Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:41, 14 July 2013

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

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103Auto-archiving period: 30 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: Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors. Advocacy: Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages 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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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".. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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)

Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy indeed, but rather is an effort to build a free, online, reliable encyclopedia. As such, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 "How Much Can We Boost IQ? An Updated Look at Jensen's (1969) Question and Answer" in Developmental Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies edited by Alan M Slater and Paul C Quinn (SAGE: 2012) ISBN 978-0857027580 (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 that is also very good. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 11:03, 13 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Some mainstream sources

Here is a standard introduction to personality psychology and intelligence. It uses two pages to describe the R&I issue and after describing how Race is a challenged concept but with some biological utility it concludes that:

Even if racial groupings are not biologically meaningless, however, this does not mean that race-based differences in mean IQ have a biological basis. It is entirely possible that environmental factors that differ between racial groupings – potentially including nutrition, social norms, poverty, discrimination – contribute to these differences. Although IQ tests generally do not suffer from significant internal or external bias where race is concerned, it is possible that situational biases might exist. For example, Steele and Aronson (1995) demonstrated that when African American students were led to believe that a difficult verbal task was diagnostic of their intelligence they performed more poorly on it than when the task was not presented in this way. They argue that being made aware of a negative stereotype about one’s group creates feelings of threat and vulnerability that impair performance. When black participants are administered intelligence tests, aware that lower intelligence is part of the stereotype of their group, their performance may therefore be adversely affected. As a result, their intelligence may be under-estimated and the racial stereotype invalidly ‘confirmed’. This ‘stereotype threat’ phenomenon may at least partly account for racial disparities in measured intelligence.

— Nick Haslam, nick haslam introduction to personality and intelligence

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This is from a commonly used introduction textbook to the field of Psychology. The astute reader will note that it weighs environmental claim much more heavily than genetic ones which it in fact largely refutes. Note also that I am not being selective, but simply quoting the first psychology text books to which I have access.

In a careful review of thee Bell Curve, one of the leading researchers in the area of intelligence concluded the book offered no convincing evidence that genetic factors were primarily responsible for the 15-point IQ difference between African Americans and Caucasians (R. J. Sternberg, 1995). "is conclusion is based largely on the distinction between whether genetic factors can influence the development of intelligence in an individual and whether they can influence the development of intelligence among races. the APA task force said there is good evidence that genetic factors play a significant role in the development of an individual’s intelligence. However, there is no convincing evidence that genetic factors play a primary role in the differences in intelligence among races. A tremendous amount of research data challenges Herrnstein and Murray’s statement that IQ differences among races are caused primarily by genetic factors (Neisser et al., 1996; R. J. Sternberg et al., 2005). Although no one knows exactly what causes the difference in IQ scores shown in the above graph, many psychologists suggest a number of environmental factors, such as differences in social-economic classes, educational opportunities, family structures, and career possibilities (Loehlin, 2000). Recent research that shows the difference in IQs between African Americans and Whites is narrowing by 4–7 points suggests that environmental factors can significantly influence IQ (Dickens & Flynn, 2006). "us, one of the Bell Curve’s major conclusions—that racial differences in IQ scores are based primarily on genetic factors—is not supported by the evidence (Neisser et al., 1996). Two prominent researchers concluded that thee Bell Curve’s argument for racial inferiority appeared to be based on scientific evidence, but closer examination shows that it was not (S. J. Gould, 1996; R. J. Sternberg, 1995).

— Plotnik & Koyoumdjian, Introduction to Psychology, 9th edition

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, Maunus. I'm following along in the discussion here and I think you're doing the right thing to improve the article. I've been reading some new sources recently, and I should be joining the article editing pretty soon. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. After taking a break from the topic for awhile, I find myself coming back to the sources because I am teaching a course on the topic currently.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Forthcoming changes

In the coming weeks I am going to restructure the body of the article so that it doesn't segregate topics arbitrarily into arguments for the two sides, because that masks the dialogue within the field and creates a weird recursively embedded he-said/she-said structure to the entire article. And it ends up allotting undue weight to minority arguments and POVs on both sides of the debate. The article should give more prominent attention to those arguments and topics within the debate that have received more attention. I am considering either a chronological approach or one that is organized by topics and not by whether the arguments are forwarded in support of the genetic or environmental point of view. Perhaps I will combine the two types of organization so that sections devoted to the main phases of the debate will be treated in separate sections e.g. "Army intelligence test debates", "Jensenism debates", "Bell curve debates", "Flynn effect debates" etc. This will allow me to describe the dialogue going on between various researchers around a single topic. To establish a relative weighting I will be using the Nisbett et al. paper and the Daley and Onwuegbuzie chapter and the chapter in the same handbook by " Racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence in the United States: multicultural perspectives" by Lisa A. Suzuki, Ellen L. Short and Christina S. Lee. To make sure to do justice to the the G-factor/Hereditarian argument, I will also draw on Hunt's "Human Intelligence".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nisbett is an extreme source. He is not mainstream. There are several reliable secondary sources that repeatedly makes this clear. Despite all the disputes I've had with Aprock, he still previously agreed and acknowledged that Jensen is more mainstream than Nisbett and that Jensen should have more weight than Nisbett. There have already been previous discussions in talk among editors that Nisbett may already be over-weighed in this article. Increasing weight to Nisbett compounds the problem and should be avoided. I'd recommend using more mainstream sources. For example there is essentially universal agreement among all editors here that Hunt and Carlson is an extremely high quality secondary source. Some sources by them to consider:

Hunt, Earl; Carlson, Jerry (2007). "Considerations relating to the study of group differences in intelligence". Perspectives on Psychological Science 2 (2): 194–213.

Hunt, Earl. (2011). Human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.

These would be far better reliable secondary sources to use than Nisbett. BlackHades (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You are entirely incorrect about Nisbett he is as mainstream as they get. Jensen is NOT more mainstream than Nisbett, except perhaps within the conservative branch of psychometry. Hunt is fine too, but definitely considered to be on the conservative side of the mainstream as Nisbett may be on the opposite side. Calling Nisbett extreme calls into question your judgment very heavily, and you should provide some very good quality sources to support that view if you want to be taken seriously. I want you to note that one of the Arbitration committee's findings was that some editors were attempting to shift the balance towards a set of sources that you seem to be pushing too. Jensen will get more weight than Nisbett because his views have been more influential. The Nisbett et al. paper defines the mainstream today.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Your bias is glowing ever more obvious. No Nisbett is not mainstream. I've provided you several reliable secondary sources that explicitly state such. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have any weight at all (he should) but your attempt to push this entire article to his position, and your preferred position, is one that violates the remedies of the arbitration committee. Nisbett being extreme isn't my words but the words of highly reliable secondary sources. I don't know why some editors think the Arbitration committee remedies apply only to hereditarian sources and that all environmental sources, no matter how extreme, are somehow exempt from it. But this idea is sadly mistaken and wrong. Extreme sources should be treated as extreme sources. Whether it's hereditarian or environmental.

Here's a link to concerns raised by several editors that Nisbett may already be over-weighed in the article.

Comments by Aprock on Nisbett and Hunt/Carlson:

"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."--Aprock

"I've repeated held up Hunt/Carlson as a high quality secondary source. I've never held up Nisbett's book as such."--Aprock

If Aprock can acknowledge that Jensen is more mainstream than Nisbett and hold Hunt/Carlson (which clearly calls Nisbett extreme) as a high quality secondary source, despite his own personal positions, yet you appear to have so much difficulty in accepting these facts, what do you think this says about your bias and your own personal agenda? What do you think it says about your agenda when several editors have already voiced concerns that Nisbett is over-weighed in the article and you're choosing to ignore all of them and push for even MORE weight for Nisbett? I would strongly recommend you use your own previous advice and "think outside the box" and edit this article more aligned with the remedies set forth by the arbitration committee. BlackHades (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You are twisting my words. I have not held up Nisbett's old pop-science book as a mainstream source we should use. Nisbett's book originally was used as the model for the organization of the entire article because of the way he puts up the hereditarian and environmentalists arguments in the appendix. Hereditarian editors did not have the problems with his book then that yuo are now claiming, they were entirely in favor of using that organization. By leaving that scheme of organization I am in fact giving less weight to that book. I am going to use the Review coauthored by him and 5 other researchers and published in AP. You have provided one source in our discussions that call one of Nisbetts claim's extreme. If you had read anything I am saying I am not claiming that that particular claim is the mainstream. You don't know jack shit about my biases or my positions so I would very much advice you to stop talking about them. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

More sources:

"Nisbett’s extreme statement has virtually no chance of being true. Similarly Wicherts et al. do not exclude genes among possible causes."--Rindermann, Heiner. "African cognitive ability: Research, results, divergences and recommendations." Personality and Individual Differences (2012).

"In presenting such an extreme view, Nisbett and Wilson have provoked strong reactions"--Thompson, Sarah "The Construction of Personality" pg 172, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1988

“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.

BlackHades (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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