Talk:Race and intelligence: Difference between revisions

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

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103Auto-archiving period: 180 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Race and intelligence, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included: Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles. Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not. Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited. Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

	Race and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 14, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept June 24, 2005 Peer review Reviewed July 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed December 4, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept April 11, 2011 Articles for deletion Kept Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthropology C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Sociology C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013. Doug Gross (July 24, 2013). "Wiki wars: The 10 most controversial Wikipedia pages". CNN. Archived from the original on July 27, 2013. Retrieved July 27, 2013. Circumcision and "race and intelligence," both with obvious controversy attached, made the list, alongside a possibly more surprising page: a list of professional wrestlers on the roster of World Wrestling Entertainment.

I hate to encourage certain people, but [1] is bound to perk up some ears around these parts. Please be careful in your interpretation. Wnt (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By Wikipedia policies and content guidelines, we should prefer secondary sources to press releases as sources at all times for all Wikipedia article. But thanks for the link; I'll take a look at what it points to as I continually pursue sources on this article's topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I see the release didn't actually link [2] though it mentioned it. Wnt (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This paper is used here and on Heritability of IQ by way of the 2012 paper for the finding that in low SES families heritability of IQ falls down. Yet, this finding has been contradicted by a lot more research since, especially Hanscombe et al. 2012. I want other editors to chime in on this, but the fact remains that Turkheimer's paper doesn't remain unchallenged.Wajajad (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see this paper as contradicting Turkheimer. It develops the same conclusion, namely that there is higher variance in SES among lower SES groups and that this is due to environmental not genetic differences. This is exactly the same conclusion as Turkheimers, and is in fact a contradiction of the argument that SES-IQ correlations are due to genetic effects. They conclude that: "Although the genetic influence on IQ is the same in lower-SES families, shared environmental influence appears to be greater in lower-SES families, suggesting that family-based environmental interventions might be more effective in these families." This is exactly the same conclusion argued by Nisbett, Flynn, Turkheimer et al. which is that low SES ave a less stimulating environment which leads them to overall have greater difficulty in achieving their maximal genetic potential (which is the same as high SES families) and hence produces greater variance and a lower mean. It then tempers thyat conclusion by noting that the environmental difference is modest (which is to be expected I would suggest because of the preselective bias of twin studies that tend to be skewed towards high SES families, undersampling low SES) and secondly by possibility that the effect of genetic heritability increases during the individual lifetime.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus has said correctly that the reliable secondary sources (please read those if you are here to build an encyclopedia) accept the result of the Turkheimer 2003 paper, while mentioning that other studies with somewhat different study populations have not all had the same result. But, anyway, this obsession about heritability estimates is itself, according to all the reliable secondary literature, a sign of misunderstanding what heritability means. Turkheimer (remember, this is the guy that some editors on Wikipedia earlier battled to label a "hereditarian", because Professor Turkheimer has a long and distinguished career in behavior genetics research) is the co-author of a definitive review article that reminds us "Moreover, even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability." Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, E.; Gottesman, Irving; Bouchard, Thomas (2009). "Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research" (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 18 (4). Association for Psychological Science: 217–220. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01639.x. PMC 2899491. PMID 20625474. Archived from the original on 29 June 2010. Retrieved 21 September 2014. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) Until editors here understand what heritability means and what heritability doesn't mean (for which topic I also recommend another review article, namely Johnson, Wendy; Penke, Lars; Spinath, Frank M. (2011). "Understanding Heritability: What it is and What it is Not" (PDF). European Journal of Personality. 25 (4): 287–294. doi:10.1002/per.835. ISSN 0890-2070. Archived from the original on 2011. Retrieved 15 December 2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) ), it will be hard to produce improvements in the article text of this article, which I hope is something we are all here to do. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 10:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

1) "It develops the same conclusion, namely that there is higher variance in SES among lower SES groups and that this is due to environmental not genetic differences."

The phenotypic and, especially, non-genetic variance of IQ is what may be higher in low SES families. "Higher variance in SES" doesn't mean anything.

Moreover, Kirkpatrick et al.[3] found lower IQ variance in low-SES families, in contradiction with Turkheimer. They also found that heritability does not vary as a function of trait level (low IQ and high IQ are equally due to genes).

2) "in fact a contradiction of the argument that SES-IQ correlations are due to genetic effects"

Nope. The method used in these studies only estimates how those genetic and environmental main effects on IQ that are NOT shared with SES are moderated by SES.

3) Turkheimer's study is underpowered and its conclusions are not consistent, in terms of the magnitude of moderation, with other studies. Hanscombe et al. 2012 did find a moderation effect but it's very small compared to Turkheimer's.

4) "I would suggest because of the preselective bias of twin studies that tend to be skewed towards high SES families, undersampling low SES"

The TEDS sample is representative of the UK population in terms of SES. Turkheimer's sample is highly unrepresentative (and old).--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. I dont know much about the specific samples used so you may be right that Turkheimers sample is even less representative, but was argueing based on as far as I know in general twin studies and adoption studies tend to undersample the lowest rungs of the SES hierarchy. 1. I of course meant higher variance in IQ, not in SES. I have no comments to your 2 and 3 - but will await how future reviews assess the different studies and their flaws and advantages. This is exactly why we need secondary review articles to assess the relative significance of this and other primary studies. And it is why the Nisbett et al. review is among our best sources for the current state of affairs. Maybe Plomin will publish a similar review from his perspective soon.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a routine linking to the United States, thanked by one user, then another user reverted saying not only the US. Fine but in that case we must remove the mention of the US in the opening. I dont care which but we either dont include American or we include it with a link to the US. American can, esp outside the US, refer to people in the Americas but I dont believe the text referred to that. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to remove the reference altogether, but somehow blew it. It's ok now.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of this discussion should also be made on the Heritability of IQ page, considering this source has relevant data pertaining to several topics.

The paper is available to read here and is published in Intelligence, a notable journal for this topic area.

What's most relevant is the discussion of GWAS hits for various education attainment parameters (and said hits are also associated with g) and that these hits have been replicated (contrary to the belief that GWAS hits for cognitive traits won't replicate or haven't thus far replicated.)

The frequencies for these alleles also differ across populations, and were found to reflect national differences in IQ.

I urge editors to look into this new review and figure out how the findings can be used to improve this and other articles. Wajajad (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That paper is not published in Intelligence, but is self-archived on the internet. Piffers unpublished selfarchived papers are not relevant untill people begin citing them in peer reviewed sources. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piffer's paper was published in Intelligence yesterday after what I hear was much wrangling. While I think it's great that his work has finally found its way into an excellent journal, I believe it's premature to use it as a source for Wikipedia articles (except for his review of significant GWAS hits). Many of his methods are novel and not yet widely accepted. Population stratification remains a problem despite his attempts to adjust for it. Once the rumored 70 GWAS hits from the SSGAC consortium are published, Piffer's method can be put to a stronger test.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is not yet up on their website. I agree, we should wait and see how it is taken up in the future studies and or reviews.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can use it now for smaller claims, like that of significant GWA hits and replication (as Victor pointed out.) We can wait until more scholars review Piffer's work here before we put up content related to the possibly more contentious claims.Wajajad (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article abstract says, "Allele frequencies varied in a way that matched group-level phenotypic intelligence, albeit not significantly so." It's very easy to overinterpret statements about "significant" (the term there is used in the statistics sense, not in the real-world sense) GWAS hits, so I'd be wary of putting much into the Wikipedia article at all from the contentious article in the journal Intelligence (to which I have a subscription and which I have read regularly for years). Note that Piffer is citing mostly just himself for the methodology relied on in the paper. It's painfully apparent that certain POV-pushing bloggers are running far ahead of scholarly consensus in how they are promoting this one paper in a journal that many behavior genetics researchers find unworthy of attention. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 13:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should be very cautious about using any 2015 primary sources for making any claims no matter how small. What is required is good, i.e. reliable, scientifically prestigious secondary sources and taking our own information from the secondary sources and then only use the primary source to conform whatever the secondary sources are saying. This is basically how wikipedia works, the reliable secondary sources of course demonstrating notability by their very existence. And of course blogs are no use to cite anything but especially not a subject as potentially politically controversial as this one clearly is. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior geneticists find Intelligence not worthy of attention? That's news to me. It's difficult to think of any prominent behavior geneticists who have studied cognitive abilities and haven't published in Intelligence.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems a patently false statement, Intelligence as a journal doesn't only hold weight in the field of psychometrics, but also in other fields in which research related to human cognitive traits or intelligence is done, i.e. behavior genetics. Prominent behavior geneticists do indeed hold Intelligence as being an important journal, and none seem to consider it "unworthy of attention". What that means is that this paper does indeed qualify as a reliable source, and being a review, qualifies as a secondary source. Wajajad (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wajajad, you are learning about this source solely from ideological blog posts, and not from the actual scholarly literature by authors who have published review articles in journals like Science, Human Genetics, Psychological Science, American Journal of Psychiatry, Behavior Genetics, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, and other journals with better editorial standards than any blog. (Those are the kind of people whose writings inform me about human behavior genetics research.) Simply put, the article under discussion is not a review, and we can all know this because the journal in which it was published, Intelligence, says, "Theoretical and review articles will be considered, if appropriate, but preference will be given to original research." And reading the article under discussion (yeah, I know, that is actual work, but that is what you should do before suggesting that the article be used as a source for editing a Wikipedia article on a controversial topic) indicates plainly enough that the author is attempting to promote a new, unverified method of analysis, which has already been criticized by scholars more active in research on the topic than the author is, to reach novel empirical findings. He is not reviewing previous research in the sense of writing a review article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 16:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is it a secondary source for, Wajajad? It cannot be a secondary source for itself, nothing can be both a primary and a secondary source, every ref has to be either primary OR secondary. I suggest editors bring their reliable secondary sources to this page so we can all have a look and comment and then add something. Its the secondary sources and not the wikipedia editors opinions about say geneticists and intelligence which are of interest here. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a work can be a primary source for one claim and a secondary for another.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is true and I havent suggested otherwise but it cant be both at the same time for the same claim, it can only be a secondary source for something different. And blogs make for neither primary nor secondary sources. So the article needs secndary sources, which so far havent been provided, leaving me to suspect we are unable to provide them and hence unable to mention the article or any of its conclusions. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth looking at Talk:Eugenics#Marian Van Court. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I am against the changes for the basic reason that instead of qualifying the "claims" it puts them as "findings." Moreover, claiming there is no Maths in Africa is inaccurate. It is also misleading about Gobineau. Because it is not balanced with his later statements about Jews. And what does that has to do with Intelligence? Achieving things are not only about intelligence, but about culture and character. These statements, as well as those in the other page you presented, are not scientific and as an example of purposed deception. Please, look at the literature on the issue. It is a repeat of the same thing, all over and over. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reference for your claim about math in Africa? I believe it is more neutral to describe the claims as findings because to describe them as "claims" presumes that they are not backed by evidence. You may disagree with Gobineau's statement, but I am simply quoting him. It is not our responsibility to critique Gobineau; we simply report the facts. Sombe19 (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sombe19: You should cease disrupting these articles with what appear like an Aryan agenda. Your editing history tells it all. 1) No, "Findings" is not a better word than "Claims" because these claims were never proven nor was there any evidence. That is why their science is not called science today, but pseudo-science. Besides, if you talk about Gobineau, he was never a scientist in the sense of lab science. His book on the inequality of the races cannot be more unscientific. His position regarding Jews was complicated, is true, but his antisemitism, though implicit (rather than overt), gave way to Wagner's and to Aryanism (though not in a linear way). His notion of race was qualitative, which means that he gave merit to Jews who were whiter. It seems that a paradigmatic change is occurring in today's Aryanism by raising the Jews' racial profile; it says a lot about how current times impact ideology. And I am all for quoting him and his colleagues, but never as if they can be trusted in their claims about race and intelligence. If you dare to ask about my claims on math in Africa, it means that you either have your mind made up already or that you are ignorant about the scholarship on the subject. Contrary to popular misconceptions, Subsaharan Africa teemed with mathematicians, either in the Arab tradition or in the peasant practical one. To think that the Islam was only present in North Africa is to participate in the 19th-century racialists' ignorance of African history.
• I will not argue without sources. Here are for Gobineau: Francisco Bethencourt, Élisabeth Roudinesco, Kendra Hendrickson (particularly chapter 2), Mical Bodemann (particularly the chapter called: "Coldly Admiring the Jews", Dorothy Figueira, Gavin Schaffer. Here are for Math, Architecture and Science in Sub-Saharan Africa (particularly pre-1600): Paulus Gerdes, Marcia Arscher, Kim Williams, Michael J. Ostwald (Attention to Gerdes chapter 24), Hidden History of Math, particularly, George Gheverghese Joseph, Sonja Brentjes (chapter 5). These are but the tip of a large body of scholarship that you seem to be missing. They are all digital sources, which can be keyword-searched. I can give you the exact citations for the questions you may have. Before claiming expertise, please, familiarize yourself with the literature.
• @Doug Weller:, thanks for calling out to the changes. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are infringing on copyright by using Google Drive to store and disseminate those papers.

I was reading through your copyright-violating papers and I found this interesting tidbit: "Most histories of mathematics devote only a few pages to ancient Egypt and to northern Africa during the 'Middle Ages.' Generally they ignore the history of mathematics in sub-Saharan Africa and give the impression either that this history is not knowable/traceable, or even stronger still, that there was no mathematics at all south of the Sahara." [emphasis mine]

Fringe Afrocentric pseudohistory (one of your papers asserted that Euclid was a Black Egyptian) should receive less attention on Wikipedia than the mainstream opinion. Who should be weighted more prominently, the Afrocentrists, or "most histories of mathematics"?

Instead of reverting my edit you could have expanded the section to summarize the disagreement as to the extent to which mathematics existed in sub-Saharan Africa (if Gerdes and the other Afrocentric academics should be mentioned at all)

And what about the Galton quotes and my section on life history variables? Sombe19 (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sombe19: Those sources are not mine. I asked temporary access to them because we were involved in a discussion and I wanted to make sure you had access to them too. That you choose to start talking in this way (rather than asking me about them) shows you are not in a very friendly mood. You are also very particular with what you choose to mention. Yes, I included an Afrocentrist scholar, but there were others who were not, and you did not mention them. You were also silent on the arguments about Gobineau.

• Secondly, Afrocentricity is no pseudohistory. Blanket statements like this one are, actually, common in anti-Black rhetoric. You have not read them all. That a few notorious scholars, much rejected by core Afrocentrists, have called public attention with outrageous claims does not mean that the entire school is like them. We can say the same about every single school of thought. But let me tell you, it is not surprising that White supremacists would find ways to attack what challenges their privileges, and discredit schools of thought that undermine their racist arguments. The quote you posted here is actually very revealing. Thanks for bringing it. I consider myself eclectic, to a certain point. Subscribing to one single school limits options. Now, you can claim that works that sustain White supremacy are older and more numerous, and thus, canonical, and whatever challenges them is just fringe theories. Such an argument ignores the long history of patriarchy and racism that has shaped modernity. It is, then, a circular reasoning.

• And, lastly, I did not delete your comments. I brought my concerns here, to the article's Talk Page, hoping to join in a friendly but candid conversation about the issues you posted (which is something you did not do). Yet, I would not hesitate to revert information that has been posted in bad faith. This topic is within my area of speciality, in which I publish and teach about (undergraduate and graduate courses). If I read you well, your postulations are old and discredited. They seem to go against the principles of equality. They appear to feed on the legacies of modern chattel slavery and racism. I would entertain prospects of discussing the matter if you would not be pushing anti-Black and pro-White supremacy ideas (I did not bring Galton, but would gladly discuss with interlocutors who are willing to learn). If you are indeed, circulating ideas of White superiority and Aryanism, please, do not bring them here. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding this: [4])

Please don't blanket revert all those edits. There were many good and unbiased edits in there. Fix what you think needs fixing - don't just blanket revert. Sombe19 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the previous version, with the version after you got done with it: [5]. You made a whole bunch of highly POV edits and completely altered the article. For example, you changed "Claims of races having different intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, racism, social Darwinism, and racial eugenics." to the highly POV "The findings ^[1] that different races possessed different average intelligence scores were used as a justification". In other words you changed the neutral, and source based "claims" to the highly POV, non-sourced based, and frankly, racist "findings". Which you put in Wikipedia voice as if it was true.

You do the same thing in the next sentence, where you changed "Racial thinkers such as Arthur de Gobineau relied crucially on the assumption that black people were innately inferior to Whites" to the POV "relied crucially on the findings that Blacks were innately inferior to Whites". In other words you changed what was stated to be a (racist) assumption into a claim of fact. Sorry, no way.

Also, your edit history shows that you're a single purpose account with a style and interest very similar to a couple of indef banned editors. Wanna tell us which one you're a sockpuppet of? I'm guessing at least this one but there's probably a few others. So.... I'm not going to waste my time on this. Volunteer Marek  05:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek:, thanks for your reversals. Great investigative work! Cheers, Caballero/Historiador (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sombe19 - I didn't see any "good and unbiased edits in there". Volunteer Marek  18:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The reverted edits were writtenentirely from a fringe POV, and used outdated unreliable sources. I dont see how any of the proposed changes could be accepted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek:Regarding this: [6]. Can you please explain what you are talking about? Sombe19 (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think VolunteerMArek made a mistake, the potential COI is from the user TimBates, who is inserting some material sourced to an author called Timothy Bates. The material inserted by him is reasonable and potentially useful - except that it may be giving undue attention to the editor's own research - if they are the same person. Contrarily your edits which VolunteerMarek reverted are not reasonable or useful, but amount to promotion of as fringe viewpoint through the use of outdated sources, and they do not appear to me to have any potential to improving this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, I agree. Could we ask User:Tim bates to bring his material here for discussion and relevant use for the article? What do the guidelines say about this? One of us could include it in the sources, if we found them useful, of course. I think we should work for recruiting and retaining this type of editor. --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 19:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker-Drob and Bates's study is the best available source on SES-heritability interaction, so to the extent that the topic is discussed in this article, it should be used. However, the study does not deal with race differences, so it's largely tangential to this article. Heritability_of_IQ#Heritability_and_socioeconomic_status is where the study's results can be given more coverage.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is good to know, I think that if we follow policy strictly we should use it in this article unless it is cited in papers that review the SES-heritability aspect of the Race and intelligence question. Do Hunt or the Nisbett et al. paper cite it? (I am away from my library, so I cannot check myself).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker-Drob & Bates[7] is a brand new paper, so it has been cited by just about nobody.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then definitely I think we should wait to include it until it has been integrated into the literature.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus I suppose you are saying that because the subject is tangential and no other reason? Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 21:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am also saying it because in articles like this were we face a constant struggle with attempts to insert fringe viewpoints the best strategy is to adhere closely to policy. Policy encourages us to use highly reliable secondary sand tertiary sources to summarize contentious debates, since this is the main guarantee that the article reflects the academic consensus on a point. Newly published research has not yet been evaluated by the academic community, and hence we cannot know how they will be received. We cannot take on the responsibility ourselves of trying to predict which newly published papers will be integrated into the literature, which will be ignored and which will be rebutted - that would be original research. Hence we have to wait until they are integrated into the body of literature, i.e. when they start to be cited, when they are summarized and included in review articles etc. In short, time will show whether this paper is relevant, when scholars working on the Race and intelligence question start citing it - if they do not then it will have been proven tangential. We should refrain from making that call ourselves.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus Thanks. It shows the experience you have dealing with this and similar articles. Is there a consensus? If so, I can contact Tim and explain. I understand why things like this would happen. I have also included one or two pubs of mine in articles I think needed some boosting. But I also understand WP logic, which you just explained so well. Again, do we have a consensus? Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 23:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be reasonable to include one´s own articles if they are clearly important and do not skew the content. IN an article like this however that is a constant battleground of opinions I would rather not risk it though.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that people keep accusing me of promoting a "fringe" hereditarian POV. It is not a fringe POV, but rather the mainstream POV subscribed to by the majority of scholars and experts. Take a look at this (cut and pasted from the old set of Wikipedia articles on race and intelligence)

A survey was conducted in 1987 of a broad sample of 1,020 scholars (65% replied) in specialties that would give them reason to be knowledgeable about IQ (but not necessarily about race; Snyderman & Rothman, 1987). The survey was given to members of the American Education Research Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, Behavior Genetics Association, and Cognitive Science Society. Political and social opinions, reported in the same survey, accounted for less than 10% of the variation in responses. (Respondents on average called themselves slightly left of center politically.) Measures of expertise or eminence accounted for little or no variation in responses.

One question was "Which of the following best characterizes your opinion of the heritability of the Black-White difference in I.Q.?" (emphasis original).[8] The responses were divided into five categories:

• The difference is entirely due to environmental variation: 15%.
• The difference is entirely due to genetic variation: 1% (8 respondents).
• The difference is a product of both genetic and environmental variation: 45%.
• The data are insufficient to support any reasonable opinion: 24%.
• No response (or not qualified): 14%.

The age of the survey and the anonymity of the respondents could constrain its interpretation.

In a 1988 survey, journalists, editors, and IQ experts were asked their "opinion of the source of the black-white difference in IQ" (Snyderman and Rothman,1988)

I assert that it is the opposition's viewpoint that represents the fringe (Marxist) POV, that has been endlessly promoted to the point where it appears to represent mainstream opinion (but it doesn't). Sombe19 (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a diff for the version of the article with that in it?  Volunteer Marek  09:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were deleted a while ago. I had them saved to my computer. Sombe19 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Regretfully, it is possible we may have already moved beyond prudence. This user?, an owner of a single-purpose account WP:SPA, has not fully answered questions about its ideological positions and the potential links to Arianism and White Supremacy (however, even interventions in articles about eyesight are about genetics and intelligence). The user may be employing WP as its WP:SOAPBOX. When confronted with disruptive editing, it feigns concern, but then it shows no interest in heeding critique. Even when it is unfamiliar with other sides of the arguments WP:CIR, it still demands attention for his or hers-- traits of an ardent votary with a non-encyclopedic agenda. It fails, for instance, to see how the logic in this archived fragment is false. A 28-year-old (1987) survey is no indication of a genetic fact nor the current state of the field. As a piece of history, it helps to chronicle the changes in biases and their roles in people's perceptions of science. Moreover, its reference to Marxism may reveal more than just ignorance about Marx's indifference to race as a category of analysis. Its vent to include outdated sources and ideas in the article is part of a personal history of problematic editing. Look at some of its summaries:

1- "Restored some material that was deleted a while ago without explanation."

2- "NPOV disputed since references section only includes anti-eugenics sources." In another context, the user has declared, "We need some pro-eugenics material."

3- "The pro-eugenics stance is hardly the fringe."

4- "Communist groups were genocidal but maintained an egalitarian mantra."

• 1) Rather than moving the article(s) forward the user attempts to bring it back to a romanticized past. 2) Of course, to claim that a debunked ideology has no fair representation in this article is to refuse to accept that it has been debunked. The demands for more pro-eugenic sources is not to improve the article with historical documentation, but to present them as evidence of current consensus (discussions above). 3) To allege that "pro-eugenics" is not a "fringe" theory is to ignore that already in 1997, 1998 J. Phillippe Rushton was protesting the overwhelming rejection of his ideas, which according to Andrew Winston, had been pegged to a corner outside of the mainstream. 4) The user's generalizations of leftists, communists, and Marxists parallel the fascists' historically broad labeling, which hints to political, rather than scientific, urges its interventions in WP. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 14:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep talking about "White supremacy" when this article (and Rushton) clearly place Asians on top. And you still aren't answering what I posted about why my POV represents the mainstream rather than the fringe. Sombe19 (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sombe19: I was not asking about Rushton, but about you. It seems you are siding with the "rushtonian literature," then. No doubt, Rushton does not embody the core of the White Supremacy school. His inclusion of East Asians at the top of the human hierarchy, however, does not negate it. His main points pivot on the lightening of the skin as people "came out of Africa" and moved into colder climes, thus making the process of whitening the key factor for higher intelligence. And yes, I did answer your argument about your POV not representing mainstream when I explained and gave sources on how even Rushton, who followed what for some was a moderate form of eugenics, saw himself pushed to the corner. You seem to have read at least one of them. If you still need more sources, I can lead you to them. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 15:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rushton was pushed to the corner by people who weren't experts. The majority of experts agree with me. And I agree with Rushton that Asians should be ranked on top. Sombe19 (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Thanks for the quick response. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 15:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sombe, this is a discussion we have had a million times - and it is firmly established consensus that the hereditarian viewpoint is not dominant within the literature. Hereditrarianism is not in itself a fringe view, but some of its versions proponents like Rushton and Lynn are. There is no point to rehashing this old discussion unless new publications (reliable, secondary ones in major journals) are proposed to support the viewpoint. The 1987 survey is entirely irrelevant on several accounts - the fact tha it predates all the relevant research and public debate is the principal one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1987 seems recent enough for me. Most of the scientific literature in this area was published before 1987. At any rate, I am tired of this going back and forth accusing each other of having a fringe POV. We need to have a solid definition on what exactly constitutes a "fringe" point of view. Unfortunately, I am not able to find this definition anywhere in Wikipedia policy. Sombe19 (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is seems like to you is utterly irrelevant. The matter has been discussed and a consensus has been established. Without new arguments it is not going to change. read the archives [[9]]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that expert consensus is on my side. Sombe19 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the irony is that you clearly wouldnt recognize an expert if she bit you in the ass.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: [10] Can you explain what is wrong with those edits? Sombe19 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem is thatthere is ageneral consensus among scientists that Rushton's figures are bogus figures, and your edit treats them as if they were valid. The second problem is that the Beals etal paper specificaly states that the data they present doesnt support a racial correlation with brain size.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rushton's figures were derived from other people's figures, such as Ho et al. 1980. Can I get a reference for your claim that the scientific consensus is that Rushton's figures are "bogus"? Sombe19 (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can see Lieberman 2001 pull his data apart, then then look at the fact that none of his claims have been accepted in the mainstream literature. which has consistently pointed out flaws in both his statistical methods and his data.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why not mention Rushton's figures and then mention the criticism? And I'm still not getting your claim that Rushton isn't accepted in the mainstream literature. Sombe19 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the Beals paper I would be happy to provide many other references for race differences in brain size. Sombe19 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the Beals paper is the single best source on human variability in cranial size (although it is not up to current standards). It does not however support the argument that you are trying to make it support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how could consensus ever be established on a controversial topic such as this? Sombe19 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia used to have an excellent set of articles on race and intelligence which I have recently stumbled upon. Take a look at this:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28average_gaps_among_races%29&oldid=109005403
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28test_data%29&oldid=177588390
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28interpretations%29&oldid=166472437
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28Controversies%29&oldid=166472468
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28utility_of_research%29&oldid=166728707
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28potential_for_bias%29&oldid=166472494
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28Public_controversy%29&oldid=104094823
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence_%28history%29&oldid=166472369
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_portrayal_of_race_and_intelligence&oldid=196123843

Sombe19 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rindermann H, Coyle T R, Becker D. 2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence.

Presented at the 14th ISIR conference, Melbourne, Australia, December 12-14, 2013

It has surveyed

1. Authors of papers published in
   • Intelligence
   • Cognitive Psychology
   • Biological Psychology (if article addressed intelligence or a related topic, i a i)
   • Journal of Mathematical Psychology (i a i)
   • Contemporary Educational Psychology (i a i)
   • Journal of School-Psychology (i a i)
   • New Ideas in Psychology (i a i)
   • Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (i a i)
2. For the subject well known scientists or journalists writing on it.
3. Scientists emailed by ISIR member list
4. Scientists informed by ISSID website
5. Scientists and interested students ( N St ≤3) informed by colleagues.

It was emailed the 1237 persons, 228(18%) completed or partially completed.

Results:

Sources for U.S. black-white differences in IQ (74% of their experts having an opinion)

--The Master (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]