Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 93

This is an archive of past discussions about Race and intelligence. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

→

Infographic and agenda pushing loonies?

Many years ago (in a galaxy far, far away!), as part of my general masochistic involvement with the dispute resolution team, I often found myself dealing with 3RR's and vanishing infographics on this page. There was one highly sourced highly documented infographic that agenda pushing loons would come here and arbitrarily delete, or try and claim copyright issues, or quite generally do anything to have it removed because it offended their sensibilities rather than it having any actual real reason to require removal. Many, many, many times it was reinstated over and over. To be blunt, whilst I admire the current quality of the argument, it explained more about the topic than any amount of text could.

One of the main reasons it was taken down was because 'geolocation does not intrinsically represent race', however one of the reasons it was reinstated overall was that it contributed more to the understanding of the topic, allowed a very valuable graphical / visualization based evaluation tool into the global problem of intelligence, education, and the difference between nations--thus races by default--as to what kind of a chance in life a kid in Japan would get versus a kid in Chad. The value of this graphic was unquestionable, whilst it did not specify 'all people in this nation are of X race', it was often argued successfully that the nations which vary drastically from the rest (ie: the ones with the low IQ rankings and dismal education and poorest conditions) were nations where the population were nearly entirely of one specific race and often only a matter of a small handful of different peoples within that race.

I cannot verify this is exactly the image in question, but for all intents and purposes it does appear to be the same layout, same overall graphic look and feel, and as best as I can tell the same data set: http://robertlindsay.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/800px-iq_by_country-by-current-resident-majority.png

I was wondering why the graphic ended up being taken down? It's quite a shame to see agenda pushing loons who have all the time in the world to constantly delete and revert content won out over the rationalists who were addressing the simple fact that without diagnosing a systemic problem and challenge that our people face as a whole when it comes to a woefully imbalanced chance at leading a fulfilling pleasant life we can never, ever hope to see this vast inequality between nations, races, ethnic groups, or peoples bridged or eventually destroyed entirely.

It always saddens me when loons win out, but in this case, having spent many days having to deal with dispute resolution on the subject and unanimously finding in the favor of keeping the graphic, seeing that it has been ninja deleted somewhere along the way is quite a shame. Food for thought for the current editors, perhaps it could be reintroduced? Perhaps it could be looked into what else has been ninja-deleted by the small clique who'd rather undo all of academia just because they feel if you ignore a problem it'll go away. I hope this snippet of input from an old timer helps improve the quality of this article. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Dunno. I think the obvious starting point would be the quality of the underlying data. Presumably it comes from Lynn? Lynn's data set was full of flaws...unusual, sometimes cherry-picked data (using data from a school for children with disabilities in Spain as the data source for one African country, cherry-picking data for another [Nigeria?], using neighbouring countries to estimate data, and, of course, issues with standardisation or lack thereof, and the impact that has on comparisons between different data sets). That alone makes it a non-starter. Guettarda (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Lynn's data isn't perfect. There may be some flaws but I would say it would be extremely difficult to do such a research on a grand scale, such as global IQ by countries, without some flaws. There is some original research by Lynn, but most of his figures are secondary from other researchers. His data is frequently cited however. Mentioned constantly in major journals and so does belong in the article as well as the criticism of his research. It would also address the international issue as Lynn's study would be the largest most comprehensive study on global IQ. BlackHades (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

On Lead Restore. Again.

KillerChihuahua's reason for removal of the lead the 4th time was that the lead wasn't international enough. But the lead can only reflect what is currently in the article. WP:IMPERFECT would not be a valid reason for removal. The debate of whether the article is US centric or not is irrelevant to the issue of lead restore. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is suppose to have a summary of major components of the article. Per WP:PRESERVE, the lead should have never been removed in the first place regardless of the "US centric" debate. So I would respectfully ask, is there a reason why the lead shouldn't be restored per WP:LEAD and per WP:PRESERVE? BlackHades (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to cite PRESERVE, I can simply restore the old longstanding consensus version of the lead, and we can work forwards from that. I have no problem with that approach, but the last time I did that you pitched a fit. Why you feel it is so necessary to keep an entire paragraph which is based on only the US that you will continually edit war to keep it in? Do you think this is a US thing, and that elsewhere intelligence has no racial issues? If so, please provide diffs. Killer Chihuahua 17:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What would be the point of restoring back 2 years and reverting 2 years of work? I highly that you or anyone else would let me get away with such a tactic. Not to mention the IQ differences in the US is mentioned the same in the old lead as in the current one so the old lead is irrelevant here and doesn't even address your issue. The lead is suppose to have a summary of the body per WP:LEAD. Do you agree with this or not?

Actually you're edit warring to remove it. I'm going by WP:LEAD. I have no idea what you're going by. Remember the last time the lead was restored, several editors were contributing to fixing up the current lead including YOU yourself as seen here. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

So after 20 edits to improve the lead by several editors including yourself, you come out of nowhere and just completely remove it here. [21]. I've repeatedly requested if there's any reasons why the lead shouldn't be restored per WP:LEAD. I've yet to get a response on this from anyone. The US centric debate above is irrelevant. Per WP:LEAD and per WP:PRESERVE, the lead should be restored regardless of the outcome or conclusion of the US centric debate. There's been 20 edits to improve the lead by several editors that you reverted. The lead should be restored and improvements continued to be made. BlackHades (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackHades, why are you creating a new section when there's an ongoing discussion two sections up? Please reply up there (where my question to you is still unanswered) rather than creating yet another duplicate section. Guettarda (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Because as previously stated, the US centric debate is a separate debate. Whether the article is US centric or not would be irrelevant that the lead it suppose to have a summary of the body per WP:LEAD. BlackHades (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Then why did you repeat the same statement you made up there?[22][23] Guettarda (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Because I was responding to Atethnekos who stated that whether the article is US centric or not shouldn't have any bearing on the removal of relevant US content. But no one has responded to the issue raised by either Atethnekos or by me. That section has simply turned into whether the article as a whole is US centric without any mention of the lead or addressing any concerns raised by either Atethnekos or by me. The issue of lead restore is a separate debate. BlackHades (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

We're starting to get sidetracked again. Are there any reasons that the lead shouldn't be restored per WP:LEAD and per WP:PRESERVE? I would like a direct response to this. BlackHades (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been 11 days. Looks like there isn't any. Please no false accusations of edit warring. I'm restoring now so we can all continue improving the lead as several editors were doing before the removal. BlackHades (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hereditarian Position is Mainstream.

The argument that the hereditarian position, such as Jensen or Rushton, is "non-mainstream", "fringe", "not relevant" seems to be inserted ad nauseam by some and then used to justify removing or omitting relevant hereditarian content from the article. This is to put to rest once and for all that the hereditarian position IS a significant and mainstream view in the field. That countless independent reliable secondary sources have cited Snyderman/Rothman and affirmed the validity of the survey. That the hereditary viewpoint isn't a "small circle of social scientists" but actually very mainstream and arguably the majority according to countless secondary sources. I respectfully request editors to not beat this dead horse any further. This section should be bookmarked for future reference, for when inevitably, the next person erroneously makes the claim the hereditarian position is "fringe" and attempts to remove relevant content that meets WP:V.

“An overwhelming majority also believe that individual genetic inheritance contributes to variations in IQ within the white community, and a smaller majority express the same view about the black-white and SES differences in IQ. While the private consensus among IQ experts has shifted to meet Jensen's “controversial” views, the public impression of their views has not moved at all.”

Gottfredson, Linda S. "Egalitarian fiction and collective fraud." Society 31.3 (1994): 53-59.

"It should also be mentioned that Rushton has had substantial success and inﬂuence in the discipline; he himself reported that 52% of scientists believed that the Black–White IQ difference was partly genetic (Rushton 1999: 102). He was referring to a study by Snyderman and Rothman (1987), published in one of the leading journals of the discipline (American Psychologist), in which it was reported that the majority of psychologists and educational experts in intelligence testing ‘‘feel’’ (137) that the Black–White difference in IQ is partially heritable. Although this American Psychologist study is more than 20 years old, it appears that Rushton’s work has received a certain degree of credibility in psychology based on the fact that he uses empirical methods and is quick to employ the latest technologies in his research."

Teo, Thomas. "Empirical Race Psychology and the Hermeneutics of Epistemological Violence." Human Studies 34.3 (2011): 237-255.

“Many experts also think that genetic differences are at least partially to blame for existing Black -White differences in academic achievement. Snyderman and Rothman (as cited in Miller, 1995) discussed a 1984 survey that questioned 1,020 experts on intelligence, most of whom were professors and university-based researchers who study testing, psychology, and education. As Miller (1995) reported, almost half (46%) expressed the opinion that Black-White differences in intelligence are at least partially genetic. Of the others, 15% said that only environment was responsible, 24% regarded the available evidence as insufficient, and 14 did not answer the question (Miller, 1995, pp. 186-187). In other words, only 15% clearly disagreed. With expert opinion slanted so strongly in favor of the genetic hypothesis and widespread media attention to books such as The Bell Curve, there is little prospect that “rumors of inferiority” will cease or that racial differences in estimated potential will disappear.”

Ferguson, Ronald F. "Teachers' perceptions and expectations and the black-white test score gap." Urban Education 38.4 (2003): 460-507.

“Jensen’s view, as it happens, is more mainstream than Nisbett’s. Roughly two thirds of those responding to the Snyderman survey identified themselves as liberals. Yet 53 percent agreed that the black-white gap involves genetic as well as environmental factors.”

Cowley, Geoffrey. "Testing the science of intelligence." Newsweek 24 (1994): 56-60.

“Some believe that there is a public agreement that genes are not appropriate for explaining ability differences between groups. A closer look reveals within science the contrary view: In an older opinion poll among N= 1020 experts (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987) 15% believed that only environment is relevant for Black-White IQ-differences, but 45% believed that environment and genes are relevant. . Of course, majority opinion is no criterion for truth. Furthermore, a recently published textbook from a researcher well known for his lack of enthusiasm for genetic explanations of group differences stressed the possibility of genetic factors: ‘‘Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. Nisbett’s extreme statement [genes play no role at all] has virtually no chance of being true.”

Rindermann, Heiner. "African cognitive ability: Research, results, divergences and recommendations." Personality and Individual Differences (2012).

“In 1988 Stanley Rothman and Mark Snyderman published The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy [50]. Using data from their survey of over 1000 scholars in ﬁelds familiar with IQ testing, such as psychology, sociology, and behavioral genetics [51], Rothman and Snyderman took a quantitative look at media coverage of IQ and demonstrated how this media coverage habitually diverged with
mainstream scholarly opinion. First, the popular assertion of widespread chaos within science over intelligence measurement is false. This has been demonstrated, apart from the evidence of the literature itself, by a survey of scientists showing broad scholarly consensus [50,51], by a jury of scholars organized by the American Psychological Association to summarize basic agreements in the ﬁeld.”

Malloy, Jason. "James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: Faces the consequences." Medical Hypotheses 70.6 (2008): 1081-1091.

“There is no real dispute that races differ in measured intelligence, and not much dispute among experts on intelligence that the difference is real in the sense that it is reflected in unequal school and job performance. There is more debate as to what causes it. Even in the 1980's the experts were divided three to one in favor of explaning for black/white differences in IQ by both genetic and environmental causes.”

Miller, Edward M. "Eugenics: economics for the long run." Research in biopolitics 5 (1997): 391-416.

“Mario Bunge suggests that hereditarianism about racial differences in intelligence
is charlatanism, not science. He says that Jensen's hypothesis that the lower IQ of blacks is partly due to genetic factors "was unanimously rejected by the scientific community." (Bunge 1996, 106) In actuality, according to the poll of experts in the relevant fields, of all the scientists who felt qualified to express a view on that issue, 53% agreed with Jensen”

Sesardic, Neven. "Philosophy of science that ignores science: Race, IQ and heritability." Philosophy of Science (2000): 580-602.

“Now, however, the role of inheritance in behavior has become widely accepted, even for sensitive
domains such as IQ (Snyderman and Rothman, 1988).”

Plomin, Robert, Gerald E. McClearn, and Grazyna Gora-Maslak. "Quantitative trait loci and psychopharmacology: response to commentaries." Journal of Psychopharmacology 5.1 (1991): 23-28.

“Many experts in the field (Snyderman & Rothman, 1988) agree with Herrnstein and Murray when they state that "it seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences.”

Bouchard, T. J., and D. D. Dorfman. "Two views of the bell curve."Contemporary Psychology 40.5 (1995).

BlackHades (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to this. You're misuse of sources here is beyond the pale. You've got gaggle of 20 year old articles and op-eds, many of them primary sources, many of them from proponents of Rushton's theories, many don't mention the hereditarian viewpoint, some of them don't even discuss race. Do you really expect people to still take you seriously? aprock (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you pick the one source that you think is the most reliable, most independent source, which makes the most solid case that the hereditarian viewpoint is mainstream. I'm willing to wager there isn't a single meaningful source in the lot here. aprock (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to this. Your ignoring of sources here is beyond the pale. I've got several sources listed from major journals, many of them secondary sources, many of them from the mainstream, many that mention that Jensen's viewpoint is the majority mainstream viewpoint, a lot of them discuss race. Do you really expect people to still take you seriously? BlackHades (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You could respond by offering up the source which you think is the highest quality. Which one is it? One of the editorials? aprock (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

They're not all editorials. Several are peer reviewed studies. All of them are secondary sources for Snyderman & Rothman and all of them meets WP:V. It's also odd that you want to dismiss editorials when so much content in this article is devoted to primary source editorials, op-eds, etc for the environmental position. Such as Nisbett. Given that you want to dismiss editorials, op-eds, etc would it be okay with you if I remove all the content in the article related to the primary source of Nisbett? Who is definitely not mainstream and who's viewpoint has been labeled by Hunt & Carlson as extreme. Or are editorials, op-eds, etc only relevant if it supports the environmental view? BlackHades (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that Nisbett's book is an editorial? Really? I've repeated held up Hunt/Carlson as a high quality secondary source. I've never held up Nisbett's book as such. You still haven't said which source you think makes the case the best. aprock (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about Nisbett's commentary on Rushton/Jensen in APA. There's also a lot of other environmental content other than Nisbett in this article based on editorials, op-eds, letters to editors, etc. I also have many more secondary sources of Snyderman/Rothman from books if you consider those more relevant. Asking me to name one is a pointless request as they all meet WP:V. BlackHades (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's useful to know that (as I suspected) people are using the same terms to mean different things. Since it seems to mean different things to different people, can we stop using imprecisely defined terms like "hereditarian" without qualification? Guettarda (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

And why do we really put so much weight on what psychologists things about the nature of gene-environment interactions? Circa 1985 you might have been able to talk about "genetic effects" without needing to prove anything, but with the rise of quantitative genetics in the 90s and genomics in the last decade, you can't any more. These days you're expected to deposit sequences in Genbank when you talk about genes. Guettarda (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

And rightly so, too. Before modern genetics, which is a very recent development, those who spoke of race and heritability were largely guessing. We should weight sources accordingly; more recent ones which use modern genetic science far outweigh older ones which do not. Killer Chihuahua 17:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Because the research of Race and Intelligence are overwhelmingly done by psychologists. Whether it is from a genetic or environmental perspective. The vast majority of WP:reliable sources on this issue are by psychologists. I would say over 90%+ of the references in this article is cited to psychologists in the field. BlackHades (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that >90% of the sources in this article don't have the requisite qualifications to speak to the issue of genetics. That creates a potential problem, does it not? Guettarda (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

sources do not support mainstream claim

I've reviewed each of the quotes supplied, and the body of several of the sources. What we have here is a clear case of editor synthesis. Three of the sources are editoral/polemic in nature, and cannot be used to support content outside what the authors think. The rest of the sources do not equate the hereditarian viewpoint, as espoused by Rushton/Jensen, et. al., as being mainstream. Instead, they echo the viewpoint that both environment and genetics are factors that most consider relevant. This viewpoint is more robustly supported by higher quality secondary sources, and is not an issue which is in dispute. What is in dispute is the imporper claim that "hereditarianism is mainstream". None of these sources can be used to support that claim. In fact, there are many sources which explicity identify the views of Rushton/Jensen et. al. as being far outside the mainstream.

Gottfredson, Linda S. "Egalitarian fiction and collective fraud." Society 31.3 (1994): 53-59.

This is a polemic work by one of the leading proponents of the hereditarian view. This is certainly not an independent sources, and as a polemic can only be reliably used to represent Gottfredson's own views. She also misrepresents the survy which did not equate genetic contribution, with the more extreme views of Jensen.

Teo, Thomas. "Empirical Race Psychology and the Hermeneutics of Epistemological Violence." Human

Studies 34.3 (2011): 237-255.
This source is just quoting Rushton's support for the survey without any independent synthesis from the secondary source. This source can only be used to establish that Rushton thought that the survey vindicated his view.

Ferguson, Ronald F. "Teachers' perceptions and expectations and the black-white test score gap."

Urban Education 38.4 (2003): 460-507.
This source does not mention the hereditarian viewpoint at all. Using this source to establish that is a clear example of WP:SYNTH.

Cowley, Geoffrey. "Testing the science of intelligence." Newsweek 24 (1994): 56-60.

While this is a good source, it establishes that Jensen's view is more mainstream than Nisbett's. It does not say that Jensen's view is mainstream. That is again an example of WP:SYNTH

Rindermann, Heiner. "African cognitive ability: Research, results, divergences and

recommendations." Personality and Individual Differences (2012).
This source likewise cannot be used to support your mainstream claims. However, it does support the fact that the 100% environmental position is not mainstream, which is a different thing.

Malloy, Jason. "James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: Faces the consequences." Medical

Hypotheses 70.6 (2008): 1081-1091.
This is an editoria, and cannot be used for anything beyond establishing Malloy's view.

Miller, Edward M. "Eugenics: economics for the long run." Research in biopolitics 5 (1997):

391-416.
This source does not reference the hereditarian viewpoint at all, and does not support your claim.

Sesardic, Neven. "Philosophy of science that ignores science: Race, IQ and heritability."

Philosophy of Science (2000): 580-602.
This is an advocate of the hereditarian hypothesis using the poll to support his own views. And even he doesn't say that Jensen's view is mainstream. This footnote cannot be used to establish that the hereditarian view is mainstream.

Plomin, Robert, Gerald E. McClearn, and Grazyna Gora-Maslak. "Quantitative trait loci and

psychopharmacology: response to commentaries." Journal of Psychopharmacology 5.1 (1991): 23-28.
Again we have a source which makes no mention of the hereditarian viewpoints of Rushton/Jensen.

Bouchard, T. J., and D. D. Dorfman. "Two views of the bell curve."Contemporary Psychology 40.5 (1995).

Again, we have no statement that the views of Rushton/Jensen are mainstream. What we do have is a statement that both genetic and environmental factors "have something to do with racial differences."

Given that the survey is over two decades old in an area of study that has changed radically over that time, the survey is primarily of historical significance. And even then, it's role has been broadly relegated to two roles (A) establishing that both genetics and environment are relevant, something which high quality secondary sources agree upon, and (B) that hereditarians have used it to vindicate their views. aprock (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:CHERRY. You conveniently skip and ignore text that refutes and invalidates your points. You also previously agreed with using Nisbett as a source and called him a "well respected scientist" as shown here. [24] Given that you have now acknowledged that Jensen is more mainstream than Nisbett, it's axiomatic that Jensen should be given more weight than Nisbett. BlackHades (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You conveniently skip and ignore text that refutes and invalidates your points Which text from which source was that?
You also previously agreed with using Nisbett as a source ... I've also agreed with using Rushton/Jensen as a source
and called him a "well respected scientist" as shown here. This is what I wrote, and I stand by it: The only arguments against Nisbett I've really seen on this talk page are based on google scholar, which cannot be used to establish due weight. Given that it's a relatively recent tertiary source by a well respected scientist published for a lay audience, it's hard to see how it is out of place here. That said, it's certainly the case that we should also incorporate other tertiary sources like Hunt and Daley, while reducing reliance on many of the primary sources in the article.
Given that you have now acknowledged that Jensen is more mainstream than Nisbett, it's axiomatic that Jensen should be given more weight than Nisbett. He already is.

As explained here: Nisbett's oversized footprint here is attributable in no small measure to the impact of at least one on/off again topically banned user editing under two disclosed accounts who may have earnestly believed Nisbett provided "balance". I fully support sourcing the article content to other high quality sources. Cheers. aprock (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This whole argument is a mess. Before we continue yelling at each other, we need to figure out what we mean by various terms. I'm no expert on the wars among schools of thought in the social sciences. The hereditarianism article says that hereditarians have explicitly abandoned the standard social science model. Is this true? If so, it seems strange that they would be considered mainstream within the social sciences. Are they considered mainstream within the life sciences? It seems rather odd that we biologists would defer to psychologists on this topic. The idea that you can assert genetic cause without genetic data would be laughed at by most biologists. So: mainstream in educational psychology? Mainstream in neurobiology? Or mainstream in some narrow subfield that calls itself "intelligence" research? The second question involves making a leap from "hereditarian" to the Rushton-Jensen-Lynn group. It's one thing to say that there's a "significant" impact of genetics on intelligence (which is, of course, not the same as saying that intelligence is heritable). It's quite another to believe that there's a difference based on race, and quite something else to believe that this difference has been demonstrated.

When we say "mainstream" we need to be careful what we're saying. When we say "hereditarian" we need to make sure that we aren't conflating a whole host of ideas. And when we're talking about race, we need to make sure that we aren't conflating different ideas. Guettarda (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Standard social science model appears to be a label made up by opponents of the "model", not a model social scientists positively adhere too. Steven Pinker seems to be among those who have argued against the alleged model in the The Blank Slate. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources mentioned for the extraordinary claim in the heading of this section are neither the most current nor the most authoritative on the issue, especially in light of standard Wikipedia policy of preferring reliable secondary sources for all articles, and especially preferring Reliable Sources on Medicine for issues that have medical implications. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

I tagged Snyderman and Rothman (1987) with {{fv}} as a source for Snyderman and Rothman (1988) because (a) it makes no mention of S&R (1988), and (b) because it makes no mention of "liberal bias in the media". In this edit BlackHades removes {{fv}} from Snyderman and Rothman (1987), and added Rindermann (2012). To begin with, adding Rindermann doesn't change the fact that S&R fails to support the statements attributed to it, so it was inappropriate to remove the tag. But it gets worse: Rindermann does not cite S&R 1988, they cite S&R 1987, so it's no better a source. When I reverted that edit, BlackHades AGAIN removed the {{fv}} from S&R 1987, and added Eysenck (1994). But Eysenck references S&R 1988, he doesn't say a word about the survey, and while he mentions "bias" in the media, he says nothing about "liberal media bias". In a subsequent edit s/he added a reference to Herrnstein & Murray and mentions pp. 295-296 in the edit summary. I don't have access to that source at present, but given BH's history of misusing sources just here, in these few edits, this edit also needs independent verification.

I'm shocked that anyone would engage in such blatant misuse of sources. I don't think we should have to tolerate this sort of behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me... You are edit warring to include an unnecessary tag. First, there is nothing wrong with simply citing the primary source here. This has already been explained to you earlier by The Devil's Advocate.

"What you cite is describing the policy on original research, which does permit the use of primary sources and the case page actually supports this as well. It is interpretation and analysis of those sources that is not permitted. Describing what a primary source states is well within the bounds of policy."--The Devil's Advoate

Secondly, if there's something not supported by the source, then just remove what isn't supported. Adjust the text instead of putting unnecessary tags. What specifically are you saying is unsupported? You never made this clear. The liberal bias aspect? Then just remove it. It's not that hard. If you don't have access to a source, why couldn't you just ask? Here is "The Bell Curve" pg 295-296:

This brings us to the flashpoint of intelligence as a public topic: the question of genetic differences between the races. Expert opinion, when it is expressed at all, diverges widely. In the 1980s, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman, a psychologist and a political scientist, respectively, sent a questionnaire to a broad sample of 1,020 scholars, mostly academicians, whose specialties give them reason to be knowledgeable about IQ. (Snyderman & Rothman 1988) Among the other questions, they asked "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of the black-white differences in IQ?" (emphasis in the questionnaire item). The answers were divided as follows:

-The difference is entirely due to environmental variation: 15 percent
-The difference is entirely due to genetic variation: 1 percent
-The difference is a product of both genetic and environmental variation: 45 percent.
-The data are insufficient to support any reasonable opinion: 24 percent
-No response: 14 percent

"Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. A. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. Free Press. pg 295-296

BlackHades (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I just removed the "liberal bias" text. If this was what you were disputing then you should have made that clear. I sincerely hope this matter is concluded now. BlackHades (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Dude - you're proven the kind of person you are. You're willing to make claims about sources that are OUTRIGHT falsehoods. Not once, but repeatedly. I tagged the source, and you removed the tag, which amounts to making a false claim about its content. Then you added a second source, falsely implying it supported the text. When I removed that source and restored the tag on the first source you AGAIN de-tagged the source (third misrepresentation of the source), and then added another source which did not support the claim. That's FOUR times, in one short span of editing, that you made false claims about sources. The pattern of your editing is well established...NOTHING you say can be trusted. I don't think any of use should have to deal with people like that. Guettarda (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This is your 2nd frivolous section on talk you've created on me now. This amounts to harassment at this point. You make assertions without even checking sources I list. For example, making a blind assumption that Herrnstein and Murray source wasn't supportive without even bothering to check. You don't even make it clear what you're asking for. If you had a problem with the "liberal bias" text, you should have specifically stated so. Unnecessary tagging is WP:Disruptive editing. Such as tagging "The review article "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" by Rushton and Jensen was published in 2005." Why on Earth would you tag this? You're actually looking for a secondary source on this? To validate what? That a publication exists that was printed in 2005 called "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability"? Proper use of primary source is allowed. Note that you conveniently don't bother tagging any environmental text that is cited to primary sources. Apparently you thought all of those are perfectly okay. The better question is why should any of us have to deal with such blatant disruptive editing. BlackHades (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackHades, correct use of tags and discussion of improper removal of same and misuse of sources is not harassment by any stretch of the imagination. Please see WP:HARASS. Given that you have recently come off a block for what amounts to a form of harassment (frivolous SPI report is what was noted in the block) it rather astonishes me that you would so casually throw the accusation at an editor for bringing up concerns which involve our core policies. Attacking Guettarda does not obviate his concerns, nor does it render the "sources" used adequate for the content. Either work with others to rewrite the content to match the sources (best), find better sources (might be problematic), or withdraw your position. Don't think that personally attacking another editor will deflect attention from the content and sourcing issues. Killer Chihuahua 17:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This whole discussion, in my opinion, has spiraled out of control away from AGF for no good reason. A perfectly reasonable interpretation: Guettarda could find no explicit mention of a "liberal" bias in the sources and rightfully tagged. BlackHades, working from a particular point of view (as everyone does), understood the "bias" being discussed in the sources as being a liberal one, and so saw no issue with that particular claim. Guettarda's tags and edit comments do not say what exactly in the paragraph is disputed, and BlackHades thought it was something other than the "liberal" bit, so kept putting on references to the survey (BTW, Eysenck 1994 does mention, on p.66, the survey discussed in S&R 1988). The solution is for those including claims to stick as closely to the sources as possible within reason and for those disputing claims to be as specific as possible within reason.

Finally, Killer, w/r/t your recent edit, the survey was given to over 1000, but had only 600 respondents.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have read all those sources, and have a photocopy of the shorter Snyderman and Rothman source at hand. That source is often relied on to say things it actually doesn't see in edits of Wikipedia articles, and all edits that cite it should be examined very carefully. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Genetic arguments

The section on genetic arguments is missing some key lines of reasoning. One, for example, is that the mean differences correlate with heritability estimates. This is found with structural equation modeling:

Probably the most rigorous methodology presently available to test the default hypothesis is the application of structural equation modeling to what is termed the biometric decomposition of a phenotypic mean difference into its genetic and environmental components. This methodology is an extraordinarily complex set of mathematical and statistical procedures, an adequate explanation of which is beyond the scope of this book, but for which detailed explanations are available. It is essentially a multiple regression technique that can be used to statistically test the differences in “goodness-of-fit” between alternative models, such as whether (1) a phenotypic mean difference between groups consists of a linear combination of the same genetic (G) and environmental (E) factors that contribute to individual differences within the groups, or (2) the group difference is attributable to some additional factor (an unknown Factor X) that contributes to variance between groups but not to variance within groups.... (Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.)

When directly correlating mean differences and genetic loadings:

I had demonstrated in my research of the 1970s that mean Black–White differences in IQ were more pronounced on the more heritable, less cultural subtests. For example, Jensen (1973) cited a study by Nichols (1972) which found a correlation of r = .67 (p < .05) between the heritabilities of 13 tests estimated from twins and the magnitude of the Black–White differences on the same tests. I further demonstrated an inverse relation of r = .70 (p < .01) between the environmentality (the converse of heritability, that is, the percentage of variance that can be attributed to nongenetic factors) for 16 tests estimated from differences between siblings and the mean White–Black differences (Jensen, 1973)…

[...]Strong inference is possible: (1) genetic theory predicts a positive association between heritability and group differences; (2) culture theory predicts a positive association between environmentality and group differences; (3) nature + nurture models predict both genetic and environmental contributions to group differences; while (4) culture-only theories predict a zero relationship between heritability and group differences. These results provide strong and reliable corroboration of the hypothesis that the cause of group differences is the same as the cause of individual differences, that is, about 50% genetic and 50% environmental (Rushton & Jensen, 2005, 2010) (Jensen, A. R. (2012). Rushton’s contributions to the study of mental ability. Personality and Individual Differences.)

And when correlating mean differences with g-loadings:

In this study we collected the complete empirical literature and conducted a meta-analysis. The findings clearly show that the true correlation between mean group differences and g loadings is strong: a correlation of .71 based on the Wechsler tests as a reference for the restriction of range correction and a correlation of .91 when the Dutch GATB was taken as a reference. Probably the GATB is a better reference, as its variance in g loadings is closer to the variance in g loadings from a theoretically optimal test battery, measuring all broad abilities of Carroll’s (1993) model. Also, the correlations between group differences and g loadings do not differ by group; some out comes are even virtually identical…….Recent psychometric meta-analyses have clearly shown that g loadings correlate highly with measures of heritability. te Nijenhuis and Grimen (2007) show that g loadings of subtests correlate perfectly with these subtests’ heritability coefficients. Moreover, te Nijenhuis and Franssen (2010) show that inbreeding depression correlates .85 with g loadings. This strongly suggests that g loadings and heritability coefficients may be interchangeable. This in turn suggests that the high correlation between g loadings and group differences could imply that mean group differences have a substantial genetic component. However, this is not necessarily the case, as the score patterns of biological factors, such as better nutrition and better health care for pregnant women, may mimic the score pattern of the heritability coefficient. At the present, these effects are impossible to disentangle, as all the available research is correlational and not experimental…. (Dragt, J. (2010). Causes of group differences studied with the method of correlated vectors: A psychometric meta-analysis of Spearman’s hypothesis.)

(The argument here isn't that the found correlations prove that the differences are genetic but that they are consistent with a genetic hypothesis and not obviously consistent with an environmental hypothesis and so provide grounds for making an inference. Now, this line of evidence has been frequently cited and discussed, so it is odd that it is not included. Instead, there is a section on Spearman's hypothesis (SH). But SH isn't about genes, it's about phenotype. SH is that the black-white (and other) gaps are largely in general intelligence. This is out of place here. The argument for genes is: the size of the gap varies with the genetic loading of tests.

So, if no one has any objections, I will rewrite the Spearman's hypothesis subsection. If you have any objections let me know.--Zebrapersonfrank (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The proper way to present that section is using WP:SUMMARY style. If you think there are specific aspects of that topic that are missing from Spearman's hypothesis, then the place to start is with that article, not with this article. aprock (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag in "Genetic Arguments" lead.

If there's no objections, I would like to remove the neutrality tag in the lead for "genetic arguments". This tag was added back in December 2011 when Hipocrite (talk) was making major changes to the "Genetic arguments" lead and Victor Chmara (talk) was reverting them. The current version is much different than any of the leads back then. It's been altered and there is more balance overall. I previously removed the tag a couple months ago but Aprock (talk) put it back on. Given all the changes since the tag was originally added in December 2011, I asked Aprock (talk) why the tag shouldn't be removed but before he had the opportunity to reply, we all got sidetracked in the discussion related to the removal of "Brain Size" and other sections of the article. So I would like to open this discussion again and ask if anyone has any objections to the removal of the tag at this time. BlackHades (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Original synthesis

The new content just added by Dbate1 looks like original synthesis. Most or all of the sources for it are about IQ in general, but don't talk about racial IQ gaps. They also all are primary sources. If there is a secondary source that makes these points, then the points can be added to the article cited to that secondary source, but editors aren't allowed to construct their own conclusion from multiple primary sources and add it to the article. Akuri (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

All good points, and ones which affect both that specific subsection, the section as a whole, and the entire article. Reviewing the specific content, it probably is better suited to Heritability of IQ. That said, that article should probably be presented in WP:SUMMARY style in this article. aprock (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I have read the article, and have discussed it among researchers who are members of the Behavior Genetics Association, and the recent edits do not well represent the best considered view found in reliable secondary sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If we agree the content he added is original synthesis, someone should remove it. I would do it myself, but the article is set so only people registered a certain amount of time can edit it. Akuri (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

When I have time to go over the sources, I'll be happy to update the article. In the meantime, you might consider opening a dialogue on that editors user page. aprock (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We seem agreed this content is original synthesis, so I removed it.

Aprock: you were diligent about removing pro-hereditarian material that you thought was sub-standard when we were talking about the brain size and evolutionary theories sections, but you aren't making as much effort to remove original synthesis when it favors the opposite perspective. Why is that? If it is because you personally prefer the 100% environmental hypothesis, I should remind you that policies like "no original synthesis" apply to ANY content, whether you agree or disagree with it. Akuri (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you think there has been a problem with my edits please raise them on my talk page, or at the appropriate noticeboard. This talk page is for discussing the article. aprock (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Dbate1: The moderators have been contacted. The presented data was found to be in conformance with WP:SYNTH guidelines. Future alterations should be addressed to the appropriate moderators of the page to avoid banning or suspension. Dbate1 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The moderators have not been contacted. (I assume you mean arbitrators, Wikipedia does not have people called moderators.) The place to request their intervention or ask them to ban someone is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, and anyone who looks can see you didn't post anything there. If you think this matter requires their intervention, I encourage you to raise it there. I also think these articles would benefit from arbitration, although probably not for the same reason you do.

If you don't want to request arbitration, you must explain why the content you added does not violate WP:SYNTH. No one else agrees with you that it doesn't. Akuri (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The moderators (excuse me if arbitrators is the more formal term) can and were contacted via arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. Thus, there were no modifications listed on the linked page. However, I will submit them there as well. You will notice that there are very few arbitrations posted on that page, yet wikipedia itself is rather massive.

If you look back through the history of the page, you will see that I made a number of modifications in order to conform to the issues addressed by the earlier individuals. The first stated challenges were against the information I originally added, and not to the latter material after the modifications. Therefore I modified the section to only include direct information stated in the sources relevant to IQ change. If you found these modifications insufficient, I apologize. When I saw the changes you made it appeared to eliminate them based on the presented challenges to the prior modifications. Thus, I contacted moderators (or formally arbitrators) because it appeared to be vandalism without justification (as the requested edits had already been made). Additionally, original synthesis requires the imposition of ones own opinion incorporated into source content. No where did the added information include any thing but objective details from the studies. (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As Aprock have stated, the content appears to be more suited for Heritability of IQ. I would recommend moving this there. You appear to be misinterpreting the studies as well. The studies do not imply that group to group differences in IQ over time is environmental..or genetic. BlackHades (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dbate1: It appears that another user has eliminated the section. Specifically, i would like individuals to point out the objections they hold to the section in detail. The aforementioned applied to the section before I made the edits. When my original additions were challenged, I edited them to conform to those objections. However, I have not seen what challenges exist in the current format, thus I can not modify them to address concerns. If users will provide the objections, then I will correct them or address them.

I have submitted the issue for arbitration, but if they can be resolved here it would eliminate the need.

Specifically, the recent user Looie496 eliminated the section without offering reason to do so. This therefore precludes me from addressing the concerns. Moreover, the frequent elimination (in the face of modification to conform) appears to be a use of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool.

If further modifications are made without justification, I will submit those users names disciplinary action.

Dbate1 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dbate1:To respond to to aprock, even if the material is more suited for another section it does not make it original synthesis. I will include the information in that section as well. However, that topic page does not refer or apply to IQ change at all. Thus, I am hesitant to include the information in a section it is ill suited for. Moreover, no where was it stated that the articles referenced group differences in IQ. They explicitly refer to IQ change , which is the central facet of the subpoint.

Dbate1 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me be direct. You don't yet understand how Wikipedia works. You are going in like an angry elephant, thrashing and trampling. It won't work. Unless you take the time to understand how things are done here, you won't accomplish anything. The other people here have good will and will help you if you give them a chance. Looie496 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dbate1:

Before I begin, I would like to apologize for my rather rash behavior earlier. I assumed wikipedia functioned much like most internet venues (with moderators that resolved disputes) and was populated with people unaccustomed to rational resolution. I see I was severely wrong on both accounts. I was unaware that these issues are to be resolved via educated discourse in avenues such as this. And I hope you all accept my apology.

From the points mentioned earlier, I gleaned two primary objections that led to the conclusion of original synthesis.

1) Primary Source Use

To address the issue of primary source use, the papers I included internally cite each other. Specifically, Boosma 2011 cites Bartels 2002, Boosma 2007, and Boosma 2003.

In the original piece, I did not include the secondary source through which I originally found the other materials. They are all cited in Haworth 2010 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889158/). This accounts for Child Development 1989, Plomin 2007, Plomin 2004, and Boosma 2003. The article by Lyons 2009 was cited by Nisbett in Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments.

I was not able to find a secondary source for Plomin 2013, and as a result will eliminate it because it is a primary source.

2) Applicability to Race IQ Gap

Another concern was that the material was not in reference to black-white IQ gaps. However, Nisbitt cites Lyons 2009 in his article (Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments)in regard to racial gaps. Additionally, Lyons 2009 directly cites: Bartels 2002, Plomin 2004, which suggests that these articles are in the relevant realm of race related IQ debates.

In terms of their applicability to IQ in general, this is true. But that is all the more reason that it is relevant. The emergence or lack thereof (depending on which data is cited) of an IQ gap is highly integrated with the general structure and stability of IQ in general. Because the gradual emergence of the gap originates on the population level (as opposed to individuals), articles that reference IQ stability and change on the population level are relevant to that subject matter. However, one must be careful that the articles are reported objectively without any inclusion of interpretation.

I understand that this is a topic matter fraught with emotion. But I would argue that that is all the more reason that we should allow the data to speak for itself without our own interpretations. I was careful to only include factual information from the sources and to obviate any sort of interpretation. Wikipedia, as we all know, is used as a tool for many people exploring a new topic, and for that reason I believe that the inclusion of more data is always better.

Objectivity is always in the eye of the beholder, so I would appreciate any constructive criticism to make the section better.

Good day!

Dbate1 (talk) 2:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dbate1:

I would really like feedback on whether the piece would be considered original synthesis given the above information. If no one has objections, I can rewrite the section to exclude the primary source and incorporate the secondary source, and then add it to the article.

Dbate1 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have a source that links the studies to the race and intelligence debate, please provide it. You mentioned Nisbett but please be more specific exactly where in "Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments" you are referring to. BlackHades (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It is mentioned under the Social Factors section.::::Dbate1 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.198.67 (talk)

Please quote the specific text you are referring to. BlackHades (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Massive revert

KillerChihuahua just reverted the entire article to a version from a month ago, with no discussion. The explanation in his edit summary was "Not seeing recent changes as an improvement'". This looks like page WP:OWNERSHIP to me. Even if he does not see recent changes as an improvement, he shouldn't have the power to single-handedly reject every change other editors have discussed and agreed upon in the past month, without discussing those changes with any of them. I'm tempted to undo this massive revert right away, but first I want to make sure other editors agree it's a problem for one editor to roll back a month of changes with no discussion. Akuri (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If edits improve an article, it's not a problem. If they don't improve the article, then the talk page is the proper place to discuss the content of the edits. Id you have a specific issue with the edits from a content perspective? aprock (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that all of the improvements he undid were ALREADY discussed, on this very page. I think the version he reverted to is from February, so the explanation for the changes that had been made since then and that he undid is in the past few archives. It isn't fair for to force everyone to re-discuss all of the same changes that already were discussed and agreed upon once before. That would trap us in an endless cycle of having to discuss the same changes again and again, every time someone decides to revert the article back more than a month like he did. Akuri (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussions above, I'm not quite sure which content you are referring to. Looking at the changes, many of them were added back, with the most notable exception being the treatment of brain size. Reviewing the brain size content that was removed, it's clear that both the Hunt and Jensen sources are being misused. aprock (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the things agreed upon in the discussion above is that instead of repeatedly blanking the brain size section, we should work to improve it by fixing the problems with it. In this edit The Devil's Advocate already fixed some of the problems with it raised by ArtifexMayhem. When the section is added back, which it probably will be, I encourage you to improve it if you think you can make it reflect the Jensen and Hunt sources more accurately. But this mindset of constantly reverting and blanking content, and refusing to put any effort into improving anything, makes it impossible to work towards writing a better article. Akuri (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any such agreement above. In fact, what I do see is a strong case that sources are being misused. As I noted above, the section that was removed was still problematic despite the revisions. aprock (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:PERFECTION is not required for the existence of the section "Brain Size". Fixing the problems or tagging of "Brain Size" would be preferable to removal. The "Brain Size" section does belong in this article and I don't believe anyone has argued otherwise. The section should be restored per WP:PRESERVE and allow editors the opportunity to fix any problems and issues rather than constantly blanking it. BlackHades (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

From Hunt/Carlson: It has also been pointed out that while it is well established that these genes are involved in pathological differences in brain size, it is questionable whether they influence brain size within the normal range of variation ... Thus, whether or not the link between genetic constitution, brain size, and IQ test scores has any substantial inter-racial or, for that matter, intra-racial, dimension is at present unknown. However it is some-thing that is both feasible and reasonable to study at the molecular level. Presenting the statistical data, without high level expert synthesis like this, is a clear example of misuse of sources. aprock (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You're saying it is misusing Hunt 2010 if the article does not also include what Hunt and Carlson 2007 says? Leaving out the Hunt and Carlson 2007 source sounds like it's an POV problem, not a case of misrepresenting the sources that were being used. However, I have no objection to adding the Hunt and Carlson 2007 source. The constructive thing to do is to fix the problem you raised by adding the Hunt and Carlson source, not to continue blanking the section. Akuri (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think these R&I disputes are mostly about wording. Word "race" has become a derogatory term when applied to humans, unlike the same in Biology. Just replace word "race" by "population", which is basically the same. There are no disputes among biologists that biological populations are genetically divergent and therefore have slightly different phenotypes, including morphology, physiology and behavior, which means for example, a slightly different average ability to play basketball or chess in different populations. That does not mean to be "superior" or "inferior". My very best wishes (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Akuri, you seem to have missed most of the explanation I gave in my edit summary, which was "Reverted to revision 538444452 by BlackHades: Not seeing recent changes as an improvement, this article is getting more fractured, not less." [25] And my very next edits were to reinstate those of the intervening edits which seem helpful improvements, such as restoring BlackHades edit immediately prior to my edits.[26] It really didn't change all that much since most of the intervening edits were back-and-forth anyway, and I did the cleanup necessary. I also removed a paragraph which has been tagged citeneeded since 2001, made an MoS fix or two, and such minor edits. Please specify what you disagree with; was it BlackHades' old version, or was it my restoring his removal of the tag, or was it my MoS fix, or? Killer Chihuahua 16:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason it's a problem to revert over a hundred edits from many editors all at once is that any change you've undone that was an improvement, and that you neglected to add back, will have to be discussed and added a second time. Atethnekos just raised one example of that below. We also had just finished discussing how instead of continuing to blank the "brain size" section, we should fix the remaining problems with it by editing it. Above Aprock pointed out one problem with the section as it existed before your revert, that it didn't include the Hunt and Carlson 2007 source. Are you willing to add that section back, along with Aprock's suggested change to it?

Part of why others find your editing disruptive is because you make huge reverts and removals without trying very hard to fix the problems with the material you remove. It would be a good sign of your willingness to collaborate if you could work towards fixing the problems with the brain size section, instead of just removing it. Akuri (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no "fixing" a section which has no RS which are about the article. You cannot "fix" synth and OR by simply saying you're-adding it. Killer Chihuahua 20:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear what you mean. Your view is that there are NO reliable sources which discuss race, brain size and IQ? Not even the paper published in the journal Intelligence which was titled "Race and sex differences in head size and IQ", or the paragraphs discussing brain size and IQ in the section titled "Biological causes for racial and ethnic differences" in Earl Hunt's book Human Intelligence? Both of these sources were cited in the section you removed, so I know you are aware of them. And your response to us discussing how to best represent these sources in the article is to claim no such reliable sources exist, is that correct? Akuri (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that is horribly, abysmally incorrect. What on earth did I say at any time which might lead to so far from my view? Where did I express myself so badly that you would somehow think that was what I was saying? Killer Chihuahua 21:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

KC, the Hunt source that was in the most recent version is a reliable secondary source that rather plainly covers brain size in relation to race and intelligence. Not sure why you would be suggesting anything to the contrary.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The most recent version of the "brain size" section that you removed was cited to two sources, both of which explicitly discuss brain size in relation to race and IQ. They were the two sources I mentioned above. One is the "Race and sex differences in head size and IQ" paper, and the the other is the discussion about brain size and IQ in the section of Hunt's Human Intelligence titled "Biological causes for racial and ethnic differences". If you think the sources for the section you removed are not about the topic of the article, it seems you forgot to look carefully at what you were reverting.

Atethnekos just fixed one of the problems caused by your revert. I propose to also add back the brain size section now, and to add a summary of the Hunt and Carlson paper to address Aprock's concern above about that being left out. 101.0.79.17 (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Atethnekos very kindly made an edit which I had not made last night before being called away from the pc, and restored one of the interim edits, which had broad support. You, on the other hand, are proposing restoring a problematic section which has been challenged repeatedly by multiple editors. You will be edit warring to restore contested content on an article on probation, and I advise you proceed very slowly and ensure there is time for the editors of this page to voice their concerns. Killer Chihuahua 00:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, KC kindly explained at the Arbitration Enforcement Request what happened to the content I just mentioned in the section below, and we agreed on an easy solution, with no harm done. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Treatment of S&R 1987

With [27] the treatment of S&R 1987 concerning media coverage in Race_and_intelligence#History_of_the_debate was reverted to an earlier version. At Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Misrepresentation_of_sources we had discussed this treatment a little bit. I offered some reasoning, made a change which I thought addressed everyone's concerns, and then everyone seemed to drop the issue. So I thought I had helped. Why exactly was my change not an improvement and how did it contribute to the fracturing of the article? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

KC said at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_KillerChihuahua that she would be fine with the change, so I guess I'll go ahead and do that. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Swedish Adoption Study

I see a Swedish adoption study (Lindblad 2009) is included in the adoption section of the article. That study, however, doesn't discuss race or possible racial gaps in intelligence. The three possible explanations given for Korean overperformance compared to other groups of adoptees are selection and care of adoptees (in Korea) and control of adopion agencies. Overperformance compared to the Swedish average is explained as a result of higher than average socio-economic status of the adopting parents (the Korean adoptees do slightly worse than non-adoptee siblings). The study shouldn't be included in this article unless there are other scholars that have related this particular study to race and potential intelligence gaps between races; otherwise it will be original research/synthesis. Iselilja (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Lindblad 2009 is being misrepresented by being mentioned in this context. The conclusion of the study is "male international adoptees in Sweden perform better in school than could be expected from their cognitive competence. These positive results can probably be explained by the educationally stimulating environment that the adoptive families provide." The author does not appear to be trying to attribute the results to race. I'm going to remove the OR. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned out some more original research along similar lines. This pattern seems to recur frequently on Wikipedia: study X has dataset Y, and the authors conclude Z. But we actually want something that supports conclusion Q. So let's just describe dataset Y, in a context in which conclusion Q may thereby be insinuated, even though the actual published study never even mentions Q. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

On the "race" related topics you'll also find a large number of primary sources and stuff that's just plain made up. Thanks for catching that one. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Iselilja says above that it should be removed unless "other scholars that have related this particular study to race and potential intelligence gaps between races; otherwise it will be original research/synthesis". I think this can be a good requirement in order to make sure the general state of scholarship is not misrepresented." For example, the Stams et al. (2000) is cited as such by the Lynn (2006), and Rushton, J. P., & Ankney, C. D. (2007). "The evolution of brain size and intelligence." In S. M. Platetk, J. P. Keenan, & T. K. Schaelford (Eds.), Evolutionary cognitive neuroscience (pp. 121-161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. The Lindblad et al. (2009) is cited as such with regards to "behavioral problems", but not explicitly "intelligence", in Lee et al., "The Behavioral Development of Korean Children in Institutional Care and International Adoptive Families", Developmental Psychology (March 2010), 46 (2), pg. 468—478. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on the statement by Iselilja and the information provided by Atethnekos, Stams et al. (2000) should be restored. BlackHades (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is extremely problematic. If the Stams et al. dataset is being reinterpreted to provide some claim about R&I, then the text of the relevant sentence needs to clearly attribute that opinion to Lynn, Rushton, etc, rather than pinning it upon Stams et al, who are innocent of any such charge, in violation of WP:BLP. I will modify the text accordingly. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. BlackHades (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

More generally, I don't really see the purpose in Rushton, etc, pursuing this line of research with such intensity. If this group of scientists holds that raw IQ is The Highest Good, then, having amply at their disposal validated tests to assess IQ directly, for whatever use they intend to put it to, why mess around with demographic characteristics as an alleged surrogate for it? A proposal to, say, forcibly restrict the reproduction of everyone scoring less than 100 on a standardized IQ test might be considered evil, if we admit the existence of objective standards of morality, but at least it doesn't involve a scientifically questionable circumlocution around their apparent mission. Can some suitable sources can be found on this point? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wordpress?

I'm not sure what is occidentalascent.wordpress.com. It looks like the weblog of someone deeply interested in race and intelligence. I'm not sure we should be linking to it. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That's simply providing url access to the pdf of a reputable journal paper, which is not a problem unless there is a copyright violation involved. In this case, it looks like there is -- that paper lies behind a paywall. I'll remove the url. Looie496 (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Was gonna say the same thing. :) --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Brain size

The new brain size section has a few issues...

I.

Many studies have looked at differences in brain size or head size (see Bibliography below). A study by Jensen and Johnson in 1994 found that black children had on average smaller heads and lower IQ than whites, and that IQ was positively correlated to head size. The differences in head size seemed to account for the differences in IQ: "White and black children who are matched on IQ show, on average, virtually zero difference in head size."
— Jensen, A. R.; Johnson, F. W. (1994). "Race and sex differences in head size and IQ". Intelligence. 18 (3): 309. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(94)90032-9.

This paragraph violates WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to a primary source. Multiple high-quality sources are required for "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."

II.: From our article (emphasis mine)...

Earl Hunt writes that because brain size is found to have a correlation of about .35 with intelligence among whites, and is almost entirely genetically determined, race differences in average brain size are an important argument for a genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps. However brain images are very expensive to obtain, so much of the research in this area is based on measures of cranial capacity, which only measures brain size indirectly. Combined with measures of processing speed (mental chronometry), this data accounts for a difference of .19 standard deviations between Black and White average test scores, only a small portion of the 1.0 standard deviation gap in average scores that is observed.
— Hunt, Earl (2010). Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press. pp. 433–434. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

From the source (emphasis mine)...

Rushton and Jensen, and (in separate papers) Lynn have also proposed that the difference between groups in test scores is due to differences in brain size. Brain size does have a correlation of about .35 with intelligence within the White population. Brain size is almost entirely genetically determined. Therefore, evidence for substantial differences between racial/ethnic groups in brain size would be an important link in an argument for a genetic basis for group differences in intelligence. However, such studies would be difficult to arrange, due to the expense of obtaining brain images. Therefore, researchers interested in this topic have made estimates of brain size differences from external measures on the skull. This indirect method has its problems.

The correlation between intelligence and cranial capacity, estimated from measurements on the skull, drops to about .2, which is not surprising as brain size is substantially but imperfectly related to skull size. In studies by Rushton the difference between White adults and Black adults in cranial capacity is 43 cm³, which corresponds to a d for cranial capacity of .46. Combined with a .2 correlation, this leads to the conclusion that on the basis of skull size there should be a difference of d = .09 between Black and White test scores. If we accept the idea that brain size and processing speed are statistically independent, the expected gap due to these factors is then .19, still far below the observed value of 1.0.

This paragraph makes Hunt's explanation of Rushton, et al's argument appear to be coming from Hunt himself. It also includes a number of distortions and omissions e.g., "This indirect method has its problems." becomes "only measures brain size indirectly" and "[differences in] brain size would be an important link in an argument" becomes "differences in average brain size are an important argument".

Given the above, I am going to remove the section. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand how sourcing works. Yes, Hunt is summarising Rushton, because summarising primary sources is what secondary sources DO. We should cite primary sources sparingly, but when a secondary source presents data from a primary source, putting what the secondary source says in the article (in the voice of the secondary source) is exactly what we should to as Wikipedians. This is at least the third time you've removed the section, despite others telling you to improve it instead of using this slash-and-burn approach. I'm telling you the same thing again now. Please improve the section if you think it does not summarise Hunt well enough. When other editors are telling you to do that, it is disruptive for you to refuse and to only keep removing it again and again. Akuri (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have made some alterations to the text given Artifex's concerns. We may not need to cite Rushton directly when we do have secondary sourcing coverage. Hunt seems to have sufficient detail about the research of hereditarians on the matter. Getting some additional sourcing would be good, but I don't think blanking the section is the appropriate response.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem, please stop blanking "Brain Size". You've blanked "Brain Size" 3 times now. If you think there's specific issues, then raise them or fix them but constant attempts at blanking the entire section is now very disruptive. BlackHades (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm hopeful he's going to stop blanking it now. Do you want to try rewriting the evolutionary theories section, so we can try to restore that also? 101.0.79.18 (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I will see what I can do regarding "evolutionary theories". BlackHades (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I did what I thought was best in the light of the policy issues I raised at the top of this thread. Obviously several editors don't share my concerns and have restored the section. I still find the current content to be in volation of several core polices, however, I will certainly not be engaging in an edit war over it.. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Your input is welcome and we will work toward addressing specific issues you have. We should be moving to give proper due weight to all significant viewpoints that exists in reliable sources on this section. Hunt as a source is a good start. But I would like to see more balance with more secondary sources from varying perspectives on the issue. Both from a genetic perspective and the environmental perspective. As well as reliable sources that deem current evidence to be inconclusive. This section needs a lot more work to address out the quirks but this is a decent start. BlackHades (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear that brain size is sufficiently central to mainstream genetic study of race and intelligence that it should be presented in its own section. Initially it looks like what's said about brain size under Health and nutrition, and in History of the debate is enough. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be central at all, and giving it its own section is undue weight for what has been at most a side consideration. Much of what has been added to this article has been, in addition, clear SYNTH violations - race and brain size + brain size and intelligence - and whatever else is done, we need to be careful to avoid SYNTH. Killer Chihuahua 12:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, I wouldn't characterize it as "central" to genetic study of race and intelligence, but it is a very significant aspect of the debate and merits some commensurate mention. It is not just a part of the history, nor does it pertain to "health and nutrition" as it is its own area of inquiry.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

All high quality secondary sources characterize the research into brain size, as it relates to race and intelligence, as preliminary and problematic. If you have an independent source which characterize the research as being "a very significant aspect" of our understanding of race and intelligence, then please provide the source. I'll likewise note that this article is not about the debate. The desire to turn this article into a "he said/she said" back and forth debate is part of the ongoing disruptions. aprock (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hunt characterized it as being an important avenue of research on the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In the Human Intelligence excerpt above, Hunt does not say that it is an important avenue of research. He says that results would be important, but that studies are difficult, and indirect evidence is problematic. Please take care with sourcing, as misrepresentation of sources is one of the core problems with this article. If you are referring to a different source, please state which source and provide the quote in context. aprock (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

One might suggest that it goes without saying that if the results of such research would be important, then the research itself would be kind of important.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Inferring those sort of conclusions is what is referred to as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH an WP:SYNTHESIS on wikipedia. aprock (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Dude, it's the talk page, for one, and there is nothing "original" about my assessment. We can certainly go "Hunt seems to think this is an aspect of the subject that merits significant interest" and take that into consideration when deciding what details should be covered. That isn't original research or synthesis.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about the article, not about what is included on the talk page. "Hunt seems to think this is an aspect of the subject that merits significant interest" is not something that can be added to the article. aprock (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you see me suggesting that? We can use sources on the talk page to infer things about the subject even when we are not allowed to state such things on the article. For instance, at AfD you don't need sources that actually say "this subject is notable" because that would be an unnecessary burden to the process and you generally don't add "this subject is notable" to the article text regardless. We can certainly infer from sources such as Hunt that brain size is a noteworthy aspect of the subject. Naturally, the article should still only say what the sources say about the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You said: "Hunt characterized it as being an important avenue of research on the subject". That is false. Using false statements to make inferences is not going to get you anywhere. aprock (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be overstressing the subject to suggest Hunt considered it "important". In fact, he considers the importance Jensen/Rushton/Lynn give to it as overstressed: "The brain size hypothesis put forth so strongly by Lynn and Rushton appears to me to be a nonstarter." Professor marginalia (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

He was actually talking about its application to gender in that quote, not race.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you are still not reading sources properly. Hunt also finds the brain size argument with respect to racial differences in intelligence to also be lacking. In addition to the quotes above we also have:

Lynn supports his hypothesis by reference to group differences, estimated from studies of cranial capacity. Even if this data is accepted, the group differences in brain size and the correlations between brain size and intelligence are far too small to account for the large racial/ethnic differences in IQ scores.

From the way you discuss Hunt's work, it's not even clear to me that you've read it. Maybe you could locate the quote which you think indicates that published research into brain size is anything more than preliminary and problematic? aprock (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

He didn't actually say it was lacking, but that the purported correlations would not come close to covering the entirety of the variation. The quote that was already provided by Artifex shows Hunt saying that, if the data is accurate, it might suggest brain size contributes to 9% of the difference in gauged intelligence and that is not a trivial contribution. Such research being preliminary or problematic does not somehow mean it isn't significant enough to mention here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do present the content and the supporting cite(s) that you would like to add to the article. aprock (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"Rushton (1995) maintained that one of the reasons for the White–African American disparity in IQ scores is that Whites have larger brain sizes than African Americans. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not one accepts this particular argument, the argument itself illustrates a useful principle. Differences in brain size are associated with intelligence (McDaniel, 2005). Rushton has stated a hypothesis about a biological mechanism, known to influence intelligence, that might explain the difference. Rushton’s claim for a racial disparity in brain sizes was based on exterior skull measures. Further studies, using modern imaging techniques, may provide a more sensitive test of the hypothesis. It would not be appropriate to enter into a detailed discussion here. Our point is simply that discussing this sort of claim is far more likely to increase our understanding of the disparity than is arguing about the percentage of variance associated with biological or environmental variables."--Hunt and Carlson (2007)

Hunt and Carlson have described Rushton's argument, that brain size differences between races is a factor in causing racial IQ disparity, as a "useful principal" and advocated further studies on testing Rushton's argument. It's clear that Hunt considers Rushton's argument does merit investigation. BlackHades (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If you folks want, sometime when I'm less frustrated I'll try rewriting this section, incorporating the Hunt & Carlson paper as per Aprock's suggestion below. Akuri (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

TDA-yes, the quote addressed the theory as applied to male/female but he doesn't say there are any reasons for accepting its importance explaining race gap but not gender gap. Hunt claims their brain size theory "poses a contradiction, for it is not clear how a small brain size difference could produce a large IQ difference between races, while a large brain size difference produces a small IQ difference between men and women." Even if, Hunt says, the hypothesis is correct, it would probably account for less than 1/10th the gap at most. And Hunt was intrigued with imaging brain structure and processing more than he was imaging's potential for producing more accurate measurements of overall brain size.[28]

And I fail to see how the passage quoted from Hunt/Carlson points to brain size as the "important principle". The "important principle" emphasized there is that testable hypotheses about potential genetic/phenotypic characteristics of intelligence are more useful in coming to an understanding about the gap than battling over the heritability scores. It's more practical and ultimately more informative to focus on those sorts of testable hypotheses, in other words, rather than focusing on justifying particular heritability models.

Once imaging studies started rolling out, Hunt when addressing results of one underscored that he doesn't believe brain size research to have been significant (if he ever did). "Unedifying" was how he characterized it. If any of these new studies address race group differences in particular, that would be useful. But absent that here we are battling over what kind of space to give the anachronistic "brain size" stuff- in particular what Jensen/Rushton/Lynn said about the subject of brain size and race-even after brain size has been discarded in favor of superior science into the mechanics and processing involved in individual differences in intelligence. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not what Hunt and Carlson is saying at all. They explain it quite clearly in the following 2 sentences following "useful principle" what the useful principle is. That brain size to intelligence is already known to be correlated (per McDaniel's meta analysis of studies), and that Rushton has stated a hypothesis, brain size differences, which is "known to influence intelligence". BlackHades (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, researchers have to use outdated data because it is the only data that exists. Even the traditional concept of "race" is slightly outdated now that DNA tests can precisely measure a person's geographic ancestry. But Wikipedia's article is about intelligence compared to race, not intelligence compared to ancestry measured with DNA tests, because comparing IQ scores to "racial" categories is what the published research has been about fo the past few decades. You've shown that comparisons between brain size and IQ are considered anachronistic in favour of more precise measures of brain function, but you haven't provided any sources showing those newer methods being used to examine racial IQ gaps. Are there any sources discussing that? The secondary sources I've looked at discuss race and IQ in relation to brain size, and they sometimes criticise it as outdated, but they don't discuss any data using the newer methods. This looks to me like another situation where the only data available is using an outdated method, just like comparing IQ to racial categories is somewhat outdated. But if outdated measures are what secondary sources discuss, then that is what should be discussed in the article, along with the criticism of them. Akuri (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

@BlackHades. No, that is what they're saying. The lead-in for that section reads, "It would be far more profitable to seek to understand the biological pathway by which specific genes act upon intelligence than to waste time and effort in a quest to tie down heritability coefficients in this or that population, at this or that time." {emphasis mine}. The title of the subsection reads, "Example of Going Beyond Counting Genetic Variance". The authors distinguish the "principle" they're trying to emphasize as not a statement regarding the value of Rushton's argument re brain size but they're using it to illustrate the "principle" Hunt/Carlson are emphasizing--that "Our point is simply that discussing this sort of claim is far more likely to increase our understanding of the disparity than is arguing about the percentage of variance associated with biological or environmental variables." The section it is in is all about laying down research "principles"! Others include, "Measures Must Have Construct Validity'; "When Measurements Are Used to Draw Inferences From Contrasts Between Groups, the Measurements Must Be Shown to Be Valid in All Groups Involved". The "principle" this quote comes from reads, "8. Remember That the Relative Size of Heritability and Environmental Effects Depends on the Population Being Considered". The section begins with a litany of problems with trying to use heritability scores to understanding the race IQ gap. These are "good research" principles, not "root causes of the gap" principles.

@Akuri-No I haven't provided such studies. In fact I emphasized the dilemma we could have here not having them, didn't I? Consider this hypothetical scenario: scientists 100 years ago conducted studies showing a correlation between nose length and divorce rates. Some of them focused further research on racial group differences in those correlations. A game changing study or two comes along that demonstrates the inadequacies of the nose length/divorce rate correlation in determining causation. And another game changing study or two comes along demonstrating a lack of efficacy in focusing so on "group differences" once individual differences were understood. Studies won't be ongoing to retest the discarded paradigm of nose length/divorce rate against the multivarious crosstabbed subgroups of discarded notions like race, astrological sign, or suitability for nose-jobs, would they? Accretion of dead debris like this might pose problems in innumerable articles, a problem ultra-literalist WP policy won't help us navigate well at all.

So leaving strict-literalist policy considerations to one side for a moment, I think Hunt's satisfactorily demonstrated that "brain size debate" has had sufficient prominence to warrant describing here-but only cursorily. Hunt clearly leans in favor of the view that the hypothesis wasn't completely unmerited but clearly tilts away from thinking its results lend much credence to it. He's clearly unexcited about it, but he's merely "fair" to it as at least a plausibly causative hypothesis. In so many words, it's not pseudoscience, in his estimation, even if it's a weak or failed hypothesis. But by the same token, I don't understand a) why he's discussed or implied as lending anything beyond this base-level "importance" to it as at least a plausibly empirical explanation or b) why Hunt's the one go-to to balance Rushton et al. Again and again here I find I keep bumping into this wall. Hunt is relatively dispassionate towards Rushton, etc. But I continue to question why virtually *everything* disputed about the article ultimately orbits the Rushton/Jensen/Lynn view of things, as if they were the consensus that everyone else nibbles away at in the fringes. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No that isn't what Hunt and Carlson is saying. You're trying to link two different points by Hunt and Carlson which are actually separate. The lead in you're referring to is the heritability coefficients of populations and not on Rushton's argument of brain size differences. Hunt & Carlson doesn't consider heritability coefficients of populations very useful. Which is explained in the preceding paragraph that you've stated. They do however consider Rushton's argument on brain size useful which is why Rushton's argument is listed as an "example of going beyond counting genetic variance." The "useful principle" IS Rushton's argument. Rushton's argument IS the testable hypothesis. They make this very clear repeatedly. I'll break it down further. Parenthesis text mine.

Rushton (1995) maintained that one of the reasons for the White–African American disparity in IQ scores is that Whites have larger brain sizes than African Americans. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not one accepts this particular argument, (particular argument being Rushton's argument) the argument itself illustrates a useful principle. (argument being Rushton's argument) Differences in brain size are associated with intelligence (McDaniel, 2005). (Hunt and Carlson explains here why Rushton's argument is a useful principle) Rushton has stated a hypothesis about a biological mechanism, known to influence intelligence, that might explain the difference. (Again explaining further why Rushton's argument is a useful principle) Rushton’s claim for a racial disparity in brain sizes was based on exterior skull measures. Further studies, using modern imaging techniques, may provide a more sensitive test of the hypothesis. It would not be appropriate to enter into a detailed discussion here. (Hunt and Carlson is advocating for more accurate testing of Rushton's argument by using MRI rather than exterior skull measures) Our point is simply that discussing this sort of claim (claim referring to Rushton's argument) is far more likely to increase our understanding of the disparity than is arguing about the percentage of variance associated with biological or environmental variables. (Hunt and Carlson again stating that heritability coefficients of populations is not very useful whereas Rushton's argument is)

BlackHades (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to include content reflecting: "Our point is simply that discussing this sort of claim is far more likely to increase our understanding of the disparity than is arguing about the percentage of variance associated with biological or environmental variables." That doesn't sound all too problematic. That point is independent of Rushton's brain size arguments, which as you observe are "left aside". As is clear from the context "this sort" refers to "using modern imaging techniques". That can be more than adequately covered in other sections of the article, and hardly requires a complete discussion of past explorations, none of which have produced widely accepted results. aprock (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Using modern imaging techniques" is specifically in reference to testing Rushton's argument. As Hunt and Carlson considers it "more sensitive test of the hypothesis" than using exterior skull measures. It is not independent of Rushton's argument. BlackHades (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@BlackHades, Let me be more succinct then. "PRINCIPLES FOR CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON RACIAL/ETHNIC DIFFERENCES: In this section we offer ten guidelines for conducting studies of racial and ethnic differences. These concerns apply to all studies of racial/ethnic differences in intelligence, whether or not they offer evidence for or against such differences." I quoted the important 8th research principle in my comment above, where this brain size example (not "principle") was used. The authors are not only presenting their "principles" just as I've it, they "broadband" what they mean. They lead with a statement introducing them before, recapitulate each one several times throughout the subsection, and restate them in their conclusions. They've numbered the principles they're proposing in their paper (10) and given this one the number 8. Number 8 doesn't say anything like what you say "the principle" is. It says what I said it says. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

PS If, as you say, "The "useful principle" IS Rushton's argument" that means what Hunt/Carlson said is, "the brain size principle itself illustrates a useful principle", or, "the brain size argument illustrates a useful argument". I doubt the authors would go to such lengths and use so many words just to obtusely express a point this inane. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The beginning of the 8th section is Hunt and Carlson discussing and giving explanations to why they feel the heritability coefficients of populations is not particularly useful. In the final subsection of the 8th section is where Hunt and Carlson gives two examples of what they consider to be much more useful than the heritability coefficients of populations explained earlier. Which is why it's titled "Example of going beyond counting genetic variance." In this subsection Hunt and Carlson lists two examples, or useful principles if you will, that they advocate pursing rather than the heritability coefficients of populations. Rushton's brain size argument being one of the them. The other example is advocating research of specific aspects of the environment rather than global variables. The preceding and following sentences of "useful principle" makes it very clear. The preceding sentence explaining what Rushton's argument is and the following sentence explaining why it's a useful principle. Their answer being because we already know that individual brain size is associated with intelligence per the McDaniel meta-analysis study. The entire 1st paragraph of the subsection "Example of going beyond counting genetic variance" is about Rushton's brain size argument. From the beginning all the way to the end. Not sure where the confusion could be. But I think we're starting to cherry pick this too much now. Whether we want to call it "useful principle" or "important example" is really besides the point. Hunt and Carlson does argue for the testing of Rushton's brain size argument and considers it worth pursuing based on the information that individual brain size to intelligence is known to be correlated per McDaniels. Hunt and Carlson advocates testing this hypothesis using modern MRI and states that this is more important than the studying of heritability coefficients of populations. BlackHades (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

H&C are not saying anything about the "importance" of brain sizes to the topic. They are saying that "the argument itself illustrates a useful principle" because "...discussing this sort of claim is far more..." It is also important to note what H&C are not doing, "...we want to be clear about one thing that we are not going to do. This paper is not a review of the voluminous research ... When we cite specific papers we do so solely as examples..." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"That's some catch, that Catch-22"... I'm beginning to think the best path to significant improvement would be requesting WP:ARBR&I be amended to allow discretionary long term semi-protection and require the article be blanked to a stub and rebuilt by consensus in accordance with the principles enumerated in the arbitration decision. Without such action I very much doubt the issues raised by Professor marginalia (above) and by others over the last several years will be mitigated to any significant degree. Dunno. Thoughts? Comments? Dirty looks? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Regression toward the mean

This is one paragraph that seems out of context. Is seems like it should be somewhere else, or should it be removed. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past: [29], [30]. There are issues with primary sourcing, and undue weight with respect to the topic. Even more so than brain size, this is a small branch of investigation which turned up nothing that independent secondary sources have found compelling. aprock (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The misconception has been that this regression reflects a genetic principle, but it does not... The wrong assumption, that regression derives from a genetic mechanism, was made, whereas in fact it is a purely statistical phenomenon.
— Rutter, M. (2006), Genes and behavior : nature-nurture interplay explained, ISBN 9781405110617

It's giving undue weight to a minority view that is factually incorrect. It should be removed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed the section, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement about genetic correlation with self-identification

I have removed this statement:

“

The notions that the correlation between self-reported race and genetic ancestry support a view of race as primarily based in biology is contradicted by most geneticists and anthropologists.

”

The cited sources do not seem to make this specific statement, but instead it seems to be using several sources together to argue the point. Key here is that it is talking about what most geneticists and anthropologists say about "the correlation between self-reported race and genetic ancestry" and I do not believe this point is made in the subsequent citations.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears you're taking issue with the word "most", I've restored the original introduction and referred the context to the authors in question. aprock (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit on scientific basis of human races extremely misleading.

ArtifexMayhem's recent edit "However, nearly all geneticists and the majority of anthropologists and biologists agree that concept of human "races" has no scientific basis." is extremely misleading. Using an example in one of the cited sources Foster & Sharp 2002 which states:

Some 50 years later, researchers have accumulated a far more extensive collection of data on allelic distributions within and between human populations. Despite this ever increasing pool of information, however, geneticists have yet to resolve that basic tension between social and biological conceptions of race and ethnicity.

Debates about race and ethnicity have changed in one important respect—today nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions. Geneticists have abandoned the search for “Indian” or “African” genes, for example, and few if any accept racial typologies. Even so, although simplistic biological interpretations of race and ethnicity have been discredited for decades, studies in clinical and population genetics continue to associate biological findings with the social identities of research participants. In some cases, scientists use genetic features to reconstruct population histories, applying biological criteria to define and redefine commonalities among research participants recruited on the basis of shared linguistic, racial, ethnic, or geographical identities. In these and other cases, researchers name the racial or ethnic communities being studied, thereby implicitly indicating that genetic features can be used to characterize contemporary social populations. Thus, although the simplistic biological understanding of race and ethnicity associated with the eugenics movement may be dead, the far more subtle presumption that racial and ethnic distinctions nonetheless capture “some” meaningful biological differences is alive and flourishing (Kaufman and Cooper 2001).

When Foster & Sharp states that nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions, they are specifically referring to race specific genes. E.g. Indian or African gene. It is true that nearly all geneticists don't believe that there are race specific genes but that doesn't mean that they "agree that concept of human races has no scientific basis." If you continue reading it's very clear that geneticists does believe racial groups have meaningful biological differences and has scientific basis as clearly evident by the last sentence in that paragraph "the far more subtle presumption that racial and ethnic distinctions nonetheless capture “some” meaningful biological differences is alive and flourishing." The following paragraph makes this even more evident which states.

Ironically, the sequencing of the human genome has instead renewed and strengthened interest in biological differences between racial and ethnic populations, as genetic variants associated with disease susceptibility (Collins and McKusick 2001), environmental response (Olden and Guthrie 2001), and drug metabolism (Nebert and Menon 2001) are identified, and frequencies of these variants in different populations are reported.

ArtifexMayhem's edit is WP:CHERRY and is errors through omission and needs to be changed to more accurately represent the cited sources. BlackHades (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Long story short. You'd like to refocus and re-emphasize the kinds of false implications/inferences about race the Foster/Sharp piece strenuously warns must be more assiduously avoided.

I haven't edited here for awhile now so I don't whether this was addressed. How have the WP:SYNTH problems been handled for this kind of thing? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to the source of the WP:SYNTH? Sorry if I'm being dense. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Slightly longer version of a long story short. For convenience, the edit in question is here. The full text of Foster & Sharp can be found here.

Foster & Sharp are not "specifically referring to race specific genes" they are using it as an example, which is why they say, "...genes, for example,".
The "far more subtle presumption" is 1) a presumption as in speculation, notion, supposition, or assumption, 2) not referring to geneticists as making the presumption, and 3) not a contradiction of the first sentence of the paragraph.
The existence of an "interest in biological differences between racial and ethnic populations" concerns the search for "genetic variants associated with disease susceptibility" and does not infer the existence of human "races". In fact, Foster & Sharp specifically caution researchers about this, "...a single genomic feature (such as a disease-related haplotype in linkage disequilibrium or a particular mitochondrial chromosome) mistakenly may be perceived by the lay public as defining a social population."(emphasis mine)
At no point do Foster & Sharp contradict, minimize, or cast doubt on their statement that, "—today nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions."(emphasis mine)

I fail to see how the edit is "extremely misleading", contains "errors through omission", misrepresents cited sources, or that the secondary, high-quality, reliable, mainstream sources provided have been cherry-picked in order to mislead the reader. Quite the contrary. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking over the sources, it does seem you are misrepresenting their contents. I know Graves says the "majority" of geneticists, not "nearly all" as the Foster source does. Also it is clear that the source was not saying that these scientists agree there is "no scientific basis" for the race concept and BH singles out the pertinent quote from that source. In fact, the same source says this at the beginning:

On the one hand, there is a perspective rooted in the eugenics movement and early population genetics that treats racial and ethnic categories as biological classifications (Kevles 1995), attempting to use scientific analysis to specify the precise nature of presumed biological differences between those socially labeled populations (Huxley 1951). On the other hand, there is a perspective with its roots in the work of physical anthropologists and social scientists who argue that race and ethnicity are primarily cultural and historical constructions with little biological significance (Boas 1942). Although there has been much debate among geneticists regarding these two competing perspectives throughout the 20th century, geneticists at the beginning of the 21st century have yet to reconcile these divergent views on race and ethnicity.

It seems the sources are saying something completely different from what Artifex is using them to say.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

re: Synth. The Foster/Sharp paper relates to Race and genetics without any reference to Race and intelligence. It's problematic when there's an attempt here to imply what Foster/Sharp paper says not to do. They argue its bad practice, common in the general public, to inappropriately generalize from the studies in which the social construct of race is merely used as a temporary proxy in beginning a search for genetic markers of particular traits. In other words, race is merely a "starting point" which genetic researchers can use looking for possible genetic links to a trait or disease. And they emphasize no relationship can be implied on basis of unrelated genetic markers "clustering" in a particular socially identified race about any genetic basis for other traits. It's the same old fallacy repeating itself over and over again by people who keep approaching these issues through the long-since failed essentialist race paradigm. Race isn't a "thing" in genetics. Race merely associates with shared ancestry sometimes. And this is perfectly understandable since the social construct of race is one where children tend to be assigned the same race as parents. Shared ancestry is merely a signal genetics may be a factor, not a reason to assume it is. And that "shared ancestry" may only loosely overlap racial identity. There is no reason so far to assume that where genetics plays a role in intelligence (given they do find one) that it's unevenly distributed in any meaningful way by what we think of as "race". It would be the same kind of fallacy as attributing a genetic cause of Urdu because the association between recent shared ancestry and Urdu is so strong. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions" does not mean "human races have no scientific basis". There are many examples shown by Foster & Sharp that show geneticists do have scientific basis for human races. TDA's quote is further evidence that "racial and ethnic categories as biological classifications" has certainly not been dismissed by "nearly all" geneticists in the 21st century but remains a significant perspective. ArtifexMayhem cherry picked a line and spun it out of context. We need a more complete and accurate summary of the cited sources. BlackHades (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Foster & Sharp that show geneticists do have scientific basis for human races"-absolute, 100% untrue. Geneticists can identify shared ancestry patterns that associate with race. They do not in any way mean "they have a scientific basis for human races". There's an association between blond hair and race. Not everybody identified to that race has blond hair. Not everyone with blond hair identifies with that race. Blond hair is not a "scientific basis for human races". Professor marginalia (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Professor marginalia, I hear what you're saying and I agree with much of it. But that doesn't change the fact that ArtifexMayhem's edit remains problematic and is not perfectly clear to the reader and gives a false impression to the reader that the debate among geneticists on race overall has been settled which Foster & Sharp states it is not. I would advocate changing the text to address everyone's concerns that incorporates the conflict of the divergent views on race that geneticists have today as highlighted by TDA as well as the points made by Professor marginalia. The reader should be given a much more complete overview of the scientific field on this topic. BlackHades (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

When they refer to race it seems they are talking about the earlier eugenicist conception. That does not mean all conceptions of race are without scientific basis, which is what the current wording implies they said.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My policy concern remains. I'm concerned using Foster and Sharp here per "original research policy". Better to stick to secondary sources making direct claims about race writing about this topic.Professor marginalia (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you then support the removal of the recent edit in question? BlackHades (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

TDA, what other "conceptions" of race? PM, I still not sure I understand your policy concers. Are you suggesting that the "validity of race" section be restricted to social scientists? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Concepts grow and develop. It would be absurd to suggest the only conception of race is one created by a bunch of white men back in the 1930s. Not sure how you would "define" a more evolved conception, but it wouldn't be defined by looking to some dated interpretation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

@ArtifexMayhem-I think the "validity of race" section should be limited to sources that discuss the race/intelligence gap-claims about what race means to geneticists or social scientists should be cited to secondary sources writing about those issues in terms of the race/intelligence debate. I haven't looked closely but I believe many of the sources used in that section say nothing about how the work should be applied or interpreted in terms of the race/intelligence gap. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I can work with that. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Proofreading edits coming, followed by more substantive edits

I've been following the article edits and the talk page discussion here for a while, and I think I'll try to do a top-to-bottom close reading of the article for proofreading soon, and then add in references (with article text updates as needed) from the books I've had out of the local academic library for a while. I look forward to discussing further edits with all of you. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If you think we should stay with the Harv citation format, I can start cleaning them up. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I will have to check the current format here; the reference format used to be quite mixed in this article. I like what I think you are referring to as the Harv citation format quite a lot. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 10:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If the use of templates such as {{harvnb|Bobster|Lobster|2013}}, {{sfn|Baby|Seal|1985}}, etc. is what you're thinking, then we're on the same page. Are we? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see we have a mixed practice of references in the article now, and conforming all references to the templates you mention (after rigorously checking the references, of course) would be very reader-friendly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Better sources make for better articles. I've done a first proof-reading pass through the article, mostly marking up the kind of Chicago Manual of Style issues that I would mark as a manuscript editor in previous employment. The article will improve considerably with more sourcing to reliable ~~primary~~ secondary sources. I am currently updating my own source list pertaining to topics on psychology and human intelligence. I invite other editors to check the sources as more substantive edits proceed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you back in the saddle here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting brain size

I've decided to make another attempt to rewrite the brain size section. This section was removed (again) as part of Killerchihuahua's massive revert. I think most of the other problems caused by her revert have been fixed now, but this one hasn't yet.

I don't think it's necessary to wait for a consensus before restoring the section, because there never was a consensus to remove it in the first place. If anything, there was a consensus that it belonged in the article and that problems with it should be fixed by editing it instead of repeatedly blanking it. However, I am rewriting the section to address the concerns expressed about it by other editors. Aprock said the section was non neutral because it left out the Hunt and Carlson source, so I'm adding that source. Someone also complained about the using of the Jensen and Johnson paper because it's a primary source, so I'm replacing that with a secondary source. The rewritten section is sourced entirely to secondary sources.

Like before, further improvements to this section are welcome. If anyone thinks the section has remaining problems, I encourage you to fix them by editing it. Akuri (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Giving brains size that much space seems pretty clearly undue weight, and there are still concerns about synthesis mentioned above. It would be better to write up on the talk page on in your user space what you have in mind to add, and then let people discuss it. Just adding it is likely to be disruptive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's taking up less space than it used to. It's less space than "Caste like minorities", a topic that is less supported and studied aspect of race and intelligence than brain size is.

Tom, with all due respect, your suggested method of "write up on the talk page" has already been attempted. But unfortunately some have shown that they will refuse to accept a "Brain Size" section under any circumstances which highlights a deep problem. The section was removed under dubious circumstances 2 1/2 months ago under the impression that the removal is meant to only be temporary. But some editors saw this as an opportunity to try to make the removal permanent by blocking and hindering any effort toward its recreation. There are some editors of this article that wish either to reduce "genetic arguments" section to a stub or remove it entirely calling genetic arguments WP:FRINGE. The "fringe" debate has been rehashed and rebutted repeatedly over the years but that hasn't stopped some editors from using this argument and then wrongly use it as justification to either delete or block relevant cited material that exists in WP:reliable sources and meets WP:V that they simply WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. In the past 2 months, three entire subsections under "Genetic Arguments" have been removed. Whereas less relevant and supported subsections than the ones removed in the environmental section like "Logographic writing system" and "Black subculture" still remains. The very uneven approach of the editing of this article is extremely troublesome and in turn WP:NPOV in heavy jeopardy. This is a difficult article to edit as there is no consensus to the cause of "race and intelligence" in the scientific fields and because for some editors it's difficult to put their own strong personal opinions aside. But I would encourage editors to try to approach this article more evenhandedly despite what their own personal positions may be. BlackHades (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Still violates policy

The section is, once again, violating several core policies. Only the views of an extreme minority are expressed and continues to misrepresent sources.

The first paragraph is simply a vehicle for 1) repeating "hereditarian" claims that anyone finding fault with their conclusions is motivated by "political correctness" and 2) using statistical correlations to imply genetic causality when in fact no genetic mechanism as ever been found.
The current version of the second paragraph is essentially unchanged from the previous version (as discussed here).

Earl Hunt ~~writes,~~writing about the research of hereditarians in this area, states that because brain size is found to have a correlation of about .35 with intelligence among whites, and is almost entirely genetically determined, race differences in average brain size are therefore an important argument for a possible genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps. However brain images are ~~very~~expensive to obtain, somuch of the research in this area is based on measures of cranial capacity, which only measures brain size indirectly and thus makes the data less reliable. Hunt notes that, even when combined~~Combined~~ with measures of processing speed (mental chronometry), this data still just accounts for a difference of .19 standard deviations between Black and White average test scores, only a ~~small~~portion of the 1.0 standard deviation gap in average scores that is observed.<ref>{{harvnb|Hunt|2010|pp=433–434}}</ref>

The third paragraph, also discussed here, misrepresents Hunt & Carlson (2007) and appears to exist as an excuse to mention Rushton and his "hypothesis."

Three times in as many months this section has been returned to the article after having been removed for violating a variety of core policies. I suggest the editor self revert this latest restoration and attempt to gain consensus for a version that is aligned with the policies of this project. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The viewpoint is not of the "extreme minority". Hunt and Carlson is considered a well respected secondary source. Their viewpoint is also neutral in regards to "brain size". Certainly doesn't match the hereditarian arguments of Templer, Gottfredson nor the environmentalist arguments of Wicherts, Cernovsky. It quite thoroughly explained Hunt and Carlson's positions. In accordance with WP:NPOV, other viewpoints from both the hereditarian and environmentalist viewpoints should be added as well so the section is certainly not yet complete but it is a decent start.

All you've done so far is criticize every version of "Brain Size" to date without making any improvements of your own. You're more than welcome to make adjustments, changes, additions that you feel are necessary. Is there a reason why you've yet to do this?

There is one problem I do see however. The phrase "writing about the research of hereditarians in the area" should be removed. Hunt and Carlson isn't writing on behalf of hereditarians here. Their statements are their own which they specifically cite their reasoning based on facts that are already known per McDaniels's meta study. Also note that every WP:reliable source on this topic whether from the hereditarian, environmentalist, or neutral perspective, is going to mention Rushton in some form or another as he's done more research on this specific inquiry than anyone else so mentioning Rushton is unavoidable here. Environmentalists like Wicherts and Cernovsky also mention Rushton very heavily. So to try to avoid mentioning Rushton in this subsection would be a complete violation of WP:NPOV when all the reliable sources of this subsection mentions him so heavily. BlackHades (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem, I hope you realise that you are no longer presenting anything remotely resembling a compelling argument. Just saying "this is essentially unchanged from the previous version" means nothing. In one of the earlier discussions you linked to, you pointed out some ways the previous version could give a better summary of Hunt, and the changes you're highlighting from that version were made by The Devil's Advocate precisely to address those concerns. [31] [32] Did you not notice that? You're also claiming it's a problem to mention Hunt and Carlson commenting on Rushton, or Jerison commenting on the effects of politics, but these are simply what the sources say. All of these are high-quality secondary sources. You make a big fuss whenever other editors cite a source while leaving out something you agree with in it, so it just shows bias for you to complain about us including the parts of the sources you don't like. Akuri (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem, your recent edits have been helpful but there's still one issue. You appear to misinterpret Hunt's meaning. As previously stated, Hunt's comments about brain size research regarding brain size to intelligence correlation and brain size being almost entirely genetically determined, is not based on research by Rushton and Jensen. He is not speaking on behalf of Rushton and Jensen here. He first states what Rushton and Jensen's argument is and then he is giving his own reasons why Rushton and Jensen's argument, that "differences between groups in test scores is due to differences in brain size" merits an investigation. Hunt cites (Baaré et al 2001) and Hunt and Carlson cites (McDaniel 2005). BlackHades (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No. He is specifically discussing ideas put forth by R&J. Hunt and Carlson, in a paper that is not a review of the research, use R&J as an example to make a point about doing research not about brain size. They explicitly make no comment on its merits. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)\

No. Hunt and Carlson are explaining why Rushton's argument is useful. They cite both (McDaniel 2005) and (Baaré et al 2001) as part of their explanation.

"Brain size is almost entirely genetically determined. (Baaré et al 2001)" -- "Human Intelligence" Earl Hunt. pg. 433

"Differences in brain size are associated with intelligence (McDaniel, 2005)" -- Hunt and Carlson 2007

Neither of these statements are attributed to Rushton or Jensen. These two facts are independent from Rushton or Jensen. Hunt and Carlson are explaining why they feel Rushton's argument would be an "important link" or "useful principle".

"Therefore, evidence for substantial differences between racial/ethnic groups in brain size would be an important link in an argument for a genetic basis for group differences in intelligence."--Earl Hunt

"Leaving aside the issue of whether or not one accepts this particular argument, the argument itself illustrates a useful principle. Differences in brain size are associated with intelligence (McDaniel, 2005). Rushton has stated a hypothesis about a biological mechanism, known to influence intelligence, that might explain the difference."--Hunt and Carlson

BlackHades (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Even with the recent mitigating improvements, devoting an entire subsection to brain size is undue weight. It should not have been restored; a sentence or two could appear elsewhere in the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it undue weight when it is such an intricate part of the hereditarian argument and mentioned by every hereditarian in the field with so many WP:reliable sources that exist that try to explain it from all different perspectives? I don't understand how "Logographic writing system", which is not even argued by most environmentalists, should stay but "Brain Size" which is argued by every single hereditarian in the field should not. A better understanding of the current debate that exists between hereditarians and environmentalists in published papers need to be had in order to properly utilize due and undue weight for this article. BlackHades (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE because the argument is only supported by an extremely small number of social scientists and goes againts all mainstrem science on the topic. This article is not entitled "hereditarians vs. environmentalists". And who are these "environmentalists"? The argument that we should have this section based on the existence of some other unrelated section is not supported by any known policy. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please enough of the "extremely small number of social scientists" or "fringe" fallacy. This has been debated and rebutted every single time. For such research to constantly pass peer review and get published in major mainstream scientific journals time and time again proves definitively it is not the "small" figure you claim it to be. If it exists repeatedly in WP:reliable sources, then it belongs in this article and must be given proper due weight and cannot be dismissed so easily. BlackHades (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the section is now cited entirely to major secondary sources. There are no sources that are more mainstream than Earl Hunt's Human Intelligence or the Handbook of Intelligence. Why do you have a problem with Wikipedia presenting what's in mainstream textbooks? When you advocate removing the section because you say it presents a viewpoint held by only a tiny minority, you are contradicted by the sources that it's currently using.

Note: this is Akuri logged out. 83.85.180.203 (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hunt explaining the views of a tiny minority does not change the weight those views should be given nor does it imply that Hunt finds merit in said views. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see why it matters whether he does or not. The bottom line is that the section currently summarises what's presented in mainstream secondary sources, and you want to remove it. You evidently think the content of the article should not be based on what secondary sources say, so what do you think it should be based on? 83.85.180.203 (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles should be based on accurate representations of secondary sources with the intent of conveying mainstream views on a particular topic. The weight afforded any particular view is not determined by mere coverage. It is determined by the level of support the view finds within the community of those practiced in the apropriate arts. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't appear to have an accurate gauge of what the mainstream views and positions are. Mainstream does not mean "thinks like me". The study of brain size and its possible relationship to race and intelligence has been and still remains a line of inquiry for not just hereditarians in the field, but environmentalists as well. The two positions stated by Hunt, that individual brain size is related to intelligence and that individual brain size is nearly entirely genetic, are not only extremely mainstream but are nearly universally accepted in the scientific fields. The possible role this plays in race and intelligence certainly remains in debate but even environmentalists such as Wicherts and Neisser have acknowledged the existence of average brain size differences between races. Although they tend to prefer possible environmental explanations for it and/or argue that the average brain size differences between races are small and can only explain a fraction of the observed IQ differences between races. But the point is that Hunt's arguments are based on positions that are known and very well accepted in the scientific fields and are certainly mainstream. BlackHades (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not Hunt's argument. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

But WP:NPOV applies to the views presented in the authorial voice of the article, not to elements that occur in the direct or indirect discourse of these views. The featured article Philosophy of mind has a section on occasionalism and says: "Occasionalism is the view espoused by Nicholas Malebranche that asserts that all supposedly causal relations between physical events, or between physical and mental events, are not really causal at all. While body and mind are different substances, causes (whether mental or physical) are related to their effects by an act of God's intervention on each specific occasion." No reliable sources actually support occasionalism. But that's fine because occasionalism is not the view being given weight; occasionalism is given no weight. What's being given weight is the view that Malebranche espoused occasionalism and that occasionalism implies those things. If WP:NPOV applied to such elements, then this encyclopedia could never report on the discredited views of others. At Adolf Hitler it says "The Holocaust and Germany's war in the East was based on Hitler's long-standing view that the Jews were the great enemy of the German people and that Lebensraum was needed for the expansion of Germany." Here the view that the Jews were as such is presented, but not in the authorial voice of the article, only in indirect discourse. No reliable source actually supports that view, but that's alright because the view is given no weight. A view can be mentioned without being given any weight. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes and as noted by another editor above; "a sentence or two could appear elsewhere in the article.". — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Research on brain size cannot be adequately explained in one or two sentences. There's also far too many WP:reliable sources on the topic to give it such little weight. If the argument is that brain size shouldn't have its own subsection, we would need to completely reevaluate what other subsections merits deletion based on the established cutoff. This would include the removal of the subsections logographic writing system, caste-like minorities, cultural traditions valuing education, group subculture, and possibly others. None of these 4 subsections matches the level of research and inquiry as brain size nor have as many WP:reliable sources as brain size. These would all have to be removed as well if brain size is removed. BlackHades (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No doubt it can be a neutral description of what people say. Since it looks like few researchers say it, it shouldn't have its own section, no matter how neutrally written. If that's true of other sections, those should also be replaced with one or two sentences. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So what are the minimum number of reliable sources discussing an aspect of a topic needed for permitting a separate section on that aspect? And what are the minimum number of reliable sources discussing as aspect of a topic needed for permitting two sentences on that aspect, or three, four, etc.? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 15:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Not to tell you something you already know, but that's a matter for editorial judgement, where we reach consensus through discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The assertion that only "few researchers" say it is absolutely false. Brain size is frequently mentioned in many comprehensive overview of race and intelligence. Whether from hereditarians or environmentalists. Off the top of my head, researchers that have mentioned brain size in regards to the race and intelligence debate includes Rushton, Jensen, Lynn, Wicherts, Cernovsky, Neisser, Gottfreson, Hunt, Carlson, Cain, Vanderwolf, Templer, Nyborg, Ankney, Murray, Gould, Nisbett. Many from very reputable mainstream scientific journals. This is not "few" and I'm befuddled that some are still trying to argue this. It is highly relevant to the article and there is way too many WP:reliable sources on this subject to try to censor it out of the article. The real problem is that brain size currently doesn't have ENOUGH weight. The hereditarian and environmentalist positions are still omitted and needs to be added to the subsection per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. BlackHades (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know that. I actually don't think this encyclopedia should have an editorial size limit. I think if an aspect of a topic is discussed in reliable sources then it is worthy of being included at lengths up to the length that is adequate for fully describing its treatment in those sources. If an article becomes too long for technical reasons, it can then be split into sub-articles. I think this was the original and still best vision for this encyclopedia. I think if clearly reliable sources like recent publications in academic presses by tenured professors at accredited institutions which have not been subjects of any controversy of academic integrity include coverage of aspects of a topic, then this encyclopedia does right if it mirrors that coverage. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Creating a meta-analysis of IQ studies

The section "United States test scores" goes into the IQ gap a little, but there are many more studies on the gap in the US. What if on a comprehensive table of all the available studies/meta-analyses was started? Would that be appropriate? It could show the year of the study, the sample sizes, the average reported IQ for the group being compared, the IQ test used, etc. E.g:

#	Test year	White n	Black n	Test	Black IQ	Author(s)
1	2002	343	1,420	WISC-IV	88	Dickens and Flynn (2006) ^[1]

Citation for #1: Dickens,W.T.,&Flynn, J.R. (2006). Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap: Evidence from standardization samples. Naleja (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't our job on Wikipedia. What is our job is building a free online encyclopedia by sourcing and revising articles based on reliable secondary sources. There are plenty of reliable, secondary sources that talk about the latest trends around the world, including the new book by James R. Flynn Are We Getting Smarter? (which I finished reading cover-to-cover last weekend), mentioned in the online bibliography any Wikipedian can use to update articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

New paper and commentary on some issues related to article section topics

A local friend of mine is a behavior genetics researcher (a mathematician with a doctoral degree in psychology) who forms part of the study team of many current studies in human behavior genetics. He just shared in an online forum links to a newly published study and commentary on that study, which should be food for thought for editors of this article on what current mainstream views are human behavior genetics researchers.

GWAS of 126,559 Individuals Identifies Genetic Variants Associated with Educational Attainment (study abstract)

There Is No Gene for Finishing College (commentary on study)

http://ssgac.org/documents/FAQsRietveldetal2013Science.pdf

(FAQs about “GWAS of 126,559 individuals identifies genetic variants associated with educational attainment”)

-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Waving the bloody shirt

I find this article pretty uncyclopedic and POV. This controversial issue is introduced, in the very third sentence, by saying "Historically, claims that races differed in intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, Social Darwinism, and eugenics." Then the very first section, "History of the debate," opens with "Claims of races having different intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, social Darwinism, and racial eugenics." Talk about poisoning the well! The effects of historical views are all very well in their place, but in this case they seem to be framing the discussion, which should be an objective exploration of the various viewpoints. Can this be fixed? Opus131 (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a case where the controversy is like an elephant in the room. Everybody knows that it's there, so if you don't talk about it, the very fact that you're not talking about it sends a strong message about your attitude toward it. It might not be an intended message, but it will come through nonetheless. Looie496 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The key issue is sourcing what is said in the article. If there are sources that link the topic of the article to the history of the other issues mentioned, and if that linkage is a major emphasis in reliable secondary sources on the article topic, then it is fully appropriate to mention those linkages in the article, including in an early sentence in the article lead paragraph. When in doubt, look for reliable sources to resolve article editing issues. I have shared with fellow Wikipedians a source list on human intelligence and a source list on human genetics and anthropology for a few years now (and I invite further suggestions of sources for each) so that we can reach informed consensus on how to edit articles related to some of these controversial topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

To the socio-anthropological aspects, it's not poisoning the well if it's factual. The very first African Americans were free men afforded the same opportunity as all who came to the New World. The ranking of the races, justifying slavery and a whole host of evils, came later. Oversimplifying, still... (subsequent philosophical ramblings deleted pror to posting) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The very first African Americans were mostly slaves and servants of Spanish conquistadors with a couple of free men among them, who were nonetheless most certainly not offered the same opportunity as all who came to the new world because of the Spanish casta system which placed people of "non-christian" blood such as Africans and Indians and Jews on the bottom of the social hierarchy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Anthropology, Human Biology, and Race Citations Bibliography for Use in Updating Articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Weiji, you always make this offer, but it is not a lack of sources that keeps these articles being a mess, rather it is a surplus of POV editors and poor sources. If you want to help step into the game and edit the article - that is what is needed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Some definitions

I'll just write a little bit here about how I use some crucial terminology.

Fringe: A fringe view is a small minority view that is against a solid consensus to the contrary within a field of inquiry, and who often represent a completely incommensurable paradigm.
Consensus: Is a solid and substantial supermajority opposed only by a few opponents whose views are mostly discounted as entirely without merit by the dominant paradigm.
Mainstream: is the main venue of dialogue of scholarship that is considered to be within a single paradigm. Review articles and encyclopedias generally represent the mainstream and strive to do so as "fairly" as possible. Fringe views typically don't appear in mainstream reviews at all or only as examples of discredited views. In the mainstream there may be a majority and one or more minority views that nonetheless work with in more or less commensurable paradigms.
A majority view: is the one typically espoused or given preference by the most highly esteemed scholars in a field, and the one typically espoused by editors of major discipline wide journals, presidents of professional associations, editors of handbooks and authors of review articles. Their publications usually receive mostly positive reviews, with only minor criticisms.
a minority view: may be espoused by editors of minor or specialized journals, by authors of research articles and volunteered review articles. They are often published with rebuttals and criticisms by mainstream scholars and their works often receive highly mixed reviews with positive reviews mostly appearing in small specialized journals.

It is according to this terminology I consider most of the hereditarian view of race/IQ to be a minority view. Some scholars espouse the minority view in one camp but represent a majority view in another. For example Eysenck (majority view in personality studies), Plomin (majority view in behavioral genetics), Sarich (majority view in population genetics). So now you know what I mean by my words.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead requires major changes

WP:LEAD is suppose to have a summary of the body. The lead as it stands right now does not meet WP:MOSINTRO and needs a major overhaul. Recent changes by Maunus also appear to increase the weight of environmental factors while the entire "genetic arguments" section continue to have completely zero weight in the lead. This is problematic and I would like to request assistance in better balancing the summary of the body in the lead. I'll try to spend some time on the lead and do what I can but assistance from others would be helpful. BlackHades (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried to make a summary of points from both the "potential environmental causes" section and "genetic arguments" section. The lead should avoid trying to go into too much detail of any one specific argument as this seems to introduce problems related to NPOV and due/undue weight. For example, the previous text "The gap in IQ scores also correlates with a similar disparity in educational outcomes". While this may be true, it is misleading and doesn't take into account the intricacies of proper cause and effect and the lack of consensus regarding what the cause and effect is among researchers. Also if this text is included, it would be necessary to mention that IQ gaps are also consistent with Spearman's g. Which will probably then cause another line that needs to be included and then another. Instead of trying to go into too much detail of any one specific argument in the lead, which appears to introduce a range of new problems, it seems better to just summarize the points of both the "potential environmental causes" section and "genetic arguments" section. BlackHades (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I can not in anyway accept a lead that does not include mention of the fact that the gap has been diminishing over the past 40 years. It would be misleading and counterfactual to suggest that the gap is constant. Secondly ther reason that the genetic argument does not get similar weight as the environmental is that consensus is that there are no known genetic explanations for the gap whereas there are many environmental explanations that have been positively shown to account for part of the gap, if not necessarily all of it. Your proposed changes will make the article more biased and less factually accurate. I have reverted your change. If you wish we can have an RfC about which version is more better weighted. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The diminishing of the gap is in dispute. It would be misleading and counter factual to suggest there is a consensus among researchers that the gap has been diminishing. Simply because you accept environmental explanations and disregard any genetic explanations doesn't mean the consensus of researchers do. The article should reflect the positions expressed in WP:reliable sources per WP:NPOV not on a wikipedia editor's personal views. You really think it's appropriate to insert more and more environmental talking points into the lead all the while arguing that the ENTIRE "genetic arguments" section, that remains a significant part of the body, should have zero weight? If that's what you want, perhaps you should first work toward removing the entire genetic arguments section from the article. Until then, per WP:LEAD, there must be a summary of the body (including things you don't like) in the lead. You can't just pretend that half of the article simply does not exist. In your own words "what is disputed is the cause". To state that the cause is in dispute and yet only provide one side of the dispute is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV BlackHades (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether a specific view of a subject is being given due or undue weight in the lede depends on whether it is being represented in a manner disproportionate to its representation in the article body. As it stands, a good portion of the article body is devoted to discussing the genetic arguments, but your changes have essentially reduced its mention in the lede to an empty statement that some suspect a genetic cause, while going into some detail on why the environmental explanation is the best and only explanation for the intellectual disparity between racial groups. That is inappropriate. As the article delves into the arguments of each side on a roughly equivalent basis, so should the lede.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the body of the article is also biased by giving undue weight to discredited hereditarian minority views, such as the brain size argument and admixture studies which has no valid research in its favor (as the sections themselves make clear). The only genetic arguments that have neither been discredited nor accepted are spearman's hypothesis, mental chronometry and gradual gap appearance. But given that there is only circumstantial evidence to support them and that they generally are not discussed in the mainstream literature they deserve little or no attention in the lead. There is a certain logic to saying that per policy the lead then needs to reflect that bias but on the other hand that would equate willfully and knowingly making the article less neutral and informative instead of more so. I might be convinced to devoting a line to spearman's hypothesis and twin studies in the lead if done in neutral way. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. There is very strong acceptance in the scientific field regarding the correlation between individual brain size and IQ for example and the mainstream acceptance that individual brain size differences is nearly entirely genetic. How much of this relates to racial IQ differences is in dispute but even environmentalists like Wicherts and Neisser have acknowledged that there is the existence of average brain size differences between races and have been open to at least the possibility that a very small part of the IQ gap may be due to the existence of average brain size differences between races even if they don't think it necessarily plays a huge role. Regardless the lead should have a summary of both the "potential environmental causes" section and "genetic arguments" section in accordance with WP:LEAD. BlackHades (talk)

Please show some solid mainstream sources (I would prefer a tertiary source such as a review, but a good secondary source may do) that support that view - not just for individuals but between groups.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

For which statement are you requesting a source for? In regards to mainstream science acceptance of individual brain size to IQ, Hunt and Carlson cites McDaniel's (2005) meta analysis which is a review of 37 studies on the correlation between brain size and IQ. The meta analysis concluded "it is very clear that brain volume and intelligence are related".[33]. In regards to brain size differences being primarily genetic, Peper et al (2007) showed 5 out of 6 studies resulted in a total brain size to heritability correlation above 0.89.[34] Given the widespread acceptance of these two in regards to individual brain size, it's no surprise that researchers like Hunt and Carlson find brain size relevant in regards to the racial IQ gap discussion. Note that there's very little controversy that average brain size differences between races exist. The New York Times published an article that completely vindicates Samuel George Morton and shows Stephen Jay Gould was dead wrong.[35] If anything has been discredited, it's the assertion by Gould that average brain size differences between races doesn't exist. With even environmentalists like Wicherts and Neisser today acknowledging it does exist. Although they tend to argue more in favor that the amount this contributes to racial IQ gap is small or come up with possible environmental explanations for the cause of average brain size differences between races. Nonetheless, your previous assertion that brain size has been "discredited" in the scientific fields as a possible genetic explanation for the cause of racial IQ gaps is absolutely 100% false. BlackHades (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

IQ and brainsize is related, and brainsize is obviously highly hereditary since it is basically a function of body size, but the correlation is not very strongly and only in individual differences, just like height and IQ is related in individuals but not between groups. The New York times article is not a scientific journal saying it vindicates anything is a joke. I will look up Wicherts and Neisser to see what they say, I would be surprised if they say what you claim. But still it is inessential because causes of individual differences and group differences are not comparable. Meanwhile try finding an actual reliable secondary or tertiary source such as a review article or a handbook article or an encyclopedia entry that says that brainsize varies between racial groups and that it may be a factor in explaining IQ differences. I have not seen any.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times article is a secondary source for the peer review journal PLOS Biology. As previously stated, Hunt and Carlson specifically state that brain size may be a factor in explaining IQ differences given all the empirical evidence show that brain size and intelligence is correlated. The "Handbook of Intelligence" pg 248 very specifically states "there are real race differences in brain size". Does this handbook meet your requirement for reliable secondary source? BlackHades (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We should consider developing a standard for the ledes of controversial articles like this one such that the claims including in the lede are only the most general and, while mentioning what controversies there are for the topic, do not describe the controversies beyond naming the relevant aspects of the topic. I believe we can reduce the lede here to:

"The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century.[1] There is no widely accepted formal definition of either race or intelligence in academia, nor is there agreement on IQ's validity as a gauge of intelligence.[2] The causes of differences in putative measurements of intelligence between groups of people is an ongoing matter of dispute among researchers. Whether or not such groups of people can be identified as racial groups, and whether or not such measurements can be identified as representative of intelligence, are also ongoing matters of dispute among researchers."

Substantive issues can be left for the body and subsidiary articles, such that all aspects of the scholarship on these issues can covered without trying to balance delicately the weight of points of view in a space-limited lede. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I support the premise of this proposal. As I previously mentioned, trying to go into too much detail on one specific argument into the lead creates a boatload of different problems. BlackHades (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that in theory that works for areas where there isn't a single dominant view. In this case the mainstream view is quite solidly in favor of the the environmentalist viewpoint and the lead should not pretend otherwise.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. See Hereditarian Position is Mainstream. Editors need to either start providing evidence for such claim, or stop using this false and incorrect argument as justification for removal of large amounts of WP:reliable sources from articles that they just don't like. You are right that this article is biased but not for the reasons you've stated. Over the past several months, large amounts of text that fully meets WP:RS and WP:V have been removed from this article and others, due to this false and incorrect assertion. Until strong empirical evidence indicates otherwise, the constant use of this fallacy needs to stop. BlackHades (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

So then it is just an intractable content dispute, because no one even agrees as to what the reliable sources even say, which is the first step to building an article. The article can't possibly improve from that. Maunus says that the reliable sources agree that the environmentalist viewpoint is the solidly dominant position, but BlackHades disagrees. Is that a fair assessment?--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that pretty fairly describes the status quo the past couple of years (not just between me and blackhades but between groups of editors working on the article). BlackHades is wrong of course, which likely rests on a failure to look at actual mainstream secondary and tertiary sources which very rarely give a more positive description of the hereditarian view than saying "it is possible". As long as one stays within the little alternative universe of hereditarian publications the world looks very different than to people on the outside. Unfortunately wikipedia has no good way of dealing with this. As for Blackhades' link to his old hat discussion allow me to quote User:aprock (with a little bracketed addition of my own) "I don't even know how to respond to this. You're misuse of sources here is beyond the pale. You've got gaggle of 20 year old articles and op-eds, many of them primary sources, many of them from [Pioneer fund grantees and] proponents of Rushton's theories, many don't mention the hereditarian viewpoint, some of them don't even discuss race. Do you really expect people to still take you seriously?" There isn't a single reliable secondary source among those sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

So what do you take away from the Daley, C. E.; Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). "Race and Intelligence". In Sternberg, R.; Kaufman, S. B. The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 293–306? Is this source not saying that the hereditarian vs. environmentalist dispute is an actual and significant current dispute for scholars? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is an active dispute. I am not saying that it isn't. It is just not equally balanced between the two views. Daley and Onwuegbuzie is an excellent source and they spend most of the essay demonstrating that the bulk of past research, particularly the research that we could call hereditarian is based on problematic assumptions both about Race and IQ, they then show that there are several well documented environmental effects on IQ disparity between groups, and that while IQ difference within a group seems to correlate well with heredity there is no evidence to suggest that this affects between group differences. They then conclude saying that in order to find the causes of the disparity we need more, but less biased, research into the topic which in effect is an implicit dismissal of the Jensen/Rushton/Lynn school. This is also the way they describe this research throughout the paper. The conclusion begins by noting the circular reasoning of the Bell Curve/Jensen argument concluding that "flawed constructs, flawed instruments and flawed relationships yield flawed inferences and flawed educational and social policies" they then state that "when these beliefs are used in an attempt to advance a dubious political agendas, scientists risk becoming instruments of those who would stifle the progress of minorities and elsewhere. This is about as scathing an indictment of the moral and scientific bankruptcy of the Bell Curve/Pioneer fund school of research as is possible in an academic handbook. And that is indeed the mainstream view.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because something is a good source doesn't make it the ONLY significant view in the field. Hunt and Carlson are widely considered to be an excellent source on this topic and they make it adamantly clear that the all environmental position in regards to racial IQ gaps would be impossible to maintain and called Nisbett's views "extreme". The only poll in regards to the position of the field is the 1987 Snyderman poll which showed a majority in the field accepted the position that racial IQ gaps is due to a combination of both genetics and environment by a 3 to 1 margin over the all environment position. You might try to say this poll is "old" but I see absolutely no evidence that this mainstream view has changed today. Hunt and Carlson's analysis of researches further supports the genetics/environment combination position as the mainstream position. Your attempt for ZERO weight on any genetic arguments in the lead, while trying to have essentially an entire paragraph devoted to environmental talking points, is inappropriate and violates WP:NPOV. Regardless of whether Rushton/Jensen/Lynn are ultimately right or wrong, majority or not, their position still remains a "significant view" in the field and in accordance with WP:NPOV must be given due weight. We cannot write this article like there is a scientific consensus when there is no scientific consensus. BlackHades (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Snyderman poll is from 1987 and has been criticized for being non-representative. It is irrelevant even though I know hereditarians like bringing it out to parade. Their position is significant because it is outrageous and wellfunded, not because it carries scientific weight, as can be seen from how it is depicted in reliable sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Peer review journals bring it up which makes it relevant. As to the claim that it is significant because it is outrageous and well funded, wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM nor are we to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We're suppose to report what WP:reliable sources state, we're not to have a discussion exploring reasons why WP:reliable sources states what it does as reasons why are irrelevant to wikipedia editing policy. BlackHades (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Then bring some reliable mainstream secondary sources to the table mate. ANd quit quoting inapplicable policies. I am the one who is improving the article while you complain and drag every odl hereditarian source out of the closet to parade it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I already have. But it doesn't appear to meet the "it must match what I want it to say" mandatory criteria you seem to have. The polices I quote are absolutely relevant because you're showing that you're dismissing WP:reliable sources based on reasons that are strictly forbidden by said policies. You're not improving the article. You're making an already POV article even more POV. Removing WP:reliable sources because your reasons are that it is "outrageous and well funded" is not justifiable. The article is not meant to match your personal position, it is suppose to reflect fairly and proportionally all significant views in WP:reliable sources which you certainly are not doing. BlackHades (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree (at least for one example) as to what are good sources for a general overview—perhaps most out of my own pride, because even when I don't have training in a field (like this one) I like to imagine I can figure out a good starting point.

I still think you should consider leaving treatment of disputes to the main sections and articles, but what if we use the shortened lede with an amendment like the following: "While the preponderance of researchers favor accounts which take environmental factors as the most significant causes of group differences in intelligence, a significant group of researchers favor hereditarian accounts. There is consensus that much is unknown concerning race and intelligence, and research is ongoing." ? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason most scholars favor an environmental account is because it is the only one that has actual empirical support. It is not entirely clear that environmental factors explain part of the gap, the question is if it explains all of it, which admittedly it may not, but untill there is any actual empirical support for the genetic viewpoint then it will remain the favored explanation. We simply know that environment affects IQ in a number of ways and that those are always skewed in favor of whites. We also know that IQ has a high heredity, but there is no evidence of how this should explain the between group gap.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel this statement is accurate as there is no agreement among researchers that environmental factors is the "most significant cause". The 80% genetic hypothesis of Rushton/Jensen likely doesn't have widespread support but the 50% genetic hypothesis is much more accepted and considered a reasonable hypothesis in the field. The 100% environmental position doesn't appear to have majority support either. There is no agreement among researchers right now which factor is more dominant. BlackHades (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, 5 of the sources listed are from the 21st century. Apparently you think this is "too old". Care to venture to guess how many environmental text in this article is cited to "20 year old articles and op-eds"? Would you be okay if I went ahead and removed all these text and references? Just to be clear, reliable secondary source does not mean "states what I want it to say" even though some editors definitely have this as a mandatory criteria. Publication in support of genetic explanations for racial IQ gaps are published consistently in mainstream peer reviewed scientific journals to this very day. APA peer review journals still to this day publish researches in support of genetic arguments. I'm sorry but WP:FRINGE would be incapable of doing such a thing. Please it's time to get rid of this argument because it just doesn't work. Pretending one side of the debate doesn't exist in WP:reliable sources doesn't magically make such sources disappear. It's time to pop this bubble. BlackHades (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Yes all kinds of absurd studies are published in peer reviewed journals and always have been, but they are not cited except by eachother, or in rebuttals. Reliable sources from which we can judge the status of the argument are reviews, textbooks and handbooks.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

How many publications in mainstream scientific peer reviewed journals today do you see that denies anthropogenic global warming or evolution? Essentially none right? This is what a scientific consensus is and this is how you identify fringe. If an argument in support of an idea is published repeatedly in mainstream peer review journals consistently, it at the very least, demonstrates and meets the threshold for "significant view" as stated by WP:NPOV and it must and should be given due weight. BlackHades (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There are still anti-climate change papers published in peer reviewed journals, just not many. But I am not arguing that the hereditarian view is fringe, I am arguing that it is a clear minority view within the field, and that we can see this because it is is not given equal weight to the mainstream environmentalist view in reliable secondary sources, which clearly describe the environmentalist view as having stronger empirical support. That is the indicator of weight that we should use. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay so we're past the fringe part. We're making progress here which is good. As the hereditarian position isn't fringe, it would be a "significant view" and per WP:NPOV, all significant views should be given weight. This is why I didn't understand your attempt for zero weight of the "genetic arguments" section in the lead. This appears to violate WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. The argument whether it's majority or minority, let's put that argument aside for now and focus on this. Given that the hereditarian position isn't fringe and meets the requirement of "significant view", shouldn't it have some weight per WP:NPOV and per WP:LEAD? BlackHades (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is a significant view and it has weight (At this point basically half of the article which is too much.) and it is also fairly prominent in the lead. So yes, I am all in favor of bringing the weighting of the lead in line with the body. By cutting out the most obvious nonsense from the "genetic arguments" section.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You're doing this backwards and all wrong. You don't go "this is how much weight I want this position to have in the lead so I'm going to go Rambo on the body section until it matches the lead". You adjust the lead based on the body not the other way around. BlackHades (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No? That only works if the body is not biased and the lead is. Now we have a reasonably balanced lead then its a question of bringing the body in line.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You think devoting an entire paragraph to environmental talking points and refusing to give "genetic arguments" a single drop of weight is a "reasonably balanced lead" in a field that remains in dispute? This is the long running problem with this article. The constant demand that the article MUST match my position. Rather than simply summarizing all published WP:reliable sources without regard to their own personal bias. BlackHades (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the lead along the lines suggested by you and Atethnikos. Take a look and tell us how you like it. (Byt also note that the suggestion that the article simply summarize all POVs without weighing them according to the weight in reliable sources is against policy which requires us not to give undue weight to minority opinions)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This lead wouldn't adhere to WP:LEAD as there needs to be a summary of the body. When I stated that I supported Atethnekos' proposal, I meant that the lead shouldn't dwell so much on very specific potential arguments, whether environmental and genetic, and should be a broad summary instead. The lead still needs to have a summary of the body per WP:LEAD. Also it is important to note scientific positions in the lead. Including both APA and AAA. Yes I support the inclusion of statements that attack the genetic position in the lead such as AAA. Please remember my objections to changes were never based on because I support one side or the other and I really hope this is adamantly clear. I would object just as much if an editor did the same in regards to trying to over weigh genetic argument points. Except that all the editors that used to do that are now banned or seemed to have disappeared and only editors that try to over weigh environment arguments seem to be left. In any case, WP:CONSENSUS states that when there's a lack of editor consensus, the version prior to the proposal or bold edit should remain. So per WP:CONSENSUS, I would request that the lead be reverted back to yesterday's version temporarily. Just for now anyways as we continue to discuss changes and figure out the best solution. BlackHades (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This lead does provide a summary of the article, including both the history, the findings, and the different interpretations. I don't think it is necessary to note the old statements by AAA and APA in the lead unless we start evaluating the claims explicitly. Three editors seem to agree that my version of the lead is preferable to the previous one, so i don't see a basis for reverting. Most of the editors you allude to are no longer here because they tended to insist on misrepresenting the relative weight of the two viewpoints, something which a majority of editors considered to be disruptive POV-pushing, so I suggest you don't identify too much with them. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You really think the current lead meets this requirement as expressed in WP:LEAD?

"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

Can you really say this lead can stand on its own as a concise version of the article? Over weighing the history section with zero weight in other sections does not pass "concise version of the article" nor can the lead stand on its own. BlackHades (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree the lead now provides a concise but well balanced summary of the article that can stand on its own. It provides all the essential information and it doesn't make any unsupported statements and it weighs the environmental/genetic arguments exactly as they are weighted in the best overview sources we have looked at. If we chose the weighting of the textbook sources instead, the balance would be skewed slightly in favor of the environmental argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Well balanced summary? It's essentially a summary for the history section. There's zero weight from the "group differences" section. Zero weight from the "potential environmental causes" section. Zero weight form the "genetic arguments" section. No it cannot stand on its own. 80% of the article is not mentioned in the lead. Per WP:CONSENSUS (a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit) I will restore the version prior to the dispute until we can come up with a proper summary of the body. BlackHades (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That would clearly be an error on your part. Three editors have expressed support for this structure of the lead, and only you have expressed concerns. I suggest instead you either file an rFc or propose concrete changes that would mitigate your concerns. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you should selfrevert that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Previous lead had a summary of the body for everything except the "genetic arguments" section. Was it perfect? No. But your new lead compounds the problem much further. It is only a summary of the history section. I'm just trying to follow wikipedia guidelines. WP:LEAD requires a summary of the body that can stand on its own. Your new lead moves away from that goal not toward it. Per WP:CONSENSUS, lack of consensus means the version prior to the dispute is restored while we discuss appropriate changes. That is what I did. I agree we should change aspects of the lead and I'm more than happy to further the discussion for improvements. I'm just abiding by wikipedia guidelines. I apologize if this may upset you. BlackHades (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No one has expressed support for this specific version of the lead. Expressing support for some changes of the lead doesn't equate support for this version. Furthermore, this lead provides much less summary of the body than previously. As such it moves farther away from the requirements of WP:LEAD. If they do support it, they should specify exactly how the new lead adheres more to "concise version of the article that can stand on its own" than the previous lead as required by WP:LEAD. BlackHades (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji is expressing support for this version in the post immediately below this one. Atethnikos was the one who suggested the rewrite and he has not objected to the way I did it. That makes three. You have one interpretation of what WP:LEAD should mean in this case and we three apparently have another. You should selfrevert and start an rFC to assess the syupport in the community for your argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

One interpretation? This is wikipedia guidelines for what the lead should be. Are you saying we should ignore the requirements of WP:LEAD? No one has expressed any opinion on your version of the lead relative to the necessary requirements. When they do, they should explain clearly how the new lead does or does not adhere more to the requirements of WP:LEAD (concise summary of the article that can stand on its own) than the previous lead. When other editors do, that's when we should proceed with changes. But I'm asking you honestly to carefully look at your version of the lead. Can you really honestly say you believe that it is a complete summary of the body that can stand on its own? You honestly don't feel a huge chunk of the body is completely missing in your version? BlackHades (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you do not get to make ultimatums about how other editors should argue. Your interpretation of the lead is yours it is obviously not Atethnekos' since he argued that the lead should be brief and only give the major undisputed points, and it is also not WeijiBaikeBianji's or he wouldnt have stated that the lead follows policy. The fact that you disagree with their assessment does not mean that you get to revert like this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not my interpretation. Please stop referring to clear wikipedia policies as my interpretation. Concise summary of the body that can stand on its own is a requirement as set by WP:LEAD. I'm actually quite shocked that you seem so unwilling to follow set guidelines or even willing to have a discussion how to fully meet the requirements of wikipedia guidelines as best we can. You don't even seem willing to acknowledge that major parts of the body is completely missing in your version. BlackHades (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken WP:LEAD does not mention my recent edits to this article. So yes it is yuor interpretation that the lead I wrote does not comply with policy. My interpretation and Weiji's is that it does. I have asked Atethnikos to clarify his/her opinion. Meanwhile you should selfrevert, because your revert is not covered by a valid policy and frankly may get you in trouble. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you or do you not accept that WP:LEAD states that the lead should have a concise summary of the body that can stand on its own? Let's first make sure we are on the same page regarding policy. Because if you don't even accept this, then any other argument regarding whether your version meets policy or not seems moot. BlackHades (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have stated several times now that the lead I wrote IS a concise summary of the body that can stand on its own. It is a lot more concise than the version you reverted to, which means that the weihting of the different sections must be different, but it contains all the important aspects of the topic, and it is in line with the weighting in reliable mainstream secondary sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that there have been previous attempts to improve the lead. For example see Proportionality in the lead. During this time, many editors made numerous changes to improve the lead proportionally to the body. While far from perfect, a lot of positive changes were made. Your lead version reverts all these positive changes made by numerous other editors. It completely over weighs the history section of the article and gives little to zero weight for the rest of the article. All the efforts by previous editors to better balance the lead in proportion to the body, you completely reverted. Please try to understand this concern. BlackHades (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Without boasting I should say that I am in fact one of those editors who have spent more time working on the lead and the body of this article over the years. By the way you reverted to a version of the lead that also doesn't include my smaller cumulative changes before the rewrite. The ones you originally took issue with, when Atethnikos then suggested trimming the lead to the bare necessities I thought that might be a good idea for getting a stable lead. That makes it hard for me not to see this exchange as just a long attempt to enforce your personally preferred version. The lead you reverted to is badly written, doesn't really describe the debate well because it gives no context, and it overstates the case for the hereditarian argument relative to how it is presented in reliable sources. I really suggest you selfrevert.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You do see the concern though right? Maybe you don't agree with it or maybe you do but several months ago, many editors were working together to better balance the lead in proportion to the body. Your new lead would revert all these positive changes. The proportional balance of your new lead is completely off. It's extremely history section heavy and minimal to no weight for any other section. As to why I restored to where I did, I restored the lead as outlined by WP:CONSENSUS which is a version before the dispute started. The dispute started when you increased the weight of the "potential environmental causes" section in the lead while the "genetic arguments" section continued to have zero weight. So I restored to the version prior to this dispute per guidelines of WP:CONSENSUS. BlackHades (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually WP:CONSENSUS nowhere states that if you dislike an edit you get to revert to a version you like and demand explanations from the editors on the talkpage that agree with the new version. That is neither the point of WP:CONSENSUS or of WP:BRD which i think you are probably confusing it with.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I would request that you don't make accusations that are incorrect. A version I like? The version I wrote was this.[36] Did I revert to this? No? Then your accusation is completely wrong. Policy states when there's no consensus in a dispute, the version PRIOR to the dispute gets restored. That is exactly what I did. Please do not accuse me of something that I didn't do. BlackHades (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I'm really befuddled in your assertion that the previous version "overstates the case for the hereditarian argument" when it has ZERO weight for the genetic argument section. The previous lead lists several environmental talking points without mentioning a single possible genetic argument. BlackHades (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If you think the version that you reverted to has the same problem as this one which you keep saying has "zero weight" (which is of course incorrect), then I don't understand the reason for your revert at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, your lead version is considerably more disproportional to the body. In the previous lead, only the "genetic arguments" section had no weight in the lead, a problem you didn't even fix in your version. Instead you made it far more disproportional by devoting nearly the entire lead to the history section with little to no weight for any other sections. BlackHades (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

So the lead that you reverted to has "zero weight" to the hereditarian argument, but mine had considerably less... I am not sure how to calculate negative percentages of weight, that seems kind of complicated. Not if you started thinking a little bit outside the box you would realize that the lead does not have to have the same structure as the body and that both hereditarian arguments and the environmental arguments are covered equally by giving a chronological overview of the debate. In fact my lead gives more weight to hereditarians because only Jensen, Jensenism and the Bell Curve are named and linked to. By not going into a detailed summary of either argument we avoid turning the lead into a he-said-she-said and we avoid having to bicker over which arguments are devoted more space, or described more favorably. The current lead does not describe any of the specific arguments of either side, but simply explains the current status of the argument as it is presented in reliable mainstream secondary sources. Apparently ArtifexMayhem, WeijiWaikeBianji, and me and perhaps Atehnekos agree that this is a better way to write a neutral and objective lead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No that is not what I said. Did I ever state that your version had less weight to the hereditarian argument than the previous lead? No. The two versions have equal weight in regards to the genetic arguments section. Which is none. Again, the problem with your lead version is that it is considerably more disproportional relative to the body in regards to all the sections. Again it is heavily over weight of the history section with minimal weight regarding other sections. The older version had much better balance of weight across the different sections except the notable omission of the genetic arguments section. BlackHades (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. It is driven by policies and disputes should be handled through discussions. I will fully accept and acknowledge your new version when someone can at least respond to the concerns I highlighted. That's all I'm looking for. ArtifexMayhem didn't even bother responding to what policies or how. I'm requesting a third opinion to the concerns I've brought up for which there is still none to be found. If it is decided by consensus that the new version adheres to "concise summary of the body that can stand on its own" more so than the previous lead, then so be it. I'll accept it and move on. But this has not happened yet. There has been absolutely no discussion yet on whether the new version adheres to "concise summary of the body that can stand on its own" more so than the previous lead or not. It's only been you and me so far in this discussion. BlackHades (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy indeed, but rather is an effort to build a free, online, reliable encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is a project to which people with professional knowledge of sources and professional editorial experience can contribute much. To date, Maunus is making great efforts to improve the article, and I fully support those from the perspective of a person who has edited both popular and scholarly publications and who has read deeply in the professional literature on the topic of this controversial article for two decades. Maunus is improving an article that has badly needed improvement for a long time, and I support the changes in article text that he has made so far. Of course, other editors who come to the table with reliable sources may cite those as further article edits occur. Meanwhile, I encourage uninvolved administrators who happen to surf by to remember that this article is already subject to an elaborate set of discretionary sanctions set by the Arbitration Committee. Let's edit with professional editing standards and the best reliable secondary sources in mind. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts to my concern that the new lead over-weighs the history section of the article with minimal weight in regards to other sections? BlackHades (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

An observation: For a very long time, the body text of this article has been plagued by over-reliance on unreplicated, preliminary primary sources (perhaps because they are easy to look up with Google Scholar searches) and under-reliance on what Wikipedia policy on sources actually prefers, namely reliable secondary sources such as practitioner handbooks and textbooks for upper-division undergraduates and graduate students. I think Maunus is correct in how he sums up scholarly consensus, and that is not recognized as an accurate summary if people don't make the effort to refer to the best available sources. The article's body text needs MAJOR work, as it has for years, and the process of updating the lede that Maunus has followed so far honors the sources and upholds Wikipedia policy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article should focus more on reliable secondary sources. The problem is that some editors tend to be completely dismissive of any reliable source simply because the source doesn't match their mandatory criteria "must match what I want it to say". They're already dead set on what a reliable source must and should say and will reject any source that doesn't match their preconceived notions. This is certainly a very contested article in a very contested scientific field. The lack of agreement and consensus among researchers in the field makes this article much more difficult for us editors to edit with constant arguments and debates over due and undue weight, and personal bias among editors very often, sometimes unintentionally, creep in. Given the lack of consensus in the field, the article shouldn't be written like there is a consensus in the field and that's often what editors try to do for their favored view. BlackHades (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Also in regards to "over-reliance on unreplicated, preliminary primary sources" it would be in best interest of this article if this standard was held for BOTH the genetic argument section as well as the potential environment section. But it is not. Are we going to continue to pretend that "Logographic writing system" passes this standard? It was also previously brought up that "Cultural traditions valuing education" doesn't meet this standard either and yet that section is still here. And that's the problem. Stating that anything under genetic arguments must pass such and such standard but anything under "potential environmental causes" are exempt. Shouldn't both sections be held to the same standard? Wouldn't that be in the best interest of the article? BlackHades (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Now that you've gotten that off of your chest, why not suggest some solid secondary and tertiary sources that could be used as a basis for cleaning up this article. aprock (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) This is not completely in thread order, but on the point of consensus, I think there is ample consensus among the source-using editors to make top-to-bottom changes in the article along the lines suggested by Maunus. (2) Another recent, reliable secondary source on the issue of this article is Wendy Johnson's book chapter: Johnson, Wendy (2012). "How Much Can We Boost IQ? An Updated Look at Jensen's (1969) Question and Answer". In Slater, Alan M.; Quinn, Paul C. (eds.). Developmental Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies. Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE. ISBN 978-0-85702-757-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) (and available as a Google ebook). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 11:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to propose that these two secondary review sources should be utilized for establishing relative weight of different arguments and the status of evidence:
- Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. Nisbett, Richard E.; Aronson, Joshua; Blair, Clancy; Dickens, William; Flynn, James; Halpern, Diane F.; Turkheimer, Eric American Psychologist, Vol 67(2), Feb-Mar 2012, 130-159
- Daley, C. E.; Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). "Race and Intelligence". In Sternberg, R.; Kaufman, S. B. The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 293–306

Others can be used to but they should be of equal quality to this type of source - General reviews by respected authors in peer reviewed journals or specialist handbooks or encyclopedias published by academic presses.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Both of these are good sources. The authors of the APA review article are basically an all-star cast of eminent researchers on the issue. Immediately above I recommended a recent textbook chapter by Wendy Johnson, Johnson, Wendy (2012). "How Much Can We Boost IQ? An Updated Look at Jensen's (1969) Question and Answer". In Slater, Alan M.; Quinn, Paul C. (eds.). Developmental Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies. Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE. ISBN 978-0-85702-757-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) that is also very good. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 11:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)