Jump to content

Talk:IQ and Global Inequality/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

AfD?

Why not go to AfD? A book from a minor publisher, which received poor reviews on methodological grounds, and which advances WP:FRINGE claims, and an article which attracts infamous editor warriors, is neither necessary to nor beneficial for the project. It's interesting to find Director here, and reminiscent of his role in defending similar unfounded sentiments at Jews and Communism, an edit war that ended only after a protracted AfD. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

And the whole crew is here, excellent. Hello MarkBernstein, its just as "interesting" to see you appear out of nowhere on this article for the first time. I'm thinking this is either telepathy or e-mail WP:CANVASSING? I hope you don't doubt I'll request input from the community on the first sign of your slipping back into your standard repertoire of character assassination in the form of emotional tirades? -- Director (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Director, you should strike that uncivil talk page comment. Anyone on Wikipedia is entitled to look at any article (and other paths that lead to this article, like the edit-warring notice board). Don't assume bad faith. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
AfD is an interesting idea for this particular book. Take a look at the Wikipedia notability guideline about books and see what applies here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. For the record, I noticed this page because its edit war was under discussion at AN/I. I suppose that reading AN/I is, in Director's view, only proper if it supports his side of the edit war. I still think the most straightforward way out of this conundrum is to delete the article. (Funny how Director is again defending shoehorning racist drivel into Wikipedia because some obscure source mentions it and, as long as the source mentions it, Wikipedia must highlight it. It's a pattern, clearly) MarkBernstein (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I shall certainly not strike anything with MarkBernstein continuing to post more PAs and slander such as the above. He's a specialist in character assassination, who tends to favor ad hominem attacks as a method to push his extreme, politically-coloured agendas. None of what he writes regarding myself is in fact true, nor even reasonably approximate to the facts - I'd advise anyone who reads his posts to check and double-check them for attempted manipulation ("racist", "antisemite" etc. are his favorites, I guess when you're not bound to the real world and invent anything you like, it probably makes sense not to pull punches).
I'm a social democrat by political conviction, and my only gripe here is that I perceive scientific objectivity being sidelined in favor of (American) liberal/conservative political games. I don't think this book is accurate in its claims, but I also think that hiding those claims, on an article dedicated to them(!) - is censorship. If the article is deleted, the point is of course moot, but I think we all know it passes WP:NOTE no question. -- Director (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Both of you please strike your comments about other editors. This page is for discussing how to improve the article by representing the sources according to our policies.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure. If he will strike them. -- Director (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@Director: so you will not rise to the level of being civil unless someone beats you to it? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
There's a history here, I'm quite sick of MarkBernstein's hateful comments. I am not convinced he is about to stop slandering me, and you can't expect me to agree to sit quietly while he does so. That's how mudslinging works. -- Director (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) @Director: you have been notified about the discretionary sanctions . "he did it first!!!" and "he did not remove his comments yet!!!" are not valid exemption claims. Strike your comments or we will be headed to AE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, this is not the proper WP:FORUM for handling these issues. If you feel there is editor misconduct, please take it to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Unlike "Jews and Communism", there appear to be adequate reliable secondary sources to write a neutral article, and an AfD would appear unlikely to succeed. (I would of course not prejudge any arguments that could be provided.)

Director, it is a serious accusation to say that other editors are cooperating off-Wiki. It is odd too that you would see this discussion as similar to the one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination). If I recall correctly, you agree that article should be deleted because it copied the same approach used in a racist website, just as this article uses a map, which is only used in a (according to the SPLC) racist website.

MarkBernstein, article talk pages are not the correct forum for discussion of other editors. I am considering taking this matter to ANI and remind all editors that the actions of all editors would come under scrutiny if that happens. Since Director is alone in his views, it is possible to resolve this issue without personal attacks or edit-warring.

TFD (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course its above NOTE, it'd be very hard to argue otherwise.
There are a lot of serious accusations being thrown around here, TFD. I won't be the only one apologizing, I've had quite enough of that.
The map does not seem to originate with a racist source? As I told you before, I'll be damned if Neo-Nazis and their ilk will dictate my views and/or actions by what they may or may not do. Be that as it may, I found the map quite shocking and starkly illustrative of the outrageous claims voiced in this book: its extremely useful in that it instantly conveys why this book is so controversial. I find it offensive that its been moved simply because it manages to convey the book's content "too well", that's contrary to the very basic principles of this project.
And I hope you'll forgive me if I find it ironic you of all users are calling out others on consistency. -- Director (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The map instantly conveys questionable, false, and misleading data. No knowledge to that effect is conveyed by the presentation of the data. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't care, that doesn't matter. If we're gonna have an article wherein we must explain that questionable, false, and misleading data - then we're free to do as good a job as we can! That's the "rub". That data is what this book is about, talking about it is the central part of this article - and the map helps the text immensely in that part of its job. -- Director (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
If you "found the map quite shocking and starkly illustrative of the outrageous claims voiced in this book", then the article is tendentiously arguing against the claims in the book. That is not our role - we are supposed to report what the book says and the reaction it received. TFD (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh come on.. you called me out on consistency one post ago. Didn't you just support its removal because it supposedly argues too much "for" the claims in the book? I guess its either one or the other, and either can be framed as an argument for removing it, right?
Don't put words into my mouth. My point was that it was effective in conveying the claims in the book. That's all that matters. -- Director (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that it argues in favor of the theory, while you claim it does the opposite. The problem is that even if you were right, it would still be tendentious original research. It is not our role to argue for or against racialist theories. It is our role to present them along with the analysis of them reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't claim it argues "for" or "against" anything (there's no "racial theory" here), its just data from the book - not an "argument". The data, whether its presented on a map or otherwise, will either appeal or not appeal to a reader - that's not something for us to concern ourselves with. Ours is to present the contents of the book as best we can, which is what the map does very well (and of course to include reviews and impact, etc).
It is not original research under any definition of the term, nor can it possibly be "tendentious" given that this article's subject is this book. On the contrary, it is tendentious editing to hide the data, as opposed to presenting it on an article dedicated to it. Textbook and brazen TE, in fact.
Also let me point out again that, by your logic, anything at all could be justifiably removed from this project, on grounds of either appealing or not appealing to the reader with regard to the subject. In framing the discussion in those terms - you can't lose. One might as well equally remove the collage in the Paris article, for example, on grounds that it "argues" too much in favor of Paris being scenic. Its a fine bit, but no dice. -- Director (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

TE means to edit an article in a way that is not neutral. If the map does not promote the theory or detract from it, how is it "textbook" TE to remove it? What point of view do you think removing it presents - in favor of or against the theory presented in the book?

Incidentally, illustrated reliable secondary sources about Paris typically include pictures of the Eiffel Tower and other landmarks. Articles about IQ and Global Inequality do not. Neutrality in Wikipedia is about providing the same weight to material that is given in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion: We have a consensus that the map is not appropriate, against which stands a single dissident editor. That this editor often has found himself in this position seems germane -- especially in light of discretionary sanctions. That this editor so often finds himself defending richer coverage of racist WP:FRINGE theories seems germane -- especially in light of discretionary sanctions. But if taking that into account is undesirable, we have compelling arguments against the map (and indeed against the article) and no compelling argument in its favor. Let us therefore close this discussion of the map. As for the book itself, it appears to be one installment in a WP:FRINGE series from a very minor publisher, and it appears to have attracted little notice save for occasional disparaging mentions. A stub might arguably be justified, but in light of the contentious history of the article AfD is probably better for the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It received lots of reviews in mainstream sources and his over 300 cites in google scholar. You are going to find it difficult to persuade editors to delete it since it meets at least the very low standards set by Wikipedia for notability of books, let alone the far lower standards used by half the editors likely to respond. TFD (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I could see a merge to Works of Lynn and Vanhanen since every book is essentially the same regurgitation of bad data and racialist claims and every review is about the bad data and methods and specious claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
That might be an idea if sufficient secondary sources treat the books together. See if any of them have a better term for the series - it's three books now. TFD (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The standard method of coverage in that case is to have both a series article and individual articles. But I don't think that's the case. ("Dissident"? I'll take it.) -- Director (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of important content

TheRedPenOfDoom and Volunteer Marek insist on deleting content from this article for what seem to be strange reasons. The deleted passage describes how L&V collected and estimated their IQ numbers, how they standardized their scores, and how they adjusted their data for the Flynn effect. Additionally, the passage reports the finding by L&V that the correlation between earlier estimates derived for countries without IQ data and IQ data later obtained for those countries was high. There's also a mention that they advocate the provision of micronutrients as a way to boost IQ in poor countries.

It is bizarre to suggest that this mundane and unremarkable description of L&V's basic methodology is somehow controversial. As far as I can see, no critic of the book has ever disputed any of these claims for the very good reason that nothing of importance in the dispute about national IQs hinges on them.

Which of the claims in the deleted passage TheRedPenOfDoom or Volunteer Marek dispute and based on what sources? Do they dispute the fact that L&V collected IQ data for many countries and estimated national IQ scores for others? Do they dispute the fact that L&V set the national IQ of the UK to 100 and calculated the means of other nations in relation to this UK mean? Do they dispute that L&V adjusted their national IQs for the Flynn effect using the method described? Do they dispute the correlation between estimated and obtained IQs? Do they dispute the fact that L&V think that the provision of micronutrients could boost IQ in the developing world?--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Victor, I respect your reasons for suggesting that a description of the authors' methodology is a sensible thing to include in a Wikipedia article about their book. I would submit that one problem is that their methodology has been roundly criticized by all observers who have examined it, and maybe it would be much fairer to describe the methodology as it has been described in reliable, independent sources. (Wicherts is one of several authors who come to mind as authors have examined the methodology and found it wanting.) This is all being discussed openly in the scholarly community, and Wikipedia's article here may as well accurately report what the informed scholarly community thinks about the book and its underlying research base. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
@Victor - It is bizarre to suggest that controversial methodology would not be seen as controversial.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Victor, if we need an article about this highly unremarkable book then at least we should have a summary of its actual contents including the methods. It might be worth to write the description of the methods together with the critique of them instead of separating them out into a "content" and "reception" sections.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I see no reason why we should have content beyond what is covered in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I restored the deleted content with references to secondary sources. TRPoD, according to WP:CONTROVERSY, Wikipedia should describe the controversy, not censor it. Moreover, there are plenty of voices on both sides of this controversy, so it makes no sense to regard only one side's views as controversial (in fact, the response to the book by many researchers has been ambivalent, not black-or-white).--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no "controversy" as such. Someone published a bunch of claims, the academics who looked at the claims found them wanting in all aspects of academic merit. We cover that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Thus there's controversy. Regardless, the content shouldn't be deleted unless that's entirely correct. Which it isn't. The book is a mildly controversial topic. That's why there's the tag at the top of this page. KieranTribe 14:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
There IS "controversy" at Wikipedia because of POV editors pushing unsupported academic claims. But there is no controversy in academia that this book is terrible scholarship from the ground up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Regardless, that is no reason to delete content covering what the book says, regardless of whether its nonsense or not (which I don't disagree with, or agree with). KieranTribe 15:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Should the article summarize the book's argument?

Generally consensus leans towards expanding on the arguments of the book. Opposers have raised concerns about giving a platform to fringe views, but supporters of expansion have noted that describing a fringe view does not necessarily mean endorsing it. As both supporters and opposers have noted, any expansion of the summary should refer to how Lynn and Vanhanen's arguments have been described in secondary sources, so as to avoid the pitfalls of original research. There seems to be no consensus for the inclusion of the map. Brustopher (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article formerly went into much greater detail about the argument made by the book, including a map of global IQ scores according to the book, and a series of tables showing the correlations the book found between IQ and measures of prosperity. Over the past year this information has been removed, in this edit and this one. I request the opinion of uninvolved editors: is the article better off without these details about the book's argument, or would it be better to include them? 43.228.158.36 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC) — 43.228.158.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • oppose expansion these have been discussed before (see the archives) and essentially: based upon the fact that "the argument made by the book" has either been thoroughly dismissed as irrelevant or thoroughly debunked as bad science by established academia, it serves no encyclopedic purpose promote such dross. see WP:FRINGE / WP:NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that your removal of the map was extensively discussed. However, there was not much participation by editors from outside this topic, which is why I think your removals warrant outside attention. Also, there seems to have not been any discussion when you removed the "Associations between national IQ and other factors" section in March. 43.228.158.25 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)— 43.228.158.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
There has been a lot of positions, and the only ones feeling that crap "research" should be highlighted are , well, SPA IPs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article should present the views in the book as reported in reliable secondary sources. For example if there is a book review. But going beyond that introduces problems of neutrality and or. TFD (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a requirement that articles about books only include as much detail as can be cited to secondary sources? The synopsis In Night (book) is sourced almost entirely to the book itself, and that article is a featured article, so it presumably wouldn't be sourced that way if there were a problem with this approach. Based on a review of a few articles about books, citing the summary to the book itself seems to be done more often than not. 43.228.158.25 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
One of the major differences is that the content of that book has been the subject of widespread academic interest and hence has encyclopedic value, whereas the only academic interest generated by this book has been those who have found it wanting in all aspects of academic merit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
"Primary, secondary and tertiary sources" says that articles should be based on secondary sources and cautions against the use of primary sources, especially when interpretation is required. "Balancing aspects" further says that the weight provided to information should be determined by that provided in reliable sources. Summarizing a book that is hundreds of pages into a few paragraphs requires considerable judgment and it is hard to justify if no reliable sources have done so. How do we know that our synopsis fairly represents the content and why should it be any larger than what appears in reliable sources?
There is a guideline section for the "Plot" of novels. It says plot sections should be concise.
TFD (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The maps or tables do not violate copyright laws, as deriative presentation of data is legal. TheRedPenOfDoom has apparently also supported removing the file from Commons for bogus reasons but it was kept: Commons reletion request. Even if the data is inaccurate, this article's scope is the book's contents. However, The Four Deuces might be right about that we should avoid WP:PRIMARY source, although primary sources are allowed in some cases – the policy doesn't detail a case like this exactly. So I'd say weak support for the map to represent a visual overview of the book's claim (even if the data is considered problematic – this is covered in the article) but oppose the tables because they have too much information and undue for a Wikipedia article. --Pudeo' 23:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
There are indeed copyright issues. you cannot copyright facts, but the purely creative process used to by the authors is not "facts" and is covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't previously aware that you'd tried and failed to get the map deleted from Wikimedia Commons. If you legitimately believe the image to be a copyright violation, that's an argument you should make at Commons instead of here. However, it probably would not be looked on favorably for you to make a second attempt to delete the same file after your first attempt was unsuccessful. 43.228.158.49 (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)— 43.228.158.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
And the map is even greater UNDUE as gratuitous eye candy. Per WP:FRINGE the faulty data behind the map would need to be placed in context of the actual academic response- about the best that could be done with the map would be say a caption that says "Everything this map seems to imply is false". that clearly adds no value to the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose expansion as the book's argument is outside the mainstream reported on by other, more reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 04:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Strong support as the book's argument needs to be shown fully in the article. (can't really say any more about this so the rest is about the user removing, essentially, apologies.) Though I echo Puedo for the tables, but I wouldn't remove them, perhaps a major edit. Honestly, "Summary: no reason to publicize garbage" is a very opinionated edit summary from TheRedPenOfDoom (from one of the linked edits removing this content), and that's the main reason I don't support this. Thank you IP for RfCing this (I can see this turning into an edit war), and it should have been RfCed in the first place. KieranTribe 09:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (←) The content of the book, as it is, needs to be explained. It doesn't need to be biased against it. It should contain the contents of the book and the controversy surrounding it. KieranTribe 16:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Again there is no "controversy" - any academic notice has been unified in its response. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
      • If we can't present illustrations of contoversial or false theses, should all pictures of flat earth be removed? Failed climate forecast graphs? Family tree or map images of discredited language groups like Ural–Altaic languages? Because frankly it seems the gist here is that this data is used by some racists and therefore (like some academics say this about the whole race and IQ research), presenting it is unethical. But WP:CENSORED is pretty clear about that we can present even "nasty" information if it is due in the article, and it would seem the contents of the book are due in an article about the book. --Pudeo' 18:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
        • We cover the contents of the book as they are covered by the reliable sources: corrupt data, poor methodology, and faulty conclusions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC
            • For that to make sense we also need to say what the data, methodology and conclusions actually are.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
                • We do:
                • "relying on small and haphazard samples and for ignoring data that did not support the conclusions"
                • "For instance, Lynn and Vanhanen (2006) accorded a national IQ of 69 to Nigeria on the basis of three samples (Fahrmeier, 1975; Ferron, 1965; Wober, 1969), but they did not consider other relevant published studies that indicated that average IQ in Nigeria is considerably higher than 70 (Maqsud, 1980a,b; Nenty & Dinero, 1981; Okunrotifa, 1976). As Lynn rightly remarked during the 2006 conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), performing a literature review involves making a lot of choices. Nonetheless, an important drawback of Lynn (and Vanhanen)'s reviews of the literature is that they are unsystematic"
                • " work as an example of scientists going far beyond the empirical support to make controversial policy recommendations, and as such as examples of irresponsible uses of science."
                • " the basic mistake of assigning causality to a correlation without evidence, and that they made "staggeringly low" estimates of Sub-Saharan African IQs based on highly problematic data". To me, currently the article does come across as a something of a coatrack for Lynn and Vanhanen debunking.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
                • -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I dont think that is really doing what people are actually suggesting here. What is the data? What are the staggeringly low estimates?
  • Comment I understand the need for the article not to become a coatrack for presenting the argument of the book in wikipedias voice. I also recognize that the books argument and data is almost universally repudiated by experts. But, I think it is possible to write a summary section that does not make the article a coatrack and which relies on the available secondary sources. And I also think there is something to be said for trying to avoid the appearance of censorship that comes from including only debunking o the book, but not summarize what it is that is being debunked.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: TRPOD doesn't appear to understand the subject matter at all. The "debate" is that Lynn used samples representative of the entire sub-Saharan populations, which comes up with a mean IQ of around 70. The "criticism" is that he didn't use highly selected samples, like samples of college students, which would increase the measured average IQ of those countries to about 80 through an obvious form of selection bias. This criticism is only advocated by people who both don't understand statistics and who would like to ignore that the measured IQs are still low even in the so-called elites of these populations. I suggest that TRPOD stick to less mentally challenging subjects. 67.42.178.224 (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is wrong. It seems you havent read the critiques in a way that enabled you to understand them. Or at least that you have read them from a very particular perspective which seems more in line with the Pioneer Fund's, than with that of mainstream science. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
From the article (as poorly as it now stands), "In light of all the available IQ data of over 37,000 African testtakers, only the use of unsystematic methods to exclude the vast majority of data could result in a mean IQ close to 70. On the basis of sound methods, the average IQ remains close to 80." Translation: Lynn excluded samples rife with selection bias, which resulted in an average IQ of 70 in those countries instead of 80. 67.42.178.224 (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, your "translation" is the opposite of what it actually says. And it merely repeats Rushton's absurd defense of Lynn and Vanhanen's methods. Choosing an orphanage for mentally handicapped children as the only data point for an entire African country is of course exactly the kind of selection bias that would produce the results that Lynn and Vanhanen wanted. Which is probably why they did it. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
You are still acting like this other study, which comes up with an average IQ of 77 for the black African countries greatly disputes the overall conclusions. They can fiddle with the numbers a bit (taking the IQ from 70 to 77), but the conclusions remain valid.67.42.178.224 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose greater detail. It is enough to describe how the book has been criticized by outside sources. Attempting to recreate the book's content here is just a violation of WP:COAT. jps (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support coverage. Although the contents of a book may be pernicious, destructive, harmful or wrong, if it has been judged that the book is notable enough to have its own article, then it seems hubristic to cover the book without stating what its content or argument is. Of course the mainstream view of the topic must be given clear precedence, and all matters of WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE respected, but it smacks of book burning to take the view that the contents of the book are so harmful that we cannot tell you what they are, in case it corrupts or damages your brain. The reason people look up a controversial book or author in an encyclopedia is often to find out what all the fuss is about. If we take the high-handed view that we cannot tell you what the fuss is about, just that there has been a great deal of it, then we do a disservice. In fact - since we don't have the power actually to ban books or burn them - we force people to get hold of a copy and (heaven forbid) have a look inside for themselves. --Nigelj (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • No one has said that we should not state what the content and argument is. The issue is whether or not we should provide greater detail than what has been provided in reliable sources. There is also the problem of how to condense hundreds of pages in the book into a few paragraphs. And when we report his arguments, how do we handle the "facts" he uses - his country IQs have been questioned. TFD (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Just as we say that a blog or other self-published source is reliable only as to the opinions of its author, so a book must be considered a reliable source as to the content of the book. If the arguments in the book have been discredited by mainstream scholarship, then FRINGE and DUE tell us how we must give precedence to the mainstream view and make the status of the discredited content completely clear. Nowhere does it say that we can't summarise something unless we are summarising what someone else has written in what we judge to be a reliable source. Encyclopedia writers summarise published text all the time - it's what we do. Putting it in context is also what we do. I do not hold with this idea that we cannot summarise fringe views. --Nigelj (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I don't understand TRPoD and WBB's arguments for removing the graphics in question when they have no problem leaving similar maps in other articles, like the article for The Passing Of The Great Race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wajajad (talk • contribs) 21:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wajajad: Please identify where I have ever stated that any images are appropriate for The Passing of the Great Race. I don't recall that I have ever even looked at that article let alone commented about its contents. But one of the things I have said in multiple pages is that of the over 4,000,000,000 articles, most of them are in pretty sucky condition and do not meet appropriate content guidelines. And as may be relevant here, the argument that "That article over there is sucky so this article should be sucky too!" is a TERRIBLE way to try to make a case.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support coverage The rationales for removing content related to the book are unconvincing. This is a book that warrants its own article, and as such deserves a summary of its arguments in its own article. Wajajad (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but only if... Of course the article about a book should summarize its contents where possible, but since the content of the book is. to put it mildly, highly controversial (see the boxed comments at the top of this talk page), using the book itself as a source for its own summary would be original research, and is not allowed. To meet Wikipedia's verifiability and reliable sources policies, the summary should be drawn only from material that can be sourced from WP:RS, and presented using the NPOV principles. If it's difficult to find such third-party summaries to do this with, this raises further questions about the structure and future of this article. -- The Anome (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose expanding coverage until independent reliable secondary sources are found to place expansion into context. We need secondary sources to note which parts of the contents of the book deserve any WP:WEIGHT in this article. Yobol (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support expansion. TRPoD has summarised his argument: "The content of the book is described: faulty scholarship via bad data A B C, faulty methodology D E F, inappropriate conclusions G H I". I disagree. The book is not notable for faulty scholarship, etc. Many books exhibit such defects, and are not notable for it. The book is notable for its particular inappropriate conclusions, and the article should present them, while making it clear that no reputable scholar agrees with them. Maproom (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
My case is supported by the sources in the article. Your disagreement is supported by .....? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose expansion. The article is about the book. A summary is included in the lead and body. If more detailed and balanced coverage of the ideas in the book are needed and is possible, a separate article should be created. ~Kvng (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued removal of material

Just as a reminder, TheRedPenOfDoom's removal of the tables here was the original topic of the RFC. This edit was discussed in the RFC for a month, and the RFC's outcome opposed it. In this edit and this one, he is now making the exact same change again. How is this remotely justifiable?

TRPOD, your reference in my user talk to WP:BURDEN is a distortion of what that policy says, because WP:BURDEN is a policy about unsourced material. The material you are removing is sourced to the book itself, and also to the Rindermann 2007 paper, which is a secondary source. See also Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Unacceptable_reversions: "Don't revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you don't have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest." From the fact that the RFC opposed your removal of the tables, consensus clearly supports including at least some of this material, and your continuing to remove all of it is no longer a valid approach. 43.228.158.70 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It is justifiable by the results of the RfC "As both supporters and opposers have noted, any expansion of the summary should refer to how Lynn and Vanhanen's arguments have been described in secondary sources". Until there are secondary sources provided, any expansion of details is improper. And " The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, " and "Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. " - If you want content included, then YOU provide the appropriate sourcing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
As I just said in my previous comment, WP:BURDEN is a policy about not adding unsourced material. Your quoting that policy is completely irrelevant here.
I am making an edit that, as per the outcome of the RFC, is a step in the direction the article needs to go. It isn't as large a step as you'd like, but the RFC rejected your idea that removing this material was an improvement. You can improve the material if you like, or you can leave it for someone else to improve. It's up to you. But none of the policies you're linking to support your decision to keep removing the material because you're unsatisfied with it, while declining to offer any improvements.
You also are selectively quoting what user:Brustopher said in his closure summary. The remainder of his sentence, that your quote cuts off, said "so as to avoid the pitfalls of original research." As I understand it, this means that the article shouldn't cite anything to the book that goes beyond the conclusions stated in the book, and that any further inferences should be cited only to secondary sources. The material you removed satisfied those criteria - the numbers in the table were just what's presented in the book itself, and the only material not directly stated by the book was cited to the Rindermann paper or to the other secondary sources in the reception section. There's no need to argue about his meaning, though, since I've asked him to comment here and clarify it. 43.228.158.70 (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope. TRPoD is right. A lot of the supporters and opposers emphasized the importance of using secondary sources, and I think there was a definitely a consensus that any expansion requires the use of secondary sources. Just go to JSTOR and search for some book reviews. They probably all sum up the book's arguments. It's not that hard. No need to try and edit war in material. Brustopher (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I rewrote the summary using a secondary source. I might add more information later if I find a review that goes into greater detail, but for now I hope this issue is resolved. 43.228.158.85 (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IQ and Global Inequality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

"QHC"

The use of abbreviation "QHC" is not explained in the section header. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IQ_and_Global_Inequality/Archive_3&oldid=1136810371"