneticist could analyze a DNA sample and then in many cases make an accurate statement about that person's race, but no single gene or group of genes has ever been found that defines a person's race. Such variations make up a minute fraction of the total genome, less even than the amount of genetic material that varies from one individual to the next. It's also important to keep in mind that racial classifications are socially constructed, in the sense that how a person is classified racially depends on perceptions, racial definitions, and customs in their society and can often change when they travel to a different country or when social conventions change over time (see here for more details). So how can different races look different, without having different genes? They do have some different genes, but the genes that vary between any two given races will not necessarily vary between two other races. Race is defined phenotypically, not genotypically, which means it's defined by observable traits. When a geneticist looks at the genetic differences between two races, there are differences in the genes that regulate those traits, and that's it. So comparing Africans to Europeans will show differences in genes that regulate skin color, hair texture, nose and lip shape, and other observable traits. But the rest of the genetic code will be essentially the same. In fact, there is much less genetic material that regulates the traits used to define the races than there is that regulates traits that vary from person to person. In other words, if you compare the genomes of two individuals within the same race, the results will likely differ more from each other than a comparison of the average genomes of two races. If you've ever heard people saying that the races "are more alike than two random people" or words to that effect, this is what they were referring to. Why do people insist that race is "biologically meaningless"? Mostly because it is. As explained in the answer to the previous question, race isn't defined by genetics. Race is nothing but an arbitrary list of traits, because race is defined by observable features. The list isn't even consistent from one comparison to another. We distinguish between African and European people on the basis of skin color, but what about Middle Eastern, Asian, and Native American people? They all have more or less the same skin color. We distinguish African and Asian people from European people by the shape of some of their facial features, but what about Native American and Middle Eastern people? They have the same features as the European people, or close enough to engender confusion when skin color is not discernible. Australian Aborigines share numerous traits with African people and are frequently considered "Black" along with them, yet they are descended from an ancestral Asian population and have been a distinct cultural and ethnic group for fifty thousand years. These standards of division are arbitrary and capricious; the one drop rule shows that visible differences were not even respected at the time they were still in use. But IQ is at least somewhat heritable. Doesn't that mean that observed differences in IQ test performance between ancestral population groups must have a genetic component? This is a common misconception, sometimes termed the "hereditarian fallacy". In fact, the heritability of differences between individuals and families within a given population group tells us nothing about the heritability of differences between population groups. As geneticist and neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell explains: We need to get away from thinking about intelligence as if it were a trait like milk yield in a herd of cattle, controlled by a small, persistent and dedicated bunch of genetic variants that can be selectively bred into animals from one generation to the next. It is quite the opposite – thousands of variants affect intelligence, they are constantly changing, and they affect other traits. It is not impossible for natural selection to produce populations with differences in intelligence, but these factors make it highly unlikely. To end up with systematic genetic differences in intelligence between large, ancient populations, the selective forces driving those differences would need to have been enormous. What’s more, those forces would have to have acted across entire continents, with wildly different environments, and have been persistent over tens of thousands of years of tremendous cultural change. Such a scenario is not just speculative – I would argue it is inherently and deeply implausible. The bottom line is this. While genetic variation may help to explain why one person is more intelligent than another, there are unlikely to be stable and systematic genetic differences that make one population more intelligent than the next. What about all the psychometricians who claim there's a genetic link? The short answer is: they're not geneticists. The longer answer is that there remains a well-documented problem of scientific racism, which has infiltrated psychometry (see e.g. and ). Psychometry is a field where people who advocate scientific racism can push racist ideas without being constantly contradicted by the very work they're doing. And when their data did contradict their racist views, many prominent advocates of scientific racism simply falsified their work or came up with creative ways to explain away the problems. See such figures as Cyril Burt, J. Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Hans Eysenck, who are best known in the scientific community today for the poor methodological quality of their work, their strong advocacy for a genetic link between race and intelligence, and in some cases getting away with blatant fraud for many years. Isn't it a conspiracy theory to claim that psychometricians do this? No. It is a well-documented fact that there is an organized group of psychometricians pushing for mainstream acceptance of racist, unscientific claims. See this, this and this, as well as our article on scientific racism for more information. Isn't this just political correctness? No, it's science. As a group of scholars including biological anthropologists Agustín Fuentes of Princeton and Jonathan M. Marks of the University of North Carolina explain: "while it is true that most researchers in the area of human genetics and human biological diversity no longer allocate significant resources and time to the race/IQ discussion, and that moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed". These authors compare proponents of a genetic link between race and IQ to creationists, vaccine skeptics, and climate change deniers. At the same time, researchers who choose to pursue this line of inquiry have in no way been hindered from doing so, as is made clear by this article: . It's just that all the evidence they find points to environmental rather than genetic causes for observed differences in average IQ-test performance between racial groups. What about the surveys which say that most "intelligence experts" believe in some degree of genetic linkage between race and IQ? These surveys are almost invariably conducted by advocates of scientific racism, and respondents to these surveys are also almost exclusively members of groups that promote scientific racism. In short, they are not representative samples of mainstream scientific opinion. These surveys tend to have very low participation rates, and often consist of fewer than 100 respondents. Many of the surveys suffer from methodological flaws, such as using leading questions. This leads to an increase in responses from those who agree, and a decrease from those who disagree. Generally speaking, the better the methodology of the survey, the lower agreement it shows with the claim of a genetic link between race and intelligence. Even the most poorly structured surveys, conducted among members of groups that are dominated by advocates for scientific racism, show much doubt and difference of opinion among respondents. The vast majority of respondents have absolutely no qualifications to speak on genetics. Is there really no evidence at all for a genetic link between race and intelligence? No evidence for such a link has ever been presented in the scientific community. Much data has been claimed to be evidence by advocates of scientific racism, but each of these claims has been universally rejected by geneticists. Statistical arguments claiming to detect the signal of such a difference in polygenic scores have been refuted as fundamentally methodologically flawed (see e.g. ), and neither genetics nor neuroscience are anywhere near the point where a mechanistic explanation could even be meaningfully proposed (see e.g. ). This is why the question of a genetic link between race and intelligence is largely considered pseudoscience; it is assumed to exist primarily by advocates of scientific racism, and in these cases the belief is based on nothing but preconceived notions about race. What is the current state of the science on a link between intelligence and race? Please see the article itself for an outline of the scientific consensus. What is the basis for Misplaced Pages's consensus on how to treat the material? Misplaced Pages editors have considered this topic in detail and over an extended period. In short, mainstream science treats the claim that genetics explains the observable differences in IQ between races as a fringe theory, so we use our own guidelines on how to treat such material when editing our articles on the subject. Please refer to the following past discussions: RfC on race and intelligence Race and IQ: "no evidence" for genetic component? RfC: What sources should we use to establish notability and relative balance of different viewpoints? No "direct" evidence for a genetic component RfC on racial hereditarianism

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race and intelligence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Please: place new messages at bottom of page.

Notices to article participants

• Per the notice above, article FAQ here, November, 2009 mediation here
• The article is under 1RR restriction
• An arbitration is currently open involving this article, here

PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I will be sharing references with all the editors to help improve this article.

Last year I began a major revision of a working paper project (begun in 2006, based on shorter research notes I began compiling as early as 1993) largely on the topic of IQ testing and theories of human intelligence, topics which relate this Misplaced Pages article's topic of race and intelligence. As the talk page templates note, "Race and intelligence was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time." Currently the article here is listed as a B-class, mid-importance article for WikiProject Psychology, so it's good to see so many editors active here. As a courtesy to the editors who have long been here, I will note that I will soon post citations (Wikiformatted by template codes) for the dozens of books and articles I have at hand for my non-Misplaced Pages project (a literature review for popular audiences interested in the primary source literature on IQ testing) to a subpage of my user page. I will add more references to verify the statements that have already long stood here in this article, without favor to one point of view or another. (I hope to add specific page numbers to both the references I add and the existing references that I am able to look up here. I also hope to clean up what appear to be some duplicate reference names that now appear in the notes for this Race and Intelligence article.) At some length, I expect to expand sections with additional facts, perhaps add a few subsections, and from time to time do substantive edits under the NPOV principle, as the sources report various points of view. Thanks to all of you who have already worked on this very detailed article. I am lucky to have access to a very comprehensive academic library at which I have circulating privileges, so I am delighted to add some V and NPOV to various Misplaced Pages projects. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had two fruitful library runs in as many days, and I'm still cobbling together a master list of references from materials I have at hand and materials I have read before and materials cited in those. I'll be glad to hear suggestions from all of you for further sources to consider. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am working alphabetically, from A to Z, on this, and have folded into a Wikified bibliography quite a few references from conference handouts and working paper drafts I have prepared over the years. There is still much more to add, but already enough there that I invite you all to visit the Intelligence Bibliography page to tell me about sources you think should be added to it, or to correct typos in my Wikifying the bibliography. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I obtained some more good sources today by interlibrary loan, but business travel will soon force a wikibreak, so it will be a while before I post another update to the Intelligence Citations subpage on my user page. I look forward to discussing reliable sources with the other editors here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Significance and Policy

Let me ask one more time: does anyone have anything to say in response to my comments about the new section I’m hoping to add? I’ve been asked to try and discuss this section before adding it, which is what I’m doing now. If other editors aren’t willing to cooperate with my attempts at discussion about it, yet still continue to revert it when I try to add it, then they’re the ones who are acting out of line with regard to this. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What new section? WavePart (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The one we were discussing here. David.Kane and Ramdrake suggested that this section ought to be discussed in greater depth before it’s added, to which I responded by pointing out that it’s already been discussed for more than a month, and asking them what more discussion about it they think is necessary. Neither of them have replied to my question about that. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I found the text you are considering here, and I made two very minor edits to it. I'd say it seems fine for inclusion, and is more well-developed and NPOV than many of the existing sections that are here. (I have not checked each source listed there, so hopefully each one correctly supports what you have stated it does.) I will support it's inclusion when the article is unprotected. WavePart (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. (And I approve of the changes you made to my draft.)

The article will be unprotected tomorrow. If there are any objections to adding this section when the article is unprotected, including the modifications that WavePart made to it, now’s the time to mention them. And obviously, if anyone has any, please be specific about what you think needs to be changed about this section before you can be satisfied with it. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) continuing the above...

I read through the content mentioned and I think it is fine. It does need some copy-editing for readability and de-densification (for example, de-jargoning predictive variables and ranges of values above zero and their significance), but there's no reason that can't be done after the content is added. Once this section is added I would also request we cease and desist with "revert to date X because of complaint Y by editor Z." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, someone is cooling their heels as is wont to occur on occasion. I expect I'll do a bit of copy-editing where "the content mentioned" sits at the moment. Given the short fuses in evidence, I suggest we stick to bits at a time for now once the article is unprotected. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've inserted the section as discussed, since it seems to have passed inspection by a number of sets of eyes with no major objections except for a few improvements, and seems to have some worthwhile content. We should be able to better edit it in-place in the article. WavePart (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have undone the changes, because these were made while Arbcom is process. Most involved editors right now are preparing for the arbcom case, which is why you see no major objections here. But there are objections on the Arbcom page about this very section. While the case is at Arbcom it is not the best idea to make significant changes. When progress is made at Arbcom, I am sure we will be able to address the significance section along with other pending issues. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The verdict

What is the verdict then, is there a link between race and intelligence? There's an awful lot of opinionated material in this article, but what's the black and white answer? It looks to me that yes, some races are more intelligent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.18.57 (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Define race.

Some groups of people defined as races by some people perform better on some tests called IQ tests than some other groups of people defined as races by some people. HiLo48 (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Define race." -- Human population clusters, corresponding to geographical ancestry, which stably transfer characteristics over generations. Hanxu9 (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi 86.* ip. It's not the role of wikipedia articles to draw such conclusions, and thus we must oppose any attempt by editors to insert a conclusion of that sort into the article. (And that's why you will hopefully not see it there.) I will say, for anyone worried about the topic, that given the amount of debate around it, it seems hard to say with any strong scientific certainty what the answer ACTUALLY is. But even if there IS a non-zero difference in the average, it doesn't say anything about individual members of any race (given how very broad the measured distributions are), so you shouldn't take anything personally, or take pride in any such result, or use it to form conclusion about any individuals you meet, because none of those things would be at all reasonable given the information available. WavePart (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We can only talk about studies and scores. As my wife observes, for a bright person I can really be bone-headed (that would be not particularly bright). Intelligence has many dimensions—we can discuss what bits of it we put in a box and study and what we observe as results, but there's no certainty that it correlates to what remains outside the box. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is not a WP:FORUM

Please do not use this talk page for discussions like this. Buy a good textbook at a bookshop - eg What is intelligence? (2009) by James R. Flynn, Handbook of intelligence (2004) edited by Robert Sternberg or IQ and Human Intelligence (1998) by Nicholas Mackintosh - read it carefully, and you will find out that usually population or ethnic/racial groups are discussed. There is a mainstream consensus that population groups from the Far East have better visiospatial abilities for genetic reasons. However, there are no conclusions about the black-white racial gap in IQ scores being genetic in origin. John C. Loehlin indicates in a long entry in the Handbook on "group differences in intelligence" that not is enough is known so far to make any conclusion like that; Nick Mackintosh comes to a similar finding; and Jim Flynn indicates that the gap is closing according to his most recent research. Wikipedians should not attempt to be amateur scientists, if indeed "science" is the discipline involved. Secondary sources like the ones above (all reference books published by Cambridge University Press) are what we look at when writing articles; not half-digested papers, possibly wrong, hot off the press. Those are primary sources which are unassessable on wikipedia unfortunately. Mathsci (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mathsci. I think there's nothing wrong with using a significant number of journal articles on an article about something which is subject to a lot of ongoing research. In fact, I'd say it's the only way to cover it properly. One simply has to be careful to describe it in a direct and neutral way with minimal interpretation or acceptance of conclusions present in the primary sources. It can take decades for journal articles to be adequately described in secondary sources with some authority. Sometimes they are covered quickly in news articles, but this is fairly arbitrary on the part of journalists selecting articles to cover, and as you are probably well aware, coverage of scientific topics in the news is severely lacking in accuracy, as journalists usually lack the education needed to understand what they are trying to describe. (Also, I'm not sure why you're implying books are more accessible than journal articles. Both require either buying them or accessing them through a library, although journal articles are more commonly available online through a college/university.) WavePart (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read (or reread) WP:PRIMARY. This is an encyclopedia, not a presentation of bleeding edge research results. And while some results may take decades to become established and verified, there is a very good reason for that. The books Mathsci listed are all contemporary (less than decades) and are all reasonable reliable secondary sources. This article needs to rely significantly less on primary sources, not more. aprock (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I would add that there is hardly any "ongoing research". Most direct measurements are made for completely different purposes and supported by government funding agencies, e.g. the National Science Foundation. In the real world researchers in psychometrics work on things from quite a different point of view. Wikipedians cannot possibly evaluate primary sources. On the other hand we can read reviews by experts (like the researchers I named) and come to the conclusion that articles by Rushton and Lynn are probably unreliable. That is how secondary sources are used on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't just pick a book by one author on a controversial subject, and use it to justify labeling all the journal publications by another author "unreliable". That does not at all seem a proper application of WP:PRIMARY to me. It says firstly, "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages", and then describes in some detail the care which must be exercised in using them, namely that one should use them only to make descriptive statements and not interpretive statements, about which I completely agree. In the case of this article, a book by Flynn does not seem to qualify as a secondary source, since he appears to be a primary player. A primary source is defined on WP:PRIMARY as "written by people who are directly involved". As for the other two books, I at this point have no objection to them being treated as secondary sources, provided they were written as actual scientific reviews (and not as just opinion pieces, which books are at times), although I do not have access to them at this moment and cannot speak to their content. WavePart (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

By the original comment by Mathsci up there, he claims they state that there are no conclusions about race/IQ correlations being genetic in origin. If they state that, then I think that makes perfect sense to have sourced to them, and it seems even that it should be uncontroversial here that there are no conclusions in the field about whether or not there is a genetic origin to the correlations. (Particularly, since no one has presented one.) Just please note that this is not equivalent to stating that there IS no genetic component. It would probably be hard to find a preponderance of secondary sources making a sweeping and definitive conclusion like that considering how much is still unknown about the genes behind intelligence. WavePart (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

FAQ Q3

As there is some question as to whether the "mediation" is at all valid, I think we need to reopen /FAQ#Q3, which was "established" as part of that mediation. FAQ#Q1 and FAQ#Q2 seem non-controversial, and do not mention the mediation. This will need to be done regardless of the ArbCom decision, so we might as well discuss it now. In any case, regardless of any wrongdoing, the false accusations of WP:NPA created a hostile editing environment which would discourage any editors who felt that Dr. Pensa was WP:FRINGE (or even, not in the center of the mainstream), from editing. Could someone summarize the justification for that answer? It might very well be appropriate, but we need a new consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's my bad summer cold that has lowered my absorption coefficient, but that's more than just a lot (FAQ Q3 mediation) to go through. If I might offer advice from studying on how to write about history, any encyclopedia article, to tell a cohesive story, must have a point of view. Looking at content like:

In 1916 George O. Ferguson conducted research in his Columbia Ph.D. thesis on "The psychology of the Negro", finding them poor in abstract thought, but good in physical responses, recommending how this should be reflected in education.

which is recited, along with numerous other contentions, in a litanic inventory—in this case, regarding "History"—there is nothing here that advances understanding of "history". This sort of content desperately needs a secondary source to provided context, minimally much better positioning and organization without violating WP:OR (that is, telling a story no reputable source has told before). Absence of context is not "NPOV", it is "open to (accusations of) any POV." "Contemporary mores and interpretations of intelligence" might be a good place to start to organize historical through to modern interpretations of results as there is a clear correlation.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Nor is this an invitation for scathing 20:20 indictments of historical prejudices. We should be mature enough to know what those are and deal with them appropriately.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  02:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please define the term "SIRE data" as used in that FAQ? WavePart (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Arthur, can you clarify which parts of Q3 you think should be reopened for discussion? At the moment the five parts I understand the meaning of, the first three and last two, seem like fairly reasonable compromise positions which seem to match up with the sources. But I'm certainly willing to change position on that if given compelling sources to the contrary. WavePart (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Compelling sources" are not necessary: It was established as part of the invalid mediation, possibly by the moderator without input, so any "consensus" to it should be disregarded. If we can establish a positive consensus for it, including Mathsci, then I would reluctantly concede it belongs. It shouldn't be in the FAQs until a consensus is established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I choose to decide based on content and don't care to argue about the legitimacy of past mediation. It might help a lot if the discussion can stay centered more on content than edit history. So if you cannot provide any content-based objection to the contents of the Q3 section there, then I will have to issue my support for the first three and last two. (I cannot agree to the ones that say "SIRE" unless someone can define what that means.) WavePart (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it needs to be moved out of the FAQ until a consensus can be established, even if it were reasonable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the FAQ should enjoy wide support, and in this case it doesn't. Verbal chat 08:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, a very strong consensus was formed for that, by people who are familiar with this subject. You saying "I don't like it" because it was mediated by someone who doesn't like your buddy is of no importance.

SIRE is self informed race and ethnicity. mikemikev (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A summary of what is proposed which is not in the article now would be useful for those that have not been involved from the beginning, there is a lot of assumed knowledge (of the past) in any discussions of content debate.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

“It was established as part of the invalid mediation, possibly by the moderator without input, so any "consensus" to it should be disregarded.”

What does it accomplish for you to engage in speculation like this, when you’re perfectly capable of reading through the mediation archives for yourself, and seeing how each of these points was agreed on? In no case did Ludwigs2 decide for himself on any of these points, or defer to Bpesta22’s authority; these are simply summaries of the things that everyone participating in the mediation was able to come to an agreement about. If you want to claim that people’s dislike of Ludwig’s handling of the mediation stopped them from raising objections to these points when they otherwise would have done so, you’re welcome to think that, but consensus is always determined only by the comments that are being posted on the relevant talk pages, not by the private opinions of editors who don’t express them. And by that standard, consensus was reached on all of these points during the mediation.

If there’s any particular one of these where you want me to link you to the discussion during which it was resolved, I can do that. Is there? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. As I, for one, was almost sure the mediation was invalid, and found that questioning Dr. Pesta's expert status (not the editor's good faith), required by NPOV, was not allowed, I didn't feel it productive to participate in the mediation. I'm sure there were others. I recall that some content disputes were settled by the mediator by fiat, rather than with editor input. Hence, for this one

1. All "findings" attributed to the mediation must have a hidden pointer to the relevant section of the mediation talk page,
2. If there is any present objection by a active editor who did not participate in that thread, "consensus" should be considered not established. If Mathsci agrees with the statements, I would be willing to withdraw my objection to them, but I still think they should be removed if any established editor thinks they are false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

“I didn't feel it productive to participate in the mediation.”

This is exactly what I’m saying. Consensus is established by the discussion on the relevant talk pages. If someone declines to participate there, regardless of their motives for not doing so, they can’t be included in determining what the consensus is.

As an administrator, I know you’re aware of this. If instead of a mediation case this had been an AFD discussion, would it have influenced the outcome if an editor had private objections to the arguments being presented there, but never raised them on the AFD page? Even if his reasons for keeping his objections to himself were entirely valid, the outcome of the AFD discussion would still be decided without his input.

“I still think they should be removed if any established editor thinks they are false.”

Consensus depends on more than just whether an editor agrees or disagrees with something, particularly if that disagreement is nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The strength of the arguments being presented matters also, and whether they’ve been adequately responded to. However, I don’t have a problem with your suggestion that these summaries ought to contain links to the relevant part of the mediation discussion. Does anyone else have an opinion about this?

If other people approve of this idea also, I would recommend Ludwigs2 adding the links. I’m capable of adding them myself, but since he was the mediator, it seems more appropriate for him to do it. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Verbal has just removed one of the items from the FAQ, despite the fact that no attempt has even been made yet to re-discuss this point and the arguments that originally resulted in it. As I mentioned in my last comment, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove content, and thus far that’s the only argument that’s being presented against these conclusions. For this reason, I’m undoing his removal of this. The “disputed” tag can stay on it for now, but in order for it to be removed entirely, there’ll have to be some actual content-based objections to it that overrule the earlier consensus and the arguments it was based on. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As I noted on the RfAr page, Ludwigs2's actions, even if well-intentioned, had the effect of driving editors away. Any editor so driven away should be able to return and challenge the "consensus" as if it had never been. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don’t disagree with your having the ability to challenge the past consensus over this article. You, Mathsci, and anyone else here is welcome to do that, and if a new consensus is formed, then that will replace whatever consensus was reached during the mediation. What I have a problem with is the attitude that because the earlier consensus didn’t include you, it can’t be considered a consensus at all, and that therefore it’s acceptable to undo any change that resulted from it (or every change, in the case of the five-month revert) without discussing it first. This is no different from how it would be if all of the decisions that were made about this article had been made on the talk page rather than during mediation: major changes still need to be discussed before they’re made, even if they’re being made by someone who didn’t participate in the discussion that resulted in them. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My objection is that:

1. The mediation is flawed. Any "consensus" which derived from a process in which established editors were driven away, whether or not apparently consistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, is void.
2. For the particular answer I marked as disputed, there were two participants who objected. As the moderator made "rulings from the chair", I would say that, even if there were (which I don't yet see in the mediation talk pages, pointed to as RfAr evidence) an apparent consensus, it would be invalid.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Referring to item X of Y or non-descriptive references to what who said before doesn't help those of us trying to sort through this all. Can we please insure we reference briefly what specific bit of content/(non-)consensus is being discussed when we are raising objections (or even agreeing) here?  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

“Any ‘consensus’ which derived from a process in which established editors were driven away, whether or not apparently consistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, is void.”

If that’s the case, then any consensus which has been reached in the past month is void, because Varoon Arya and DJ have both been driven away from this discussion by Mathsci’s behavior. Varoon Arya stated this here, and DJ stated it in his opening statement on the ArbCom case. Is that your perspective about this? If the argument you’re using applies to the mediation, it most certainly applies to the current discussion also.

If you’re going to use the argument that you’ve been making here, this is a question you need to answer. Unless you’re going to apply a double standard, you need to accept either that this isn’t a valid argument against the conclusions of the mediation, or that there won’t be any consensus for any conclusion we reach in a discussion that DJ and Varoon Arya have been driven away from. I would like to know which of these you think is the case.

“For the particular answer I marked as disputed, there were two participants who objected. As the moderator made "rulings from the chair", I would say that, even if there were (which I don't yet see in the mediation talk pages, pointed to as RfAr evidence) an apparent consensus, it would be invalid.”

The main discussion about this was here. It was primarily a discussion between Varoon Arya, Slrubenstein and Aprock, but eventually Slrubenstein stopped responding to VA’s points, even though he was continuing to comment in other threads in the mediation pages. So at that point Varoon Arya continued his discussion just with Aprock, and eventually they reached an agreement about this. Even though there were only two users involved in this discussion by the end of it, it’s important to remember both that Aprock was someone who had initially disagreed with VA about this, and also that most of the arguments VA was making about it weren’t addressed. The strength of the arguments being presented is one of the main things that determines consensus, and in this case no other editor made any attempt to address his points, even when he was specifically soliciting responses from anyone who had a counter-argument.

Ludwigs2 initially concluded this discussion as just stating that research about race and intelligence isn’t fringe in general, but since all of Varoon Arya’s points had been with regard to the D hypothesis specifically (as is apparent from reading his comments), Ludwigs2 eventually also added the conclusion that the hereditarian hypothesis isn’t fringe, which was the actual point that VA had been making. When he added this to the list of current agreements here, nobody raised any objections to it. (At least, not anywhere on the mediation pages, which is what consensus needs to be judged by, as in my AFD example.) What two editors are you saying objected to this conclusion in the mediation discussion, and where did they do so? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

…And I see that Verbal has removed this item from the FAQ yet again, still without making any effort to justify this removal here. My points about it being inappropriate to remove content based only on procedural grounds, and without making any attempt to address the arguments that have been presented for its inclusion, seem to be falling on deaf ears. And obviously, he’s also making no attempt to respond to my points about this; he’s just repeatedly reverting without engaging in any discussion. Could someone else please pay attention to this situation? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's quite simple, it no longer enjoys consensus. It should be removed from the FAQ and remain out unless consensus again changes. I'm afraid "Ludwigs said" is an argument from (if you'll pardon this inappropriate term) authority, and that's not how wikipedia works. Verbal chat 18:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it seems quite clear from what you have written above that it never enjoyed any kind of consensus, and should never have been added. Verbal chat 18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what “Ludwigs said”. Are you going to respond to what I actually said in my comment? Consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments being presented, and in this case no effort has been made to respond to the arguments that Varoon Arya presented about this, either by you or by anyone else. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what you said demonstrates quite clearly that only two editors supported the addition. I consider this over now. Verbal chat 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Although that comment (in archive 3), seems to be an agreement of only two editors (as Verbal noted), and seems to have been disputed in archive 6, it would only be correct to include the entire conclusion in the FAQ. That is, "although the hereditarian view is not WP:FRINGE, it is a small minority view." If that were in the FAQ, I wouldn't object, although Verbal still might, unless some evidence of consensus, as opposed to an agreement between two editors, can be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying something along those lines sounds fine to me. I’ll wait a little while to see if Verbal objects to this; if he doesn’t, I’ll add this item back to the FAQ with the modified wording.

Can you please answer my other question? How I regard this discussion will be very different depending on whether you think there can’t be any valid consensus in a discussion that some users have been driven away from. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it. How about, "driven away by false claims of Misplaced Pages policy violations". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What difference does it make why they were driven away? Your point was that it shouldn’t be considered consensus because not everyone who had an opinion to express about the discussion was able to express it there. That’s the case regardless of whether they were driven away by accusations of policy violations, or Mathsci’s personal attacks.

Are you actually trying to come up with an argument for there being a meaningful difference between the situation during the mediation and the current situation? I think you know that there isn’t one, and if you’re going to react to this by trying to come up with excuses for using a double standard here, it’s very hard for me to assume good faith about that.

All I need from you is an answer to my question about whether you think editors being driven away from a discussion means that there can’t be a valid consensus resulting from it. You’re an admin; you should have the ability to answer a question like this. Yes or no? --Captain Occam (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it matters how people are driven away from a discussion. I felt driven away from the discussion because I felt that none of my views were taken seriously by opponents. Maybe this is how VA and DJ feel about MathSci, but my view (which you may consider biased) is that MathSci simply insisted on including material from reliable secondary sources that they did not like, and MathSci does not tolerate any user deleting properly sourced material. Even if you think I am biased and not doing justice to VA or DJ's feelings, I think that any objective third party reviewing the whole mess would see that a great amount of the conflict has to do with what counts as a reliable source, th actual contention haqving to do with the fact that (1) VA, DJ, and others prefer primary sources and MathSci prefers secondary sources, and (2) VA and DJ simply consider a smaller number of sources acceptable, and flat out reject a range of sources. A simple and obvious example is Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. I believe that VA and DJ would claim that it is reasonable to reject this book because it is a fringe view. My point, for the moment, is that if we put aside reasons for objecting for the moment (because I can call your source "fringe" as quickly as you call my source "fringe"), the fact remains that VA and DJ consider a narrower range of sources reliable and acceptable than MathSci. It is therefore inevitable that they will come into conflict. NPOV and V do not assume much, but they do assume that editors can agree on what is a reliable source and what isn't, what is a significant view and what isn't. If editors cannot reach agreement over this, they are pretty much doomed. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think this is relevant to the point that Arthur Rubin was making, though. If the decisions we reached during mediation don’t count as consensus because certain users didn’t express their opinions in it, as a result of having been driven away, then the exact same thing applies to the current discussion. This is the case regardless of why they were driven away.

Also, I’m virtually certain that the reason VA and DJ quit participating had nothing to do with Mathsci’s content disagreements with them. They’ve both said that it was just the result of his personal attacks, and possibly also his forum shopping at AN/I. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, we're not interested in your speculation as to why other people did things. This is not a forum, please stick to discussing improving the article. Verbal chat 18:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn’t speculation. In his statement for the ArbCom case, DJ said “I left last month because of uncivil and inexcusable behavior by Mathsci directed at me.”

But in any case, I agree that the reason why other people were driven away shouldn’t be relevant here; all that matters is that they were. The people who were claiming that anyone’s reasons for leaving matter were Arthur Rubin and Slrubenstein, so your disagreement is with them, not me. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Aprock, I notice that you’ve removed this item from the FAQ again, despite the fact that Arthur Rubin and I had come to an agreement about what it should say, and you’ve reverted edits from both him and me when we tried to make this section reflective of what he and I had agreed on here. You also haven’t offered any comment here to explain why you disagree with the conclusion that he and I reached in this thread. If you aren’t willing to accept his and my agreement, could you please explain here why not? It isn’t appropriate for you to revert edits from two different editors, which are reflective of the agreement that those two editors have reached, while refusing to engage in discussion with either of them about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. The content I removed was not a conclusion of mediation. To suggest otherwise is misrepresentation. aprock (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This is what Arthur Rubin and I both apparently disagree with you about. The conclusions of the mediation are listed here, and the one that you’ve removed is the second from the top of that list. Arthur Rubin suggested that I reword this slightly, but after I did he was fine with it, and reverted your edit the first time you tried to remove it. (To which you responded by reverting him also.) If you’re going to revert this whenever it’s added, can you please explain more specifically why you think the second item on the list of the mediation’s resolved points is “not a conclusion of mediation”? --Captain Occam (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The summary you linked to is incorrect. The correct conclusion (from the actual archives) is here: Research into race and intelligence is not "fringe", some of the conclusions drawn from that research are highly contentious and need to be presented as such in the article. Reviewing the history of that infobox you linked to, this mediation decision was come to through discussion between User:Varoon Arya and User:Captain Occam alone . I'll update the rest of the points in the faq to remove all the other mediation "decisions" that were resolved between only the two of you. aprock (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The link you posted doesn’t work, but I assume you’re talking about this discussion. I think I understand what issue you’re having with this, although I explained this before.

Read Varoon Arya’s comments and all of the responses to them, including your own. The actual topic of this discussion was not just whether research into race and intelligence is “fringe”, it was about the hereditarian hypothesis specifically. And Varoon Arya presented his argument there, “5 reasons why the hereditarian model is not ‘fringe’”, and whatever consensus was reached in that discussion was about this argument specifically.

After Ludwigs2 closed this discussion with a conclusion that only addressed the “fringe” point with regard to research on race and intelligence in general, even though that wasn’t the main topic which had been discussed there, I asked him to re-read this discussion because I felt that he hadn’t adequately summarized what was resolved during it. So he did, and concluded that we’d also reached a consensus that the hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe, which is why he went on to list this among the mediation conclusions. As far as I know, the only reason he didn’t also add this conclusion to the discussion in which it was determined is because the discussion had already been archived, so he didn’t want to modify it.

If your argument against including this point in the FAQ is because it wasn’t included in Ludwigs2’s original summary of that discussion’s conclusion, then your argument is based only on a temporary oversight he made which he later corrected, as well as the fact that when he corrected it he didn’t modify the archived material. The actual consensus we reached in that discussion was with regard to the hereditarian hypothesis, and Ludwigs2 has acknowledged this. Can you accept that, and that the fact that his initial summary was incomplete is not a valid reason to exclude this item from the FAQ? If you can’t, I’ll leave a message for Ludwigs2 and ask him to confirm this, but I’d rather not bother him if it’s not necessary. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

My argument is based on the fact that the "decision" was made by you and Varoon Arya alone. If you have diffs of a broad spectrun of editors supporting the language of the FAQ points generated on March 25-27, I'd love to see them. aprock (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That’s not the problem with this that you mentioned in your initial comment. What’s going on here? You presented what you viewed as a problem with the conclusion that Arthur Rubin and I reached about this section, I addressed it in detail, and you responed that actually the real problem was something else entirely, and then went ahead and start blanking content as though everyone else agrees? Do you not understand what’s wrong with that?

Your new explanation for what’s wrong with this material also has absolutely no relation to reality. If you actually read the discussion that you linked to, which you’re claiming involved "me and Varoon Arya alone", you’ll see that it was actually a discussion between you, Varoon Arya, Ludwigs2, and Slrubenstein. I didn’t participate in it at all.

I guess I need to contact Ludwigs2 about this. In the meantime, please don’t make large changes like this without any discussion, particularly when the only other users expressing an opinion about this on the talk page clearly disagree with you. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please reread my comments and the associated links. aprock (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, I have. Have you? Have actually you looked at which editors participated in the discussion that you claim was between "me and Varoon Arya alone", which you yourself just linked to?

For you to keep adding information to the FAQ that’s this obviously false, while making no attempt to address my comment in which I pointed this out, is the worst sort of stonewalling. How can you expect me to assume good faith about your repeatedly re-adding material that claims a discussion involved only me and Varoon Arya, when anyone who clicks the link to this discusion can read it for themselves and see what four users participated in it (none of whom are me), and your only response when I point this out is that I need to read it? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the discussion on March 25-27, which included only you and User:Varoon Arya, where the FAQ discussion points were developed? Again, if you have any other diffs which might support the language of those discussion points, by all means present them. aprock (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I’m referring to the discussion between you, Varoon Arya, Ludwigs2 and Slrubenstein about whether or not the hereditarian hypothesis is “fringe”, which Ludwig initially summarized as being only about research on race and intelligence in general, but about which he later also added this discussion’s other conclusion with regard to the hereditarian hypothesis specifically. (As I explained three comments ago.) The discussion between me, Varoon Arya and Ludwigs2 about the FAQ itself was not where any of these points was resolved; all we did was remind him of some of the points that had been resolved by discussions between a larger number of users earlier in the mediation.

I really thought you understood this. Let’s start with the discussion about the hereditarian hypothesis: you agree that the discussion which Varoon Arya initiated with his argument “5 reasons why the hereditarian model is not ‘fringe’” was a discussion that did not involve just him and me, right? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to the discussion where the decisions listed in the FAQ were developed. Again, if you have any other diffs (or quotes) from other editors which support the language of the decisions that you and User:Varoon Arya developed on March 25-27, by all means present them. User:Ludwigs2 was the moderator, not an editor, his re-interpretation counts for naught. aprock (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the “fringe” issue regarding the hereditarian hypothesis, I already have provided this in the discussion that we both have linked to. I don’t know how you think a single quote or diff can demonstrate the resolution that was reached during a discussion, but I guess I can quote how Varoon Arya introduced the issue which was eventually resolved during it:

If I may be so bold, I would summarize Slrubenstein's main concern in the matter of WP:FRINGE as that he does not want to see a "fringe" view, in this case hereditarian explanations of the IQ gap between the races, presented as a mainstream academic thesis. Taken at face value, this is a perfectly valid concern.

My main concern in regards to WP:FRINGE is that I don't want to see a "minority" view presented as a "fringe" or "pseudo-scientific" view unworthy of serious academic discussion. This, too, is a perfectly valid concern.

If the above is correct, then our central conflict here is over whether the hereditarian position is a "fringe"/"pseudo-scientific" view or a "minority" view. In what follows, I shall present my own reasons for viewing the hereditarian position as a "minority" position which deserves proportional coverage in the article.

At Arthur Rubin’s suggestion, I’ve summarized what was eventually resolved during this discussion as “The hereditarian hypothesis is a minority viewpoint among researchers, but it is not ‘fringe science’ or ‘pseudo-science’”. You reverted this, and then reverted Arthur Rubin when he added it back. Are you able to see how this is an accurate summary of the outcome of the discussion from which I quoted Varoon Arya’s post, despite the fact that Ludwigs2’s initial summary of it was incomplete (which Ludwigs2 later corrected)? Since this is the point I’ve been trying to get you to understand for the past several comments, if you aren’t able to understand how mediation reached even this conclusion, it doesn’t bode well for my ability to explain the basis for any of the other points. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not an accurate summary. I reread that discussion last night, and there is nowhere in this discussion where editors agree that the Hereditarian viewpoint - The hereditarian hypothesis is a minority viewpoint among researchers, but it is not "fringe science" or "pseudo-science".. That language was developed between you and User:Varoon Arya alone in this discussion, and is not representative of mediation. Using a quote from User:Varoon Arya as evidence that there was broad editor support for that decision isn't very useful here. aprock (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

For anyone else who’s been following this discussion, it’s now continuing in the arbitration workshop here. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Latest revert

I regret that arbitrations et al. do not rule on content, so reverting waiting for something to happen is not progress. I've restored the primarily copy-edit and clarification edits. Regarding the un-done "Significance and policy relevance" expansion from "Policy relevance" as part of this revert, comments solicited on the merits of re-including the reverted content in whole, part, or step-by-step. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with including it yet, I had initially objected to it as WP:SYNTH, and have discussed how Captain Occam is misrepresenting the consensus to include this material in the article. If anything, I would suggest fully protecting the article while arbitration is going on, because any controversial edits made are likely to be disruptive and a major distraction to the arbitration proceedings. There is no need to ruch, the article isn't going anywhere, see the essay on WP:DEADLINE. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked myself (elsewhere) if there's a train leaving the station. I see two possible approaches here:

1. Protect the article, slug it out at arbitration (weeks, months...) unprotect the article, those left standing edit
2. Allow the arbitration to play out, in the meantime, editors less involved in the long-standing fracas can make some incremental fixes, particularly around getting the article away from stating conclusions about intelligence as such--there are only interpretations and statistical analyses and more interpretations of results. Not to mention there's not even any mention of intelligence testing correlated to haplotypes, etc.

As you are well aware, no content will be ruled on anyway, so assuming the usual "whack those most identified with either (or more) sides" eventually takes place, the balance of power created by the less heinously misbehaving left standing will be pretty much unchanged in any event. Which means we'll basically be where we were when the arbitration started. Everyone seems to have missed the point that at least where this particular topic is concerned it is not about editors warring, it is about interpretations warring; editorial conduct is merely the symptom. Whacking an editor or two or three won't change the basic issue regarding what I mention at the arbitration regarding what is in, and out, of scope regarding conclusions about intelligence.

   I'd also add that incremental non-controversial (clarify, make crisp) edits putting the article in the better place will aid progress once the arbitration is over, otherwise, as I indicated, we'll all just be right where we left off--clearly a fate to be avoided if at all possible. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As is usual in an ArbCom case, it's much better to just leave the article completely alone while arbitration is going on, whether or not there are content issues involved. In this respect, and out of respect for the ArbCom, I would ask you to stop editing the article, except maybe for obvious typos and syntactic errors. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then Arbcom has to commit to a speedy resolution, as the only possible outcome can be deciding who, if anyone, gets stuck on the sidelines. Yet another litany of principles of Misplaced Pages after a wait of several weeks will not come to the aid of this article, only a proper restructuring. Judging by comments at the proceedings, there are clearly those who have offered their observations who are not identified combatants and who have (IMHO) an appropriate vision for the article. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(The editing restrictions on my account are lifted now, so I can resume participation here.)

I agree with what Vecrumba said in his previous comment here. Since ArbCom won’t be ruling on article content, and the most likely outcome of the case is that some editors on both “sides” of the debate here will end up with editing restrictions, there isn’t any reason to avoid making large changes to the article while arbitration is underway. The only restriction that’s been placed on the article as a result of the arbitration is 1RR, so I think Ramdrake is overstating what’s necessary here. In addition, even if there actually were a restriction on making large changes to the article, it also isn’t being applied consistently here: Muntuwandi has reverted the new section that WavePart added, but not any of his changes to the lead. (I’m not saying I object to his changes to the lead; this is just a point about consistency.)

If the new section contains synth, as Muntuwandi stated, then that’s a problem that needs to be addressed. However, when we were discussing this section here, I specifically asked any editors who had content-based objections to this section to please point them out, and nobody provided any. This seems to be a recurring problem with this complaints about this section, including Mathsci’s and Ramdrake’s complaints about it in the arbitration case. Several editors have stated that they don’t like this section, and made general complaints about it containing synth or violating NPOV, but when I ask for a specific explanation of what needs to be changed about it in order to solve these problems, I generally don’t receive a response. Apart from the fact that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is never a valid reason to exclude something, the fact that a few editors are opposing the inclusion of this section while refusing to discuss specifics about it seems to run contrary to the expected process of discussing changes collaboratively and working towards compromise.

I think it’s important that we resolve this dispute sooner rather than later. If it continues to go the way it’s gone in the past, then it’s a good example of the stonewalling behavior that sometimes occurs in these articles, and ought to have ArbCom’s attention. Alternatively, the fact that their behavior is being scrutinized by ArbCom may result in editors being more cautious to avoid behavior that could be seen as stonewalling than they would be otherwise, in which case we’re more likely to be able to resolve the dispute over this section during the arbitration case than we would be at any other time. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think while the arbitration is still open, any major changes are going to be pointed to as disruptive, against consensus, et al. as the tone at the proceedings is getting a bit derisive/combative. Whatever is going on there, it's better that not spread back here and disrupt the fairly collegial atmosphere we've had here of late.

   I suggest we put up the rest of what was reverted (I believe that was Wavepart's) for discussion, see what emerges, and go on from there. BTW, after the mass revert, I went back to restore the copyedits and including "quantification" in the lead, leaving just the major section expansion; everything had been undone. I respect Ramdrake's request to not make major changes while the arbitration is in progress, but if we proceed prudently and editors are in agreement, I don't see any reason we can't at least start with debating the merits of the section that's pending restoration and see what develops. Sitting on one's thumbs is, well, sitting on one's thumbs after all. On the other hand, as has been mentioned, there's no train leaving the station so there's no reason not to proceed at a more leisurely (though not lazy) pace. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It’s now been around two days since I asked if anyone had any specific content-based suggestions about how this section needs to be improved, and nobody’s provided any. What would you suggest that we do at this point? “Sitting on our thumbs” with regard to this section is something I’d like to avoid also. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see you are already dressed in your combat uniform. I believe a general moratorium on major edits is still appropriate while the mediation is in process. Though arbcom does not deal specifically with content, whatever comes out of arbcom is likely to influence article's content. For example, at least two editors have suggested deleting the article, while this is unlikely to happen, if it were, whatever content proposals that exist now would become irrelevant. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Advocating deletion of the article is just an escalation of stating if one left the mediation, it's invalid. (That is, "If not my way, then not at all.") It's essential the article remain and the topic be discussed appropriately. Not my preference, but I would suggest we leave the article lie for a week or two and see how/if the arbitration progresses. I regret that there's too much drama at the arbitration currently that it won't immediately spill over here if there are any substantive additions here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I searched for the word "delete" in the case pages and did not find any advocacy for article deletion, I must have missed them. Please provide pointers. Thank you. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the article hasn’t been discussed anywhere in the arbitration case. I don’t know why Muntuwandi is claiming that it has.

Something I think it’s important to keep in mind about this section is that there’s a group of around three editors who strongly oppose its inclusion, but who don’t appear to have any specific content-based objections to it. So there tend to be a lot of non-specific complaints that this section contains synth or violates NPOV, as well as procedural objections such as that it shouldn’t be added because the entire article might get deleted soon. This was going on before the arbitration case started, and since ArbCom presumably won’t be ruling on content, it’s likely to also continue after the case is finished.

Vecrumba, even allowing for this, do you still think it’s best that we not attempt to make significant changes like this at the moment? What I’d like to avoid is having the inclusion of this section be delayed indefinitely by one procedural objection after another, without anyone ever coming up with any specific problems with it in terms of content, which is the way this has gone for the past few weeks. If you still think it would be most prudent to wait longer before trying to add this section, I guess I’m willing to defer to you about this, but in that case I’d also like to make a specific plan that we’re going to work on adding it at some point in the future. (Perhaps after the arbitration case is finished, assuming that ArbCom doesn’t make a ruling that somehow disallows the inclusion of this section.) Does that sound like a reasonable compromise? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This section states "maybe the best thing would be to not have an article about this topic at all?".

Also This section states "The present state of the article is grossly unsatisfactory, being, to my perception, full of bias and POV. It does not deserve the imprimatur of Misplaced Pages. Following the suggestion of Maunus below, it should be removed from mainspace on these grounds."

I only used deleting the article as an example, so don't read too much into it. The point is if we start debating content here, then we will have two processes running concurrently. There is the possibility that there would be a conflict between what is proposed in the arbitration and what is proposed here, say for example deleting the article. Since the mediation commenced, activity levels here have gone down significantly because most editors are focused on the mediation rather than here. Obviously it is a great time to slip in a controversial edit, because few are watching. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers to the doubts about the article. That there's difficulty does not mean the subject matter is intractable or not worthwhile. I do think it's a bit overstated that the article is a hopeless piece of crap and should be put out of its misery--it's worth discussing general next steps at least assuming the arbitration blows over fairly soon.

   I don't expect that the wielders of WP:ACRONYMS practiced just a bit too well will get the results they desire, but that's just my personal opinion. As I've mentioned, ArbCom does not rule on content, so it's up to the editors active at the article. (It's been my experience that on contentious subjects, only the highly motivated manage to have the fortitude to stick around; unfortunately that tends to lead to polarized positions with the middle ground getting caught in the crossfire, especially when uninformed editors wander in with personal notions of NPOV.) Lastly, more as an aside on references, I would just note that there are tons of articles on JSTOR which are generally accessible at public libraries, those tend to be more succinct and accessible (than full texts) and include discussions of competing viewpoints as well as historical background. These would be easier for newly participating editors to access to verify they are being represented fairly and accurately if used within the article. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba, could you please answer my question about the new section we’ve been discussing? As I said in my previous comment, if you’re certain that you’d rather not try to add it yet, I guess I can agree to wait on this as long as we make a specific plan to work on adding it at some point in the future. But I also really don’t see why waiting is necessary. ImperfectlyInformed is already suggesting (and making) changes to some of the other sections, and nobody has claimed that these changes need to wait until after the arbitration case is finished. If it isn’t a problem for these current changes to be made during the arbitration case (and I don’t think it is), why would it be a problem for us to work on adding the new section? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed suggestions are more along readability. I suppose I'm somewhat ambivalent about major new work at this moment. How about we start discussing the new section and see who decides to take time out from the arbitration and who joins that's new. My concern is that without fairly wide participation on major changes/additions, it will leave the article open to more attacks instead of advancing it. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

1RR reminder and full protection option

I would like to remind everyone that this article is currently under 1RR edit restriction, applying to all editors.

We had some slippage of that a few days ago. I would like to remind everyone of the 1RR restriction. If there are ongoing abuses of that I will block editors. If there's widespread abuse of that I will re-fully-protect the article until the Arbcom case is resolved.

The last few days have seen quite a bit of constructive discussion instead of head-butting on the article itself. I would like to encourage everyone to keep that up - that's what the talk page is for. Thanks.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if there were a {{oversight|arg|arg|...}} template which at least appeared on the talk page instead of editors needing to be psychic to list 1RR, prior enforcements, etc. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting but is it relevant to the topic? Not really.

In 2004, Richard Haier, professor of psychology in the Department of Pediatrics and colleagues at University of California, Irvine and the University of New Mexico used MRI to obtain structural images of the brain in 47 normal adults who also took standard IQ tests. The study showed a correlation of IQ scores with the location and volume of gray matter tissue and that only about 6% of brain tissue appeared to relate to IQ.<ref>Richard Haier (July 19, 2004). "Human Intelligence Determined by Volume and Location of Gray Matter Tissue in Brain". Brain Research Institute, UC Irvine College of Medicine. Retrieved August 6, 2006.</ref>

Interesting but ultimately off topic. Marrying up to any cranial volume studies by ethnic or racial groups would be synthesis (and I rather doubt any were MRIs of brain activity), so just noting here that after copy-editing I ultimately removed it. Unless there's any objection, I think it's worthwhile going forward to inventory all changes on talk with at least a brief comment (not necessarily quoting the affected text) to keep a running history that's more navigable than plowing through diffs. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Source bloat and trimming unnecessary references

I've mentioned before in edit summaries and on the talk page that I find the number of sources used in this article tiring, and many of them are not accessible or even if somewhat accessible (abstract online), the accessibility isn't provided in the reference. Source bloat makes it harder to get a grasp for the page and inaccessible sources makes it very difficult for third-parties to verify synthesis or bad references (bad refs include ones that don't support their statements with references). For example, in the Debate Assumptions section of 18 June 2010 page, no less than twelve sources are just tossed out there without any clear need. Only 1 of the sources is necessary - the 1996 APA (American Psychologist) report is balanced, relatively authoritative, and completely accessible, and the others are generally redundant with it; many of these 12 sources are not used elsewhere, or are used duplicatively in other areas. I had previously removed some of these refs.

We need to focus on facts. There are tons of articles out there but most of them cite the same facts and make the same arguments. If you find a review that you don't necessarily need to back up a certain fact (because it's covered in a more accessible review article), but that you think provides more detail and is therefore important, you can cite it as additional support, but only if you include that reasoning inline so people understand why you're duplicatively supporting

I've been reviewing the editing history and I ran across where these refs were reintroduced by Captain Occam. I realize that there is a temptation to turn a Misplaced Pages article into a "citation database" where all citations are included covering an issue (for an example see ref 29 where someone added 17 (!) refs for James Watsons's comment), but Misplaced Pages is not designed for that. I realize that another motivation may be that something may be too controversial for "one citation", but this is also problematic - if the source should be attributed as an opinion (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), then doubling up on citations probably won't change that fact. In this area there are lot of things which which plain need to be attributed. II | (t - c) 05:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

They may not be accessible to you. But for someone who wishes to go beyond an encyclopedia article to do serious research, they will find these books and articles at any good library or through inter-library loan. Multiple sources are important for anyone who wishes to do further research, and that makes Misplaced Pages articles very valuable research tools. Moreover, this is a controversial topic and some people need to know ho wmuch research there was on any given strand.

There is an old saying around Misplaced Pages: never remove informative content. Please do not delete sources just because you do not find them useful, you are not the only one who uses Misplaced Pages. The only concern should be: does the source support what it says? i you have evidence that it does not, bring it to us. If you do not care to go to a library and find the journal or book and read it, well, it is a free country, you are under no obligation to do that. But do not delete informative content, including sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(I do agree that 17 sources for one thing is excessive) Slrubenstein | Talk 17:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"The only concern should be: does the source support what it says?" Indeed, and in order for me to review this article and see if these sources support the statements, I have to do literally 10 interlibrary loans? Do you understand how much of a load that puts on strained library funds? I don't think that's reasonable - it multiplies the amount of work people have to do severalfold. The additional references are not informative content since they are not being used to support any real content - if I wanted to find a list of references on the IQ gap, I'd run a quick search and Google Scholar/Books and have all that I needed. I could probably add hundreds of review articles/books to the article, hanging in addition to accessible articles. Is that helpful? As I said, if you find a source which is not necessary to support content but could help some library searcher (who are relatively few among Misplaced Pages's readers), then put it inline with a statement such as: "For an accessible introduction to , see: ." Otherwise you're just confusing the reader with extra information and wasting the reader's time by making them pull books which are in all likelihood redundant to the accessible articles.

I will wait for other comments who I hope will see that the citation bloat is truly harmful to readers. II | (t - c) 19:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you. This is a messy camel-as-horse-designed-by-committee article. It would be really useful if you could go through the sources and propose which ones are really good for the article (secondary sources that deal at sufficient length with the topic). What on earth has happened with footnote 29? What are all those bullet pointed references doing? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm most familiar with Nisbett, who I think does a good job, and a little with Rushton and Jensen. I think with Nisbett's 2005 paper (freely accessible), Nisbett's 2009 appendix (also freely accessible), and Rushton and Jensen's response to Nisbett's 2009 book (also freely accessible), we should be able to cover the majority of the arguments using the most up-to-date evidence. The hereditarian researchers tend to be less clear writers in my experience. II | (t - c) 00:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The he said she said polarized presentation does not help either. Any article needs to be written from a point of view, NPOV does not mean devoid of anything other than a summary of who said what when. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. An overabundance of references is usually symptomatic of an article locked in contentious editing. The atmosphere has to change before references can be pared down and narrative improved. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Something that I think needs to be considered here is what the statement with multiple sources actually is. In this case, the statement is “There is a consensus among intelligence researchers that IQ, like height, within the same population is significantly heritable.” This sentence currently has seven citations, to a wide sampling of secondary sources from various researchers about this topic, while ImperfectlyInformed’s proposed change removed all of the citations except the APA report.

The APA report demonstrates the position of the APA, which is a pretty large body of experts, but demonstrating that something is the position of the APA is not enough to demonstrate that it is supported by a consensus of intelligence researchers. Any other citation to a single researcher or group of researchers would not demonstrate this either. I think that in order to support the statement that there is a consensus among intelligence researchers about this, it’s necessary to provide citations to several different secondary sources that point it out, showing that they all generally agree with one another about it. In other words, in this case I think the multiple citations are probably necessary in order to support the sentence being cited. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is worse than I thought. The APA report does not seem to say that there is a consensus among the researchers that the intelligence is inherited (page 85 discusses IQ's heritability), so it will have to be removed as supporting this statement. I suspect that the others similarly do not use the word 'consensus'. Listing a few supporters (or reporters) of certain scientific findings does not create automatically create a consensus that these findings are valid. Per Misplaced Pages's original research policy, the source has to directly support what it is being said to say - we even have a policy page discussing this very issue (WP:RS/AC). The wording will have to be rephrased, although I'm not necessarily opposed to simply saying that IQ is significantly heritable without in-text attribution. If the other sources say consensus, please pull out the relevant passages and list them for our evaluation. We can then discuss whether they've adequately supported their use of the word consensus and whether we want to say there is consensus. First, however, we need a source which actually says there is consensus. I'll give you a week to support the use of these sources before I delete them and rephrase in accordance with the APA report's actual wording. Incidentlly, Race and intelligence#Heritability_within_and_between_groups needs a lot of work - it just drops a bunch of technical variables into a table without introducing them at all. II | (t - c) 00:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I got rid of the table. If I remember correctly, it was added to the “molecular genetics” section by an anonymous IP, which kept adding it back every time anyone tried to remove it. Eventually I moved the table to the “heritability within and between groups” section because I figured if it had to be in the article, that was a better place for it. But I agree that the article doesn’t need it in general.

I’m not the one who originally added most of the references to the sentence about IQ’s within-group heritability, so I don’t have access to most of the sources used for it, and it’s unlikely that I’ll be able to get access to them within a week, especially while I’m currently involved in an arbitration case for this article. If you care about fixing this sentence ASAP, I’d encourage you to look through some of the other sources being used for it, and see if any of them use the word “consensus”. If they don’t, your suggestion of saying that IQ is significantly heritable without in-text attribution sounds like the best solution. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence#Heritability_within_and_between_groups

@ImperfectlyInformed, I agree that the treatment of the subject matter needs to be made much more approachable, in particular, including (IMO) in the opening paragraph that there is environmental impact on inheritable factors, as opposed to it coming out later in the section in a sort of techno-speak. (If anyone feels I'm misrepresenting the section, feel free to correct me. The section above was getting a bit long, hence the split.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Edit moratorium"?

I came back after a week or so distraction by my day job and saw that the heavily discussed policy section update that I merged in was reverted. While I don't have any great attachment to this section, I don't quite agree with the reasoning which was given for the revert which was "there is a moratorium on major changes while Arbcom is in process". First, to my knowledge I am not a part of any arbcom proceeding on this article. Second, there is no formal notice anywhere about a "moratorium" on changes to the article. In fact, the whole reason I came here in the first place was because I saw an article that was deteriorating into chaos and POV pushing due to editorial conflict, and I think this is a topic which can be covered in a neutral manner by covering a similar scope but making changes to the way the material is presented. Thus I wholeheartedly reject the notion of a moratorium on fixing the problems with this article. Arbcom does not rule on content, and cannot be expected to fix the article. Arbcom can at best fix problems in the process, and it tends to do this very slowly. WE have to fix the article. WavePart (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I will not revert the new policy section back in yet today, but after giving a chance for response I do intend to add it again unless someone can either show a formal moratorium on changes to the article, or can present specific content-based objections for things that need to be improved in that section. WavePart (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Start-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles