Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 95

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

Archive 90

←

Archive 93

→

Refreshing source discussion

Overly speedy archiving of talk page content here has hidden from view a very helpful discussion of useful sources for updating this article. All of what is below in this talk page section was previously posted to this talk page (with the time stamps shown) under the title "Some mainstream sources." I thought it would be helpful for editing this article to revive this source discussion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

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.

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).

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)

Another commonlu ysed introduction to Psychology:

"Psychology" by Schacter, Gilbert and Wegner (2009) "Everyone agrees that some percentage of the between-group difference in intelligence is accounted for by experiential differences, and the only question is whether any of the between-group difference in intelligence is accounted for by genetic differences. Some scientists believe that the answer to this question is yes, and others believe the answer is no. Perhaps because the question is so technically difficult to answer or perhaps because the answer has such important social and political repercussions, there is as yet no consensus among those who have carefully studied the data. To draw firm conclusions about genetic causes of between-group differences will require (a) the identification of a gene or gene complex whose presence is strongly correlated with performance on intelligence tests and (b) the demonstration that this gene or gene complex is more prevalent in one group than another. Such findings are critical to establishing the role of genes in producing between-group differences."

A commonly used introduction to Human biological variation:

"Human biological variation" Mielke, Konigsberg & Relethford (2006) "Examination of individual ancestry, however, can aid in testing the hypothesis that black-white differences in IQ are due to genetic differences. If this hypothesis is correct, then there should be a correlation between IQ score and the degree of European ancestry. That is, black children with more European ancestry should have higher IQ scores than those with less, or little, European ancestry. Such studies have generally found no correlation between European admixture and 18 scores (see studies reviewed by Flynn 1980, Loehlin et al. 1975, Macintosh 1998)."..."Although genetic variation exists between individuals and within groups, genetic differences underlying intelligence do not vary across populations because the same selective pressures are applied everywhere. As such, any IQ differences between groups today must reflect environmental differences. It is likely that these debates will continue, but at present there is no compelling evidence that genetic differences underlie group differences in IQ."..."IQ is perhaps the most studied and controversial trait dealt with in behavioral research. There is still wide debate over the exact meaning of IQ scores. Are they good measurements of innate intelligence, measures reflecting one's ability to take an IQ test, or both? Twin and family studies have consistently demonstrated a heritable component; however, the magnitude varies considerably, and more recent work in behavioral genetics suggests previous estimates of the heritability of IQ may be biased upward. There is evidence for both genetic and environmental influences on IQ scores. Group differences in IQ test scores, such as found in American whites and blacks, appear to be due to environmental differences."

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Mielke, Konigsberg & Relethford is an anthropology source. The field of anthropology today certainly differs greatly compared to the field of psychology in regards to the concept of race, and differences related to race. Their hypothesis also conflicts heavily from other studies done regarding admixture rates which do show correlation to IQ. Such as the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study which is a highly regarded mainstream study. Keep in mind the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study started with the intention to prove that the white-black IQ gap is entirely environmental and was geared toward that bias. But after the follow up study, seemed to do more to strengthen the genetic hypothesis instead.

"The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions"--Sandra Scarr (1998)

Rowe's research also showed a correlation between admixture rates and IQ.[1]

"For each characteristic, the mixed race mean fell between the means of the two parental populations."--Rowe (2002)

Other studies showing admixture rate to IQ correlation are Owen (1992) and Lynn (2002). Then there's the studies that show no correlation such as Eyferth (1961) and Moore (1986). All these conflicting researches really doesn't seem to show much consistency. BlackHades (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Mielke, Koenigsberg and Relethford is not "an anthropology source" is it a Human biology source. Your continuous attempts to discredit or second guess ordinary mainstream science is pathetic. These prominent geneticians and biologists are quite able to accurately summarize the status of their field, they don't need your help. So try to find some sources of equal reliability: textbooks, handbooks, review articles. You don't need to waste our time with more original research and primary sources. Psychologist can differ all they want on race (though they don't), but they don't have any expertise in the field of human biological variation OR human social variation so their opinion on the biology of race is as relevant as their opinion on how to cure cancer. The Minnesota transracial adoption study was pioneer funded and concluded 30 years before the publication of this book. They summarize the research and find it unconvincing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you even bother researching before posting? Do you understand what the difference between a biologist/geneticist and a biological anthropologist is? Hint, not even close to the same thing. Need another hint? Biological anthropology is more commonly known as PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY. No they are not biologists nor geneticists. Please get your facts straight. For you to not even KNOW they're anthropologists makes it highly doubtful you know very much about what contains in this source at all. Allow me to help you out here:

James H. Mielke, Anthropology Faculty[2] Lyle W Konigsberg, Professor of Anthropology[3] Dr. John H. Relethford, Anthropology Department[4]

Your continuous attempts to only try to show one side of the position in sources remains extremely problematic. You think an anthropology source that hand selects studies, and ignores any other numerous studies in the field that may contradict it, and draws a definitive conclusion from it is a reliable source? This is your qualification for a reliable source? Allow me to demonstrate what an actual high quality reliable source on the topic is that actually shockingly considers many admixture studies in the field and isn't hand picking:

“Overall, there is about a five-point average IQ difference in favor of the biracial children which is consistent with (some) genetic or prenatal effect. However, within the two adoptive categories the difference between Black and biracial children vanishes, which is consistent with an entirely post natal effect. Because of the confounding, neither inference can confidently be drawn. And of course the 6 and 14 biracial children in this study are precariously small groups from which to draw any sweeping inferences. So we are left with the usual conclusion. More research is needed.”

John C. Loehlin. “Handbook of Intelligence” pg 189 (2000) Cambridge University Press

I'm wasting time? I would say you're wasting time providing unreliable sources that handpicks studies for a conclusion you're looking for rather than focusing on high quality reliable sources that has a comprehensive overview on the entire subject matter. I'm providing extremely high quality mainstream sources like Hunt's "Human Intelligence" and "Handbook of Intelligence" from Cambridge University Press. Whereas you actually called Nisbett mainstream and continue to look for sources to fit his extreme position. Who's trying to discredit mainstream sources again? BlackHades (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the first reliable source you have presented. Your claims about Mielk et al. being biased are extreme and ignorant. I am of course aware that they are anthropologists, but that does not mean that the source is "an anthropology source", they are each specialists in HUMAN BIOLOGICAL VARIATION, and yes RELETHFORD is a geneticist. And their book has the maximal level of authoritativeness and reliability. Loehlin of course supports the same conclusion as they do because they show that the adoption studies ARE INCONCLUSIVE (and hence provide ZERO support for either of the conclusions), just as Starr does in your above quote. They are IN AGREEMENT with Mielke et al. And now you will have me excused, I have to go teach a course on Race and human biological variation. When I have time later this week I will initiate ArbCom Enforcement sanctions against you as you are obviously in vilation of the sanctions against Tendentious editing and misrepresentation of the mainstream but skewing it towards a particular view. By the way I now have Hunt's book, and unsurprisingly you are also misrepresenting his conclusions. I am done discussing with you, nothing good will come from it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Three physical anthropologists and it's not an anthropology source? You've made 41 edits in the past week in this article. I've made 4. Who's tendentious editing again? I've been very clear that the mainstream position is that more research needs to be done and too much is currently unknown. However the mainstream currently rejects both extremes. Which is the 80% genetic hypothesis as well as the 100% environmental hypothesis. This is fully supported by highly reliable mainstream sources such as both Hunt's "Human Intelligence" and Cambridge University Press' "Handbook of Intelligence". Explain again how I'm misrepresenting the mainstream. By the way, I also have Hunt's book as well as "Handbook of Intelligence" and I misrepresented nothing.

"Rushton and Jensen and Lynn are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. Nisbett's extreme statement has virtually no chance of being true."--Hunt, "Human Intelligence" pg 434 (2011)

"Tentatively, the difference in patterning of abilities between Americans of Asian ancestry and Americans of European ancestry looks as though it may be at least partly genetic, based on its stability over acculturation, its presence in the one small adoption study in which it was assessed, and because Native Americans, who share common ancestry, show a similar pattern."--Loehlin, John, "Handbook of Intelligence" (2000) pg 189.

You stated that Nisbett is mainstream despite high quality reliable sources that state otherwise. You stated there is several direct empirical support for environmental explanations and that the majority favors environmental explanations. When in actuality high quality mainstream sources tend to say too much is unknown to draw definitive conclusions on the topic, and that neither genetics nor environment currently can explain the majority of the gap. You've made statements such as:

"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"--Maunus

Despite the fact that both Hunt's "Human Intelligence" and Cambridge University Press' "Handbook of Intelligence" will disagree with you and say otherwise. You're correct about there being tendentious editing and misrepresentation of the mainstream but you should be pointing the finger at someone else. BlackHades (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You misrepresent Hunt by saying that he consider's Nisbett to be outside the mainstream when what he is saying is that a particular claim made by Nisbett is extreme, that claim is made in an entirely different source than the one you try to discredit - that is tendentious misrepresentation. You also misrepresent Hunt by quoting out of context making it seem as if he is generally supportive of Rushton and Lynn and the hereditarian view which quite clearly he is not. The next paragraph goes onto reject their reasoning and claim correctly that the 100% environmental view is not actually held by any of the environmentalists (also not by Nisbett) who have no problem with recognizing that there maybe an, as yet to be ascertained, genetic portion to the gap. The question is of the relative contribution. My statement is exactly the same as Loehlin and the authors of "Human Biological Variation" - namely that there is no empirical evidence in favor of the genetic portion of the gap and some evidence in favor of environmental factors. Admixture studies, adoption studies is considered inconclusive even by your own sources. I am confident that ArbCom will be able to see who is misrepresenting sources and the scientific consensus. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You continue to twist my words. When do I ever try to claim that Hunt is "generally supportive of Rushton and Lynn and the hereditarian view". Let's take a look at what I ACTUALLY said.

"I would still recommend Hunt & Carlson. Their paper and textbook is highly regarded in the field and essentially all editors here accept it as a high quality secondary source. They do a reasonable job highlighting the bias in the field among both hereditarians and environmentalists. They're heavily critical of both the 80% genetic hypothesis as well as the 100% environmental hypothesis in which they consider both these to be extreme."--BlackHades

If you require further clarification of what I said, it means Hunt is critical of the 80% genetic hypothesis of Jensen/Rushton and the 100% environmental hypothesis of Nisbett. And you still continue to misrepresent sources. Hunt never states or implies that the 100% environmental view is not held by any environmentalists. What he actually states is:

"Many researchers who are primarily interested in environmental differences associated with racial and ethnic differences in intelligence would not be at all perturbed by an ironclad demonstration that, say 3% of the gap is due to genetic differences."--Hunt, "Human Intelligence" pg. 435 (2011)

I have no clue where you're getting that Hunt states the 100% environmental hypothesis is not held by any environmentalists. He states that many environmentalists wouldn't be perturbed if a tiny portion of the gap is genetic. This is not the same thing. And you're wrong about Nisbett. He does claim and argue for the entirely environmental explanation. What part of Nisbett do you think Hunt is calling extreme if you're claiming Nisbett isn't arguing an entirely environmental explanation? It's not just in regards to race and intelligence that Nisbett is outside the mainstream either. His entire approach in psychology is outside the mainstream. He's a feverish opponent against the mainstream acceptance in psychology that adult individual IQ tests have a heritability of .70-.80 and argues that it is substantially below .50. The paper that Nisbett is most well known for his "Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental process (1977)" has been widely criticized by the mainstream. So much so that his co-author Wilson in 2002 in "Strangers to ourselves: discovering the adaptive unconscious" had to backtrack substantially and admit the claims in their original paper was too far fetching. Given that Nisbett is not mainstream in regards to the race and intelligence debate arguing for an entirely environmental position, not mainstream in regards to individual heritability of IQ or the g factor, and not mainstream in the field of psychology in general, I'm highly curious what exactly you're trying to say when you claim "Nisbett is mainstream".

And yes by my own sources, admixture studies show that the results are inconclusive. Exactly. Thank you. Were you under the impression that I was trying to show anything else? The problem with your Mielke, Konigsberg & Relethford source, as I tried to gently point out, was that they were extremely selective in their selection of admixture studies. They only hand picked admixture studies that specifically showed no correlation and chose to ignore any admixture studies that would show correlation. In order to conclude:

"..genetic differences underlying intelligence do not vary across populations because the same selective pressures are applied everywhere. As such, any IQ differences between groups today must reflect environmental differences."--Mielke, Konigsberg & Relethford

This is in stark contrast to the high quality reliable source of "Handbook of Intelligence" that I provided you that doesn't hand pick only admixture studies that show no correlation but tries to consider all admixture studies in the field. And then concludes that some studies support the genetic hypothesis, while some studies support the environmental hypothesis and that the results are inconclusive and more research needs to be done. You really don't see the difference between your source and mine and why one might be more reliable than the other? BlackHades (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that mainstream sources are allowed to handpick the sources, and in WE rely on their ability to determine what is mainstream, and what is outside of it. So if Mielke et al., being mainstream researchers in human biological variation and genetics, so far from the environmentalist camp as it is possible to be within mainstream anthropology, leave out certain old studies that you would have liked them to include that is in fact evidence that those studies are not considered mainstream. Your attempt to discredit them as sources because they leave out your pet studies are a backwards reading of our policies of WP:RS based on a violation of WP:OR. The way wikipedia works is that we identify the best sources, textbooks, encyclopedias and reviews published by respectable presses by scholars in good standing in the relevant field and then we write what they say. We don't conduct original reasearch to find primary sources that they may have left out, but trust their professional judgment to make those choices. Your argumentation is directly contrary to the function of wikipedias policys. Nisbett quite obviously is not arguing that the there is any evidence for the entire gap being environmental, he argues in his old book THAT THE EVIDENCE FAVORS AN ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLANATION (which all reliable sources agrees that it does, he just says that it favors an entirely environmental explanation which is an overstatement but still technically true since the ONLY evidence favors the environmental explanation) that it will be explained by environment and in the 2012 Review Nisbett and his many esteemed coauthors demonstrate that the environmental hypothesis has better empirical support but that it is not conclusively shown to account for the full gap. THAT IS THE STATUS OF THE EVIDENCE IN MAINSTREAM SOURCES. Now I will hold good on my word and I will not waste more time in futile tit for tat with you, and the next time I spend on this article will be rewriting the content. That is a task for which I clearly have support from other editors. If you wish to contest any of my editorial choices I would suggest that you do so on the talkpage through an RfC because I am not going to engage you in this kind of ridiculous and time consuming exchange again. And yes I will be filing an ArbCom Enforcement report against you whenever I have the time to gather the evidence of your clear violations of the SPA/Advocacy injunctions under WP:R&I.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 18 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.[5]

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 [6]

"I've repeated held up Hunt/Carlson as a high quality secondary source. I've never held up Nisbett's book as such."--Aprock [7]

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 [genes play no role at all] 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)

A Newsweek article citing a pre-Bell Curve survey is useless as a source for anything. Thompson seems like a reasonabley good quality source, and she describes the claim as extreme, which it obviously in so far as it ascribing 0% possibility of genetic contribution when we basically have no empirical knowledge to make that assessment. Rinderman I don't know but a single authred review in Personality and Individual Differences, an avowed hereditarian journal, is not a very strong source for that claim.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A short investigation confirms my suspicin regarding Rinderman, he is quite clearly a classical racial-hereditarian of the Rushton/Lynn school who is known as a popularizer of the Bell Curve arguments in Gemany. Not a very convincing source of a statement that Nisbett is extreme. Also I think we should review Nisbett's claim, as far as I remember he actually doesn't say that genes play no role at all, he says that there are enough known environmental causes to explain the entire gap, if he excludes a genetic contribution entirely that would surprise me a lot. I will reread his book in the next days. I have also order Hunt 2011 from the library. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, I think you may be too dismissive of the Snyderman & Rothman source. Yes it is an old source but it is still heavily cited among academics even today which does show it maintains some relevancy. The study was published in a highly mainstream peer review journal by the APA. You can't go more mainstream than that. I'm not saying we should revolve everything around this source. Just that it does maintain at least some relevance and shouldn't be fully dismissed. BlackHades (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It is heavily cited in the the Occidental quartely yes. Not in serious scholarship. If it has any use at all it is to say what the consensus was 25 years ago.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. But back in regards to changes for this article, I would still recommend Hunt & Carlson. Their paper and textbook is highly regarded in the field and essentially all editors here accept it as a high quality secondary source. They do a reasonable job highlighting the bias in the field among both hereditarians and environmentalists. They're heavily critical of both the 80% genetic hypothesis as well as the 100% environmental hypothesis in which they consider both these to be extreme. I would say it's pretty safe to say the mainstream in the field would be in between these two extremes. BlackHades (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is in between those two extremes. Noone has argued it isn't. You can't seriously argue that a 25 yearl old opinion poll has more than historical value.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus wrote, "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." This will be a very welcome change. Currently, the article reads like the transcript of a high school debate by novice debaters, rather than like an article in a professionally edited encyclopedia. It will be very important to refer to the tone and the manner of high-quality sources on this topic, as well as the content of those sources, to help this article reach encyclopedic standards of quality. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant! This "Jensen and Rushton v. team anybody else" thrust so prevalent in the article isn't justified by sources in the field. These two were on the outs of the mainstream--that's not a secret. Their supporters attribute this to political correctness, but that just acknowledges the fact their supporters are aware their claims are not the mainstream. Nisbett was overused here (I say "was" because I last read the article here months and months ago) - but that's because a pro-hereditarian fixated editor (since topic banned) overused him here to provide a veneer of "balance" (one of Nisbett's books tackled Rushton/Jensen claims in an appendix - hence, again, most if not all of the claims cited to Nisbett were Rushton/Jensen centric). The notion that the "race and intelligence" issue is, by definition, answering this question "Is the gap genetic or not?" reflects the hereditarian's pre-occupation with it. The degree to which this question weighs in the policy response or research into or education about the gap should guide how much weight to give it here. An editorial re-boot will probably get us a lot closer to accomplishing what needs doing here because it releases editors from the Jensen/Rushton call-response quagmire consuming most of the oxygen in the room. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I have begun gathering sources that I have at hand in my office to review the recent edits to this article. My plan is to assemble the several sources I have at hand (some are books I own, some are articles or book chapters that I have already downloaded or photocopied, and some are books I currently have circulated from a public or academic library) and to arrange them in strict chronological order for (re)reading. I have been reading the current research and scholarly literature on this article's topic actively since 1992, and first read an article by the late Professor Arthur Jensen all the way back in 1972. I'll gather up the mainstream (mostly) secondary sources, begin reading them in order of publication, and list those here. Of course other Wikipedians are strongly encouraged to identify other reliable sources for updating this article here on the talk page too. Once I've (re)read several of the key sources, I will begin copyedit-and-cite-check reads, section by section, of this article. Thus far, it looks like the phase of editing the article now underway (as announced in this talk page section) is very constructive, helpful to readers, and collegially supportive of Wikipedia core content policies. I will try to join in in the same spirit. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Promised Follow-up to My Comment: Here is a list of articles and book chapters I have been reading recently, and continue to read, as I review a number of publications on the topic of the Wikipedia article here. It should be understood that in the last few months I have also been reading many sources cited in the Wikipedia article IQ classification, a high-priority article for WikiProject Psychology that had badly needed updating for years. The reading has been interesting.

Sowell, Thomas (1973). "Arthur Jensen and His Critics: The GreatIQ Controversy". Change. 5 (4): 33–37. JSTOR 40161749. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Jensen, Arthur R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York (NY): Free Press. ISBN 0-02-916430-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) especially chapters 4 (The Distribution of Mental Ability) through 9 (Definitions and Critera of Test Bias).

Vandenberg, Steven G.; Vogler, George P. (1985). "Chapter 1: Genetic Determinants of Intelligence". In Wolman, Benjamin B. (ed.). Handbook of Intelligence. consulting editors: Douglas K. Detterman, Alan S. Kaufman, Joseph D. Matarazzo. New York (NY): Wiley. pp. 3–57. ISBN 978-0-471-89738-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Bouchard, Thomas J.; Segal, Nancy L. (1985). "Chapter 10: Environment and IQ". In Wolman, Benjamin B. (ed.). Handbook of Intelligence. consulting editors: Douglas K. Detterman, Alan S. Kaufman, Joseph D. Matarazzo. New York (NY): Wiley. pp. 391–464. ISBN 978-0-471-89738-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Loehlin, John C. (2000). "Chapter 9: Group Differences in Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J. (ed.). Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 176–193. ISBN 978-0-521-59648-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Wittman, Werner W. (2005). "Chapter 13: Group Differences in Intelligence and Related Measures". In Wilhelm, Oliver; Engle, Randall W. (eds.). Handbook of Understanding and Measuring Intelligence. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications. pp. 223–239. ISBN 978-0-7619-2887-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Roberts, Richard D.; Markham, Pippa M.; Matthews, Gerald; Zeidner, Moshe (2005). "Chapter 19: Assessing Intelligence: Past, Present, and Future". In Wilhelm, Oliver; Engle, Randall W. (eds.). Handbook of Understanding and Measuring Intelligence. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications. pp. 489–281. ISBN 978-0-7619-2887-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Rushton, J. Philippe (2003). "Chapter 9: Race Differences in g and the "Jensen Effect"". In Nyborg, Helmuth (ed.). The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen. Amsterdam: Pergamon. ISBN 978-0-08-043793-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Brody, Nathan (2003). "Chapter 18: Jensen's Genetic Interpretation of Racial Differences in Intelligence: Critical Evaluation". In Nyborg, Helmuth (ed.). The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen. Amsterdam: Pergamon. ISBN 978-0-08-043793-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Kaufman, Alan S.; Lichtenberger, Elizabeth (2006). Assessing Adolescent and Adult Intelligence (3rd ed.). Hoboken (NJ): Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-73553-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) especially chapter 4 (Individual Differences for Adolescents and Adults on Gender, Ethnicity, Urban-Rural Residence, and Socioeconomic Status)

Weiss, Lawrence G.; Chen, Hsinyi; Harris, Jossette G.; Holdnack, James A.; Saklofske, Donald H. (2010). "Chapter 4: WAIS-IV Use in Societal Context". In Weiss, Lawrence G.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Coalson, Diane; Raiford, Susan (eds.). WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner Perspectives. Practical Resources for the Mental Health Professional. Alan S. Kaufman (Foreword). Amsterdam: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-375035-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

It should also be understood that I will be referring to all of the high-priority sources identified by other editors, all of which I have at hand in my office. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin. Nisbett, Richard E.; Aronson, Joshua; Blair, Clancy; Dickens, William; Flynn, James; Halpern, Diane F.; Turkheimer, Eric American Psychologist, Vol 67(6), Sep 2012, 503-504.

In this response to Rushton's reply to their 2011 review of the field, the authors very clearly demonstrate the fact that BlackHades has been trying to muddle: namely that the mainstream view is that gap "is best understood as environmental in origin". This is not an extreme or fringe view but one that is held by solid mainstream researchers such as Flynn, Nisbettt, Halpern, Dickens, Aronson and Turkheimer all of whom are highly esteemed intelligence researchers. They also show clearly how the scientific process is slowly weeding out unreliable sources by ignoring them in reviews: in response to Rushtons claim that they ignore his and Jensens 2006 review. It is because, being riddled with errors and misinterpretations, it has no scientific standing as shown by Dickens and Flynn (2006). The mainstream view is clear, sees environmental explanations as being the main source of the gap. Wikipedia should not present otherwiseUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

As previously stated this is not the only view in the scientific field. Keep in mind I was never trying to say this source shouldn't be used in the article nor did I ever imply that I intend to block the source. From your AE you make it sound like I was. I was trying to provide you with wider variety of positions in the field. This topic is heavily contentious, disputed, and controversial in the field. This article should be able to accurately replicate the dispute and controversy as it exists in the scientific field. There are certainly very prominent psychologists in the field who's positions contrasts greatly with that of Flynn, Nisbett, etc. And they are publishing their work in the most mainstream peer review journals in the field. These other positions, as much as some editors seem to want to, cannot be so easily dismissed.

The concern that I tried to raise with you in this talk discussion, of which you found it so abhorrent that you felt it required AE, was that it appeared as though you were trying to over-weigh this one position. That was my whole concern. That is why I tried to provide you with differing positions from other prominent psychologists. The article needs to reflect the controversy and dispute as it exists in the scientific field. Simply focusing on only the most hardened environment arguers of the field, like Nisbett and Flynn, will not achieve that goal. Does Nisbett and Flynn deserve weight? Absolutely. But often times you make it sound like their position is essentially near consensus and that the whole dispute and controversy of race and intelligence as it exists in the scientific field is over and that nearly the entire field aligns with the Nisbett/Flynn position. I would request better balance. All significant positions in the field, from the extreme environment such as Nisbett/Flynn to the extreme genetic of Jensen/Rushton, and everything else in between deserves weight in the article. Yes the balance should be in proportion to the prominence of the positions in the field but it seems as though you over-weigh the extreme environment positions such as Nisbett/Flynn far more so than it would reflect in the field and downplay any other positions that would conflict with this one position. That is the concern I had before and still remains the concern I have now.

I would request more cooperation and collaboration in using much more wider variety of sources from varying positions that will accurately represent the controversy and dispute as it exists in the scientific field. This is certainly much more preferable than if you added sources that contained just this one position and then me having to later add other varying positions in the field for balance. Which then of course you'll predictably accuse me of cherry picking sources, tenacious editing, advocacy, etc, when in actuality the problem would have been the unbalance you would have created in the first place that needed to be fixed for balance. BlackHades (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

My Approach going forward will be: 1. to identify as many recent high quality mainstream secondary and tertiary sources as possible. 2. to remove most primary sources unless also supported by secondary sources from the article as well as all material that only relies on primary sources. 3. Establish weight of different topics based on the weight given in high quality secondary and tertiary sources. 4. Rewrite the article in accordance with how the dispute is represented in such sources. 5. If you have queries with any of my changes that I can not immediately accommodate (for example because I disagree) I will post RfCs on the talk page (this is because I don't want the editing of the article to be bogged down in useless back and forth with you that clearly doesn't get us any where) - I will do the same if you make changes with which I disagree. I will start by making an RfC about whether this plan for rewriting the article is reasonable. My approach will mean that contrary to what you suggest the source will rely on fewer sources of higher quality and not on a wider number of sources and a smaller variety of positions - because the positions included will be entirely determined by whether they are referred to in the highest quality review sources. It will also likely result in what you call an "overweight" of the "extreme environmental position", but that is not going to be a result of any bias of mine, but of a bias of the mainstream sources - which in contrast to what you claim very obviously establish that this is a majority position (not a consensus) and not considered "extreme" (except perhaps by the conservative wing of psychometricians, but not in the wider discipline of psychology). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You've yet to provide any source to support this claim. Where's the source that makes the conclusion that the "extreme environment position" is the mainstream position? What I see are hereditarians and environmentalists in the field continuing to bicker back and forth in peer review journals. Both in highly mainstream journals and often times in the exact same journal. Yet you accept the environmental papers and ignore the hereditarian papers. Even when they're from the same journal! This is a topic that remains extremely controversial and heavily disputed in the field. The 1996 APA Task Force report states there is not enough evidence for either environmental explanations nor genetic explanations and that the cause of the gap is presently unknown. You tried to claim this report is old and that now there is a majority that supports the extreme environmental explanation. Yet Hunt (2011) makes essentially the same statement that the APA did back in 1996:

“The direct evidence that we have for genetic effects does not come close to accounting for the size of the gap between White and African American test scores. Neither do environmental effects. And, unfortunately, the environmental evidence has often been presented as evidence that environmental effects do occur – which no advocate of genetic models has ever denied – but has not been presented in a way that permits a quantitative estimate of how important environmental effects are in determining group differences in intelligence in the population.”--Hunt, Earl. (2011) “Human Intelligence”, pg. 435.

Your assertion that the extreme environmental position is the mainstream position in the field appear to be based on your own synthesis, and not based on a statement that any actual reliable source actually claims. So I'm reiterating my request for the source that states the mainstream position in the scientific field is the one that supports the extreme environment hypothesis. BlackHades (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The approach announced by Maunus above is an approach that fits Wikipedia policy. (Incidentally, it fits the practices of professional editorial offices when working on reference materials.) My previous post to this talk page mentioned that I would be reading in a variety of reliable secondary sources I have at hand, which I have begun doing. I'll disclose my list of current reading in my next post to this talk page. I too think that the most productive use of our time is to read very good sources and then look carefully at the article text, ideally with less drama on this talk page. See you in the salt mine. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Faulty citation

Citation number 49 appears to not work. I was wanting to know if it not loading was the link's normal behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.57.95 (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It can be found here[8].User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Lead exposure should be mentioned in the last sentence as its effect size on IQ is more severe and prominent than many of the currently mentioned environmental modifiers.

173.175.95.165 (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned in what last sentence? There are already two parts of the article that mention exposure to lead during development as an environmental influence on IQ. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. The source cited for the last sentence of the article (currently FN146) does mention lead poisoning, so I've gone ahead and added it there. --Stfg (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleting statements sourced to the Daily Mail is correct.

I see an editor (new, I think) added article text sourced to the Daily Mail newspaper from the United Kingdom, and then first one editor cast doubt on the source, and another editor deleted the statement, pointing out that Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Indeed it is not. The Daily Mail is a newspaper, and there are certain facts about the external world that can be sourced to newspapers by Wikipedia source guidelines. But there are two problems with using the Daily Mail to source this article. First of all, this article should really be sourced to Wikipedia sourcing guidelines for articles about medicine, as most of the article content needs to up to that standard of reliable sourcing, for the inherently medical claims built into the article content. Second, even among newspapers, Daily Mail is a newspaper of dodgy reputation, and if a factual statement (on any subject) appears only there and not somewhere else, it is a dubious factual statement. Thanks to all the editors involved for making an honest effort to improve the article, and especially thanks for focusing on the issue of reliable sources for this Wikipedia article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think we can use quotes from the Daily Mail but we need to use better sources as well. This was published in a peer-reviewed journal, Neuron (journal). I've tried to restore it using Firefox but it seems to be crashing - I'm waiting to see as I don't want to have to rewrite it. I'm using the quotes as well as [9]. A pdf of the report is at [10]. There is also Sciencedaily.[11]. It is the largest online study, with over 100,000 participants. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there are further problems with including it. For example including interview statements by these particular researchers invites statements by others, which I think we should probably avoid. Secondly the study and the quote is about intelligence and does not relate to the race/IQ question as such. The study itself is a novel argument about the nature of intelligence and is yet to be evaluated by the scientific community. The material seems more relevant for articles on IQ, and intelligence than for this article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You are of course correct, sorry. It does belong elsewhere however. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't use primary sources, so I used the daily mail article. It can easily be verified and meets wikipedia guidelines. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· seems to be concerned about this sourced information and not about the unsourced information in the lead that is not irrelevant, racist and based only on USA army studies. Notice that the article has had tags up since 2012? That section is why. Provide sources for it and introduce it into the body first and then, perhaps we can include it in the lead.Allthekidsinthestreet (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem not to have noticed the rewrite of the history section, there is now no information in the lead that is not sourced in the article body. The Army studies are important and relevant because they were the initiation of the argument in US history and continued to be the main data used by "hereditarians" up untill the late 1950s.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Allthekidsinthestreet, you've reverted several different editors on this issue now. The only editor that initially supported you, Dougweller, has now withdrawn his support. It would be highly advisable to slow down here and enter discussion rather than continuing to revert everyone. BlackHades (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Briefly full protected

In light of an evident edit war, I have full protected for 24 hrs. My apologies for the delayed post, had a family emergency pop up after... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

An especially accessible pair of sources

In view of the recent flurry of edits on this article, I thought I would suggest two sources for all of us to consider. They are not the last word on the subject, and I wouldn't base every detail of the whole article here on just these two sources (nor on any small number of sources), but these sources are reasonably easy to obtain (one is posted online), of high quality, and informative about many issues we discuss as we edit this article. Good orientations to this topic for new editors are a book

Kaufman, Alan S. (2009). IQ Testing 101. New York: Springer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8261-0629-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

and a recent review article.

Nisbett, Richard E.; Aronson, Joshua; Blair, Clancy; Dickens, William; Flynn, James; Halpern, Diane F.; Turkheimer, Eric (2012). "Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments" (PDF). American Psychologist. 67 (2): 130–159. doi:10.1037/a0026699. ISSN 0003-066X. PMID 22233090. Retrieved 22 July 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

The book is readable and does a good job of leading readers to other good sources on the topic of IQ testing. The review article is a bit more scholarly in reading level, but still accessible, and it is very up-to-date and a masterful survey of the current research. I'm reading a lot more besides these sources, but I keep these sources at hand all the time because of the books' readability and the review article's general usefulness. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I was unable to find anything in User:Hypersite sources that support his assertion that there is a conspiracy amongst psychologists to hide research on non Europeans. What's more disturbing is despite all User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· talk about teaching the subject and him providing several mainstream introductions on the subject, he still wishes to set the tone of the article by referring to US Army IQ tests from 1917 or whatever the heck it is, that show that white people score better in intelligence. That's called cognitive dissonance, and perhaps he should teach that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posska (talk • contribs) 23:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not using the 1917 army tests to show that white people score better in intelligence. I am using the army tests to show that many intelligence tests do not in fact measure intelligence but education, and that most of the most influential claims about differences in intelligence are based on scientifically invalid tests. This is what most of the critical literature about the history if IQ testing agrees on. You seem to be a very superficial reader.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I can show you Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allthekidsinthestreet/Archive. That seems more relevant. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

And the current one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allthekidsinthestreet. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

CU confirmed this is a sock, I've blocked. I've struck through his post Maunus commented on due to the reply, deleted the 2nd post with no reply. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on IQ in the lead

The article places undue weight on the emphasis on IQ. Especially in the lead. I see there are some tags on this article and i agree with them. Part of the problem is also it is American centric. IQ tests from US army can from world war 1 can be in the article but not the main focus. Also I couldn't help but notice there are a couple editors who have reverted other edits about IQ. There is a section here critiquing IQ and some recent studies that added to that conversation were removed, deemed "not applicable to this article". It seems to be that IQ is applicable to the article only if it reflects a certain POV. Unfortunately that is not a neutral POV and it violates Wikipedia policy. The lead should reflect mainstream sources, such as APA and and the American anthropology Association. At least they are internationally recognized bodies, unlike obscure IQ tests. The article isn't about IQ and race, it is about intelligence and race. Unfortunately, the references to IQ tests from world war 1 will have to be removed from the lead and replaced with mainstream sources which reflect CONCENSUS about INTELLIGENCE (NOT IQ) and race. Also, I think if IQ as a measure of intelligence can be criticized in the article, a comprehensive study like the one that was removed, certainly has a place in the article. I can't see why any editors with any semblance of logic and consistency could argue otherwise.Honkeytonknightmare (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Like it or not this field of research is American centric and IQ centric. That is a part of the debate and this part of the debate is described in some detail in the article, try to read the parts about the arguments that question or reject the IQ concept, and the problems of the US bias of most IQ/race research is also described. The study you tried to insert did not touch on raci at all, and consequently is not relevant for this article. There are plenty of articles and books that question the race concept that are relevant and that are already cited in the article. Basically all the references that mention Sternberg take this stance, and several others (for example John Ogbu). There is hardly any literature however on race and intelligence that take a different definition of intelligence than IQ, so while the view that IQ is not a ood measure of intelligence is relevant and include, the view that there are or aren't racial differences in intelligence as defined or measured in some other way is hardly extistent.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What sources do you specifically recommend for an article on the article topic? Do you have citations for those? As editor Maunus has pointed out, the scope of the topic has already been framed by authors of professional publications and popular books (some now deceased) and articles about the topic have literally appeared in multiple print encyclopedias. Here as we work on Wikipedia, we can treat the topic as the sources treat the topic, under the core Wikipedia policies, and so the back-and-forth on the topic and arguments about its definition that appear in the mainstream reliable sources properly belongs here. Again, what reliable sources do you specifically recommend for improvement of this article, which surely does need improvement? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· actually, you were one of the problematic editors I was referring to! You seem to be the propagating the archaic US army studies from by-gone centuries of old. I think you are confused about the article's purpose. The study you are referring to, which I did not submit, by the way (did you notice that I am a new editor), may not have directly stated "race", but it did state IQ. Did you notice that the article talks about IQ quite a bit? In fact, it would have been a good fit, as it helps explain this sentence form the article "While there is a general consensus within Western science about how to define intelligence, the concept of intelligence as something that can be unequivocally measured by a single figure is not universally accepted.[39]" Perhaps you should also remove that perspective as well, in order to be consistent with your other edits. And it does not mention "race" either, so by your standards it should be removed, no?

WeijiBaikeBianji Like I said, the article references the APA and the AAA, which are both internationally recognized, so they would be a better fit than World War 1 US army studies, which quite frankly the rest of the world does not care about. There was also this entry, sourced to Laura Berk.

Studies showing high heritability as a measure of intelligence are controversial because they are easily misapplied. Such studies have been used to suggest that ethnic or racial differences in intelligence, such as the poorer performance of black children, compared to white children, are genetically based. This assertion is widely regarded as incorrect. ^[1]

I believe it may have been removed by User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·, the editor that seems to be pushing the archaic American perspective from the early 20th century.

Other perspectives that may be reflected in the lead are The American Anthropological Association stated in 1994 that intelligence is not biologically determined by race.[35] In the same year, the American Psychological Association stated that there is little evidence to support environmental explanations, certainly no support for genetic interpretations, and that presently the cause of the black-white IQ gap is unknown.[113]

I think those internationally recognized bodies might help to mitigate the American centric perspective of the article. I really think we need to move forward on this, but there are one or two editors who seem to have a lock on this and are imposing an American "Christian Right" POV on this article. That, BTW is not the neutral position. Honkeytonknightmare (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I think the problem isn't so much the sourcing, but the way the lead reflects the artice. It opens with this problematic sentence. "The debate concerns the interpretation of research findings that American test takers identifying as "White" tend on average to score higher than test takers of African ancestry on IQ tests, and subsequent findings that test takers of East Asian background tend to score higher than whites. It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race."

How 'Merican centric can you be? The "debate" has nothing to do with interpretation of "research findings" from world war 1. That sentence is NPOV and needs to be removed from the lead. It can stay in the history section. Like I said, "The American Anthropological Association stated in 1994 that intelligence is not biologically determined by race.[35] In the same year, the American Psychological Association stated that there is little evidence to support environmental explanations, certainly no support for genetic interpretations, and that presently the cause of the black-white IQ gap is unknown.[113]" These are the mainstream sources, and they do not study IQ and race in order to "interpret research findings from world war 1 that show that black people are of low intelligence". The lead of the article, race and intelligence should reflect the consensus of internationally recognized psychological and anthropological bodies, and can certainly do without the American centric narration in the lead. Honkeytonknightmare (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You didn't name the editors whose actions you are complaining about. I will note that the Wikipedia volunteer project has an editor behavior guideline asking us all to assume good faith about other editors. I will further note, by observation of hundreds of edits since early 2010, that Maunus deserves that assumption of good faith as much as any editor who volunteers time and effort on this project. He has a commendable habit of actually reading reliable sources in his off-wiki time, and has immersed himself in those sources for so long that his every edit tends fairly to represent what the sources say and to uphold core Wikipedia policies. He and I (and, it appears, you) are in agreement that this article needs a lot more work. This article has made international news coverage as one of the ten most edit-warred articles on Wikipedia, and this article is still under active administrator discretionary sanctions since an Arbitration Committee case in 2010, but I am hopeful that if editors make an honest effort to look up reliable sources, we can all move forward in making the much needed revisions in the text of this article. Taking into account your concerns about sourcing, I suggest immediate use of Mackintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and Human Intelligence (second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-958559-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) (the second edition of an authoritative textbook, by an author who is definitely not an American, and as far as I know perhaps neither a right-winger nor a Christian) and Richards, Graham (2012). 'Race,' Racism, and Psychology: Towards a Reflexive History (Second ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-56142-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) (the second edition of an authoritative textbook, by an author who is definitely not an American, and as far as I know perhaps neither a right-winger nor a Christian) to review the article text for updating. Those are both good sources too little used in this article so far. Those sources fully meet the Wikipedia reliable sources guidelines and indeed meet the more stringent Wikipedia reliable sources for medicine guidelines, and they are meticulously referenced and thoughtfully written. I think you will enjoy reading those books. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned more about User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· use of the sources in the lead. I thought I've made it fairly clear what my concerns were. Perhaps you should read my posts again. I've provided an example of a source that (as far as I can see) was removed without warrant. I highlighted in in bold above. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· also adds his own narration to the sources. As far as I can tell, no source defines the article as "a controversy about interpreting IQ tests from 90 years ago". As far as I can tell, that's his narration. Honkeytonknightmare (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So we're clear, I'm not concerned about the sources themselves, but the way they are used in the lead which is NPOV and not due weight. And also the "narration" that was added by User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· re: defining what the article is.Honkeytonknightmare (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You are are very poor reader indeed if that is what you take to be my perspective. From my perspective a problematic editor is one who is unwilling to understand how to edit in accordance with wikipedia policies and how to discuss rationally on a talkpage without turning the editors most likely to be their allies into their opponents. You very clearly don't know much about what perspective I bring to this article or what "narration" I have added, and you know even less about what kind of a painstaking negotiation it has been to make this article not simply purport racist tripe from white supremacist publications. That has only been achieved by enforcing a high standard of sourcing and following the editing policies. Furthermore you are even now as we speak breaking the rules of editing as you are clearly a sockpuppet of Allthekidsinthestreet who was blocked for not following the rules. I am in fact being courteous by even trying to discuss with you. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·Please note that derogatory comments about other editor's reading ability could be construed as a personal attack. Also note that playing the "sockpuppet" card on other editors who agree with other editors besides yourself could also be construed as personal attack. When you're done martyring yourself, please provide the reference for this quote (which I believe is one of your edits, correct me if I'm wrong)

"The debate (between the relationship of race and intelligence) concerns the interpretation of research findings that American test takers identifying as "White" tend on average to score higher than test takers of African ancestry on IQ tests, and subsequent findings that test takers of East Asian background tend to score higher than whites. It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race." I think you've interpolated something into that lead sentence. And even if you haven't it does not deserve to define the article.

This is also problematic " In 1994, the book The Bell Curve, which argued that social inequality in America could largely be explained as a result of IQ differences between races and individuals rather than being their cause, rekindled the public and scholarly debate with renewed force. During the debates following the book's publication the American Anthropological Association and the American Psychological Association (APA) published official statements regarding the issue, both highly skeptical of some of the book's claims, although the APA report called for more empirical research on the issue."

Why would a highly controversial, non-notable, and unremarkable book be given such UNDUE WEIGHT? Honkeytonknightmare (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

After your own personal attacks I don't have risk in returning you the favor. If you had entered this debate in a spirit of collegiality arguing with arguments and sources instead of editwarring to get your favorite source into the article and redefine the lead you would have found me in a very different mood. I would for example have been completely open to the argument that the view that IQ is invalid as a measure of intelligence needs to be more prominent in the article. I might even have helped you find some high quality sources for that view such as Mackintosh's review of intelligence research. I would also have been amenable to agreeing with the argument that the early history of intelligence testing is given too much weight. That was however not what you did. Now, I shall refrain from making a sockpuppet case against you, even though you clearly are, out of good faith, and because you have just now started making coherent arguments for the first time. The phrasing of the first sentence you mention is maybe mine but it has been subject to a very long discussion between myself, a couple of other editors and a group of "race realist" single purpose accounts who are no longer with us. They would have preffered a version that states what they consider the "facts" namely that there is wide empirical support through IQ testing for the claim that there is a racial hierarchy of intelligence, and that it goes Asian > European > African. The current wording is an attempt at a compromise and I agree that it is not fully satisfactory because it gives undue weight to that particular claim with in the literature which is disputed and controversial and as you say does not deserve to define the article. If you propose a new and better wording and there is a consensus among the editors then I will ve very happy myself. As for the second claim, that the Bell Curve is non-notable, that is simply factually incorrect. If it weren't for the Bell-Curve and its preposterous pseudpscientific claims, there would be no field of "race and Intelligence" studies today. It is of momentous notability which is testified by the fact that dozens of research studies and books have been published in response to it. That is the essence of notability. The book needs to figure very prominently in the article, as does the many criticisms of it - it has been, and continues to be a center piece of "race & IQ" studies since 1996. As for the sentence about heritable differences widely being believed to be incorrect, I am in favor of it, but I don't think you will be able to gain a consensus for that phrasing. I also don't think you can find a source for it. It is in fact one of the central issues in the debate which is still on-going. I agree that it is a fringe view that the difference may be mostly genetic, and I believe that there is a majority who considers it to be entirely environmental. But there is another sizeable group of non-fringe researchers who believe (with very little evidence to support that belief grantedly) that the intelligence gap may be partly genetic and partly environmental. In previous discussions over the years it has not been able to form a consensus that states that the "100% environmental" view is the dominant view in the discipline. I think that given recent publications by Flynn, Nisbett, Mackintosh, and others the view is certainly much closer to being clearly dominant than it was two years ago. But it will take a new discussion to recreate that consensus.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad you've changed your tone and adcknowledged your "narration", which you so adamently denied before, or as I would call it "lied about before". What you're saying about the Bell-curve book, that "there would not be a study of race and intelligence" without it is preposterous. It's like saying we would not have a study of evolutionary biology were it not for creation science. The fact that it is pseudo-scientific makes it non-notable as far as a academic study is concerned. It deserves brief mention because it caused a stir amongst ignorant laymen. Similarly, "creation science" deserves a (brief) mention in the article about the theory of evolution. Are you following? Honkeytonknightmare (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No it's like saying there wouldn't be a field of holocaust studies without "Mein Kampf". The entire field of racial intelligence studies since the 1990s has been a debate aimed at either refuting or supporting the fallacious arguments of the bell curve. The field had died a silent dead when the bell Curve reanimated it. It is notable not among ignorant layment but is mentioned and debated in every major book or review about the topic published since 1996.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

New Lead

The New Lead written by Honkeytonknightmare is neither neutral or in compliance with our policies for sourcing or style. I will not revert it myself but suggests that Honkeytonknightmare do so themselves in order to initiate a principled and rational discussion about how to rewrite the lead - involving more editors than just the two of us.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Care to be more specific? And how was your lead with your "narration" in better compliance? What is non-neutral about presenting the mainstream scholarly opinion and sources? Or by non-neutral do you mean "not the POV of the Christian right". I assure you that the lead now reflects the mainstream view on the subject. I'm sorry if you are a bit delusional about what that view is, but again, you can rest assured that your personal narrative from before was "not it".Honkeytonknightmare (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I call on an uninvolved administrator to invoke the usual discretionary sanctions here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

An uninvolved administrator (me) has just filed the usual notification on Honkytonknightmare on his talk page and the arb case notifications list.

Honkytonknightmare - Please review the list of expected editor behavior standards at the top of this page. You have breached 4 or 5 of the standards, and following the formal notification I made to you, you are subject to sanctions if you do so again. I urge you to strike through the personal attacks above, and consider whether you want to remain a Single Purpose Account disruptively editing in a topic such as this one, which is by itself blockable behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

And the WP:SPI will probably deal with this anyway. Thanks George. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Georgewilliamherbert (talk), bro, could you specify which policies you accused me of violating and how? Just storming in and throwing admin weight around does not help the encyclopedia. The lead I wrote up was direct cut and paste from the article. Dougweller (talk) Douggie, you need to stop making accusations like that. It's ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honkeytonknightmare (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

problematic narration in lead

"The debate concerns the interpretation of research findings that American test takers identifying as "White" tend on average to score higher than test takers of African ancestry on IQ tests, and subsequent findings that test takers of East Asian background tend to score higher than whites."

I agree that there is debate about this, and I know this goes over people's heads when I say this, but but to define the study of race and intelligence as the debate is false. Someone made that up, and it does required a source that directly says that, rather than what one editor "feels".

Also, the debate about the causes of this are from minority views. How can people on this article honestly say that THE APA AND THE AAA are not the neutral views? And right in the article it says that both of them hold the position that causality is not inherrant? I'm trying to help, but the people who are owning this article say it has many problems but still want to keep it the same. And you just IGNORE the APA and the AAA. What a tragic carnival of errors the lead of this article has become. It's really a shame. I don't know how you could look in the mirror and defend that. And say "oh no I never narrated that" and come back and say "oh, ya well, I may have narrated a little".

~~Honkeytonknightmare (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)~~

I don't think I understand what you mean by "narration", if you think I have first denied something and then later admitted to it. It seems that for you that "narration" is bad. For me it is a necessary prt of writing a coherent article based on multiple sources. The AAA and APA are not being ignored. The APA statement is by now twenty years old and has been superceded by new research such as the recent APA review article by Nisbett, Flynn, Mackointosh et al. who argue that the gap can be explained by 100% environmental factors. The APA statement did not make any such claim but as basically agnostic about the cause calling for new research. The AAA statement while very strong is not based on a review of the literature but is more of a general statement of position.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

::This is frustrating, because you keep missing my point. What the above statement says is "The study of race and intelligence is the interpretation of... these IQ tests." You made that up. You narrated that. There is no source that says that. If there is, present it.

A more neutral lead would be something that describes what the field is generally. And the positions and findings of the APA and AAA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honkeytonknightmare (talk • contribs) 17:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you think the debate is about "generally" if it is not about the interpretation of those IQ results? I am also not sure that I made it up, I think it pretty well reflects a long standing consensus about what the scope of this article is, a consensus of which I am not the single or even primary author. The AAA has made no findings about Race and Intelligence since they do not study that, as anthropologists do not believe that it is a useful field of study.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Struck out sock edits - Maunus, feel free to delete the entire section if you wish. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Biased against hereditarian view

This and this shows us that the hereditarian (and HBD) view is a major one, and academics like Steve Sailer are trusted in the field as well. Doesn't this present a problem for our race based articles where entire views such as the HBD one are ignored and given too little weight? The facts of HBD aren't covered in wikipedia at all, like in this link where one can see a balanced view, even if it's a blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.44.67 (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a really good idea to learn the Wikipedia reliable source guidelines before making suggestions about how to edit Wikipedia articles, especially controversial articles like this one. It's also a good idea to read better sources written by actual scholars before assuming that every blog you have surfed by is increasing rather than decreasing your understanding of the world. Welcome aboard if you like to learn; this article is contentious enough to force all of us to check our facts carefully. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Academics like Steve Sailer, Ian Deary, James Thompson and others seem to be ignored entirely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.67.253 (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Steve Sailer is not an academic and has no place in an acadeic discussion of this topic. James Thompson is not a major player and is not cited much on either side of the debate. His blog posts have no value as a source for an article. Ian Deary is cited in the article and is a well known proponent of a moderate hereditarian view.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

papers like these should definitely not be ignored, I didn't see it cited as well as any other major recent hereditarian papers like can be simple seen in this link 76.64.67.253 (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That paper is only published this very month so it is a little early to claim that it is being ignored. Anyway how it will be included, will be determined by how it is received by the scholarly community. Plomin is a very well known figure in behavioral genetics and since it comes from his lab I would guess that it will be taken up by the literature. When it is then we will report on it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

In any way, we should include it as source that IQ differences between econonic classes are genetic in origin76.64.67.253 (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the conclusion may be relevant for IQ, but it does not mention the topic of race, and so is unlikely to be relevant here unless it gets cited in literature that is specifically about relations between race and intelligence. It is also a primary source, and its notability should be established in the literature before we decide whether to include it in the article on Intelligence and IQ for example. Wikipedia is supposed to necessarily present the newest research as soon as it is published, but to present what is already established as important views within the fields of knowledge.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

but it follows from that cutting edge research that blacks' low IQ and low SES is genetically based — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.67.253 (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That does not follow, no. It would be an entirely fallacious argument to suggest so. Everyone who works on race and IQ know that the reasons for individual differences and between group differences may be completely different, just as the cause of differences between groups A and B may be completely different from the causes of differences between groups Y and X. To make the argument you propose, a study would first have to link IQ differences to specific genes and THEN show that these genes vary between racially defined populations with different average IQs and nobody have done this so far. Plomin' et al.'s argument is only about SES, and it is based on genomewide correlation suggesting genetic mediation which is quite a bit short of showing direct genetic causation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This survey proves that the HBD view is predominant amongst experts in this field, this shouldn't, and can't, be ignored — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.67.253 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC) http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf this major hereditarian source should be included, as seen above it is a major viewpoint so we cant remove it because of PC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.29.213 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of the Rushton paper, I don't see any reason that they are being ignored and only being given very little coverage, I think that's a POV violation76.64.67.253 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

An unpublished survey mentioned un a blog is not a reliable source, Rushton is already given a lot of attention relative to the fact that his work is mostly considered to be lacking in scientific merits even by other hereditarians. Consensus among editors is that Rushton is not considered to be a part of the scientific mainstream , and hence per WP:FRINGE he should receive less weight than mainstream views.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A new conclusive study on R&I

Take a look here, this is a strong argument for the hereditarian side for genetic basis for intelligence that differs by racial population, should be cited for the article74.14.31.201 (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a primary source and it is essentially selfpublished it carries no weight and cannot be included.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No, this was published and put through peer-review74.14.31.201 (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

IBC is not a real scientific journal but is closer to a manuscript depository, its open peer review is not a standard form of peer review. The "article" is clearly labeled "provisional manuscript", it is also archived in the e-depot part of IBC which is simply a manuscript repository with no peer view performed at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

New sources

Metzen 2010 is a good citation for this article70.31.155.210 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It has not been cited in the scholarly literature [12] and hence, as a master thesis and per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it is not a reliable source. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Graphics worthy of adding; Polls

Here is a link to a particular graphic that would be excellent to add to this article, what does everyone think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.155.210 (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems marginal at best. On the other hand, the source it is drawn from probably merits consideration. aprock (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The survey is still ongoing. (I received an invitation to participate in it, through a professional association membership, and I know several eminent researchers on human intellligence who have not even been asked to participate. So the representativeness of the survey sample group is very much in doubt.) Even when it is published in a peer-reviewed primary research publication, that publication will still be a primary source rather than a reliable secondary source for Wikipedia article text, and it is doubtful that the survey of opinions of an ill defined group of researchers (as I said, known eminent researchers have not received the survey questionnaire) really tells us much about the facts of the world, as opposed to the facts about some people's opinion, so it's not clear why this belongs in article text of an article on this topic. The talk page notice on this talk page, based on an Arbitration Committee case from 2010, draws special attention to the sourcing guidelines of Wikipedia as part of the way forward to improve the articles that have frequently been subject to edit-warring on these topics and related topics. This talk page already lists several high-quality secondary sources on the topic of this article (by the experts themselves, writing directly about the facts of the world), and we should rely on those in the first instance to improve the article text. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It isn't yet published in a peer review journal so it wouldn't belong in the article right now. It belongs in the article when and if it gets published in a respectable journal. The survey isn't even published yet but it seems some are preemptively trying to dismiss it. Let's just wait for it to be published first. BlackHades (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal is a new, open-access, "peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original empirical and theoretical articles, state-of-the-art articles and critical reviews, case studies, original short notes, commentaries" intended to be "an open access journal that moves forward the study of human intelligence: the basis and development of intelligence, its nature in terms of structure and processes, and its correlates and consequences, also including the measurement and modeling of intelligence." The content of the first issue is posted, and includes interesting review articles, one by Earl Hunt and Susanne M. Jaeggi and one by Wendy Johnson. The editorial board[13] of this new journal should be able to draw in a steady stream of good article submissions. It looks like the journal aims to continue to publish review articles of the kind that would meet Wikipedia guidelines for articles on medical topics, an appropriate source guideline to apply to Wikipedia articles about intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal website has just been updated with the new articles for the latest edition of the journal, by eminent scholars on human intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Some statements re balance of evidence from recent review sources

From Earl Hunt 2011:

To sum up, there are powerful arguments and a good deal of evidence that racial/ethnic differences in intelligence are influenced by a variety of social variables.(p. 432)
R & J are correct that 100% environmental cannot be maintained.(p. 434)
Plausible cases can be made for both genetic and environmental cases. Evidence required to quantify relative contributions is lacking. (436)
No genes related to the difference in cognitive skills across the various racial and ethnic groups have ever been discovered. The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence.(p. 447)

From Mackintosh 2011:

"There can be little doubt that stereotype threat contributes to blacks' poor performance on tests of cognitive ability;"(p. 348)
"Most (perhaps all) of the genetic evidence reviewed above was consistent with a negligible genetic contribution, and there is rather good evidence that a variety of environmental factors have contributed to the difference in average test scores, which is, at last, now smaller than it was 50 years ago. ONe could reasonably defend Nisbett's argument that the gap was entirely environmental in origin. But it would probably be even more reasonable to acknowledge that the evidence is simply not sufficient is simply not sufficient to provide a definitive answer - and possibly never will be.(p. 344)
"In spite of claims to the contrary, there is remarkably little evidence that the difference is genetic in origin: when brought up in relatively comparable environments black and white children usually obtain relatively similar test scores; and studies of the degree of white ancestry in American blacks suggest that this has little or no impact on test scores. By contrast, there is quite good evidence that several environmental factors, prevalence of low birth weight, breast-feeding, and especially style of parental interaction, do contribute to the difference in test scores.(p. 358)

The only possible conclusion to draw from these two sources (that the previous RfC found to be of highest priority) is that the current state of the debate is now whether there is some biological apportionment, a conclusion for which there is no current non-circumstantial evidence, or whether the different environmental factors that have been demonstrated to have an effect on group differences can explain the entire gap. I.e. an entirely genetic explanation is not currently considered possible, an entirely environmental explanation is considered possible. Rushton and Jensen's 80/20 model is considered extremely unlikely. A number of influential scholars support a 100% environmental explanation, whereas another group of important scholars maintain that some amount of the variation, though perhaps small, will prove to be due to genetic differences. It is possible that the question of a possible biological contribution will never be definitively settled. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that that's a fair reading. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A recent survey[14], conducted by Rindermann et al., found that experts on intelligence research hold the following views on the causes of the black-white IQ gap in America:

0% due to genes: 17% of experts

0-40% due to genes: 42% of experts

50% due to genes: 18% of experts

60-100% due to genes: 39% of experts

100% due to genes: 5% of of experts

Mean=47% (SD=31%)

The sample size is somewhere between 70 and 228[15]. The results were presented at a conference last month, and are yet to be published in a journal.

I don't think scientific questions can be settled by opinion polling, but this new study, like the old Snyderman & Rothman one, does bear strongly on the recurring dispute in Wikipedia about what is and isn't mainstream in intelligence research. It shows that the hereditarian position is widely held, with the majority of the experts who responded thinking that at least 50% of the black-white gap is genetic. (An interesting sociological fact is that few of them have ever publicly defended the hereditarian view, there being only a handful of researchers who have done so.) What this means is that the hereditarian argument should be prominently discussed in Wikipedia.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Snyderman and Rothman study shows nothing about what opinions are widely held. It shows something about what opinions were widely held thirty years ago ten years before the publication of the Bell Curve. The hereditarian viewpoint is prominently discussed. It is infact much too prominently discussed given its standing in recent literature. We do not weigh articles according to polls of experts private opinions but according to a viewpoints standing in reliable sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The validity of the survey may be compromised by the low response rate (6% of those contacted fully completed the survey and a further 12% partially completed it). Regardless, it's not really useful until it's been published. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It is also compromised by the fact that it is a poll of psychometricians only (its says experts, but they are not experts in Race and IQ only in IQ, furthermore many experts in the R & I field are not psychometricians at all). It is also not the case that wikipedia evidence should be weighted to the way that academics opine in private, it should be weighted in accordance with the weight that views have in the academic discourse which is summarized in review articles and monographis pf high standing in the field. For the Rinderman study to be useful it should both be published and we should have evidence for how it has been received by the academic community and the comments and critiques that it prompts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree the Rindermann survey would have to be published to give it weight in the article. But the early looks of it appears that positions in the field have not changed much since the Snyderman & Rothman survey. The all environmental view was a small minority then and appears it is still a small minority today. The all genetic view is nonexistent as it was in the Snyderman and Rothman survey. The median of those surveyed viewed approximately half of the White-Black IQ gap as genetic. The primary mainstream view 25 years ago, that the cause of racial IQ differences is due to a combination of both genetics and environment, appears to still be the primary mainstream view today. If this survey gets peer reviewed and published, it would validate Earl Hunt's statement,

"Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) are correct in saying that the 100% environmental hypothesis cannot be maintained. Nisbett's extreme statement has virtually no chance of being true."--Earl Hunt

..as an extremely mainstream view. BlackHades (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That depends entirely on the population surveyed by Rinderman, which seems to be very clearly aimed narrowly at psychometricians. It seems improbable that critical psychologists and anthropologists are going to be well represented. But yes, it is of course a foregone fact that it is a mainstream view among psychometricians. But it is not the dominant view in the discipline, as the recent article by Flynn, Nisbett et al. in the APAs flagship journal demonstrates very clearly.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it proves that racial hereditarianism is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.33.220 (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lol. If scientific claims were "proved" by polling then the world would look very different.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is Rushton considered non-mainstream here?

In this article and talk people have been claiming that Rushton is non-mainstream but I have found many defenses of him but next to no criticisms, like this article for example that proves that Rushton's detractors are actually ignorant of his works.174.88.242.59 (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to look a little deeper then. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, look deeper where?174.88.242.59 (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

PBS? 121.128.42.171 (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The archives of this page, his article, p.139 and following at [16], etc. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Proven biological cause of IQ

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140304141734.htm This above article proves the accuracy of the hereditarian hypothesis.174.88.242.59 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It proves nothing of the sort. "The reasons behind the changes in IQ are not clear at this point. Some of these may be due to programmed developmental trajectories or other factors such as nutrition and education, noted Professor Karama". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Press releases are not reliable sources for factual assertions of this kind for any Wikipedia article, and certainly not for one of the ten most edit-warred articles on Wikipedia. The talk page of this article already includes a notice reminding all of us to be careful to use reliable sources as we continue editing the article. A list of such sources (not exhaustive, to be sure, but very wide-ranging), can be found in the intelligence citations bibliography in Wikipedia user space. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

A study will almost never "prove" that a hypothesis is true. Science usually works by disproving and eliminating hypotheses, and by providing support for other hypotheses (but not proving them for all time). It takes a lot of prove something, in social science especially -- one study isn't going to prove either side of the race and intelligence issue. This study was about cortex size and intelligence. It did not address the issue of heritability of intelligence. Cortex size can certainly be influenced by environmental factors and by genes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueSingularity (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article actually puts emphasis on nurture: nurture is much more important. In this other study it is found that American groups like "White" Americans, German Americans or Dutch Americans show lower IQs than other groups. It happens that these groups with lower IQs in the US usually live in rural areas and as it happens elsewhere, people living in the countryside show lower IQs than city dwellers. IQ is something incredibly flexible and changing: http://akarlin.com/2012/07/hamburgers-and-rednecks-iq-estimates-of-us-ethnic-groups/

There is another article: http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/13/american-iqs-in-1900-averaged-67-points

You can also find links to other interesting articles there.

And here you can probably find the largest IQ test study ever with over 1.2 million people. Results do not match those made by important authors: http://iq-test.co.uk/stats/?stats_g=WORLD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: What sources should we use to establish notability and relative balance of different viewpoints?

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC, though I suspect with the substantial agreement on many issues, the conclusions in this close will not come as any real surprise. Sorry for the long wait if folks were waiting for a close. There were many issues discussed here with various levels of participation, so I'll go through them individually:

On Proposal A, editors agreed that, consistent with WP:MEDRS, notability and balanced views on this subject will be prioritized by sources that are recently published reviews in reliable sources (such as as academic journals) or textbooks written by experts in relevant fields (such as intelligence, race, or human biological variation)

On Proposal B editors gave:

highest priority to the Daley et al. (2011) and Suzuki et al. (2011) handbook articles, the Nisbett et al. (2012) (titled "Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments") and Wicherts et al. (2010) review articles, & the Hunt et al. (2011) and Mackintosh et al. (2011) textbooks,

high priority to the Weiss (2010) handbook article, and the Hunt & Carlson (2007) and Nisbett et al. (2012) (titled "Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin") review articles, and the Mielke et al. (2006) textbook,

medium priority to the Loehlin (2000) handbook article, the Rushton et al. (2005) review article, the Neisser et al. (1996) and American Anthropological Association Statement organizational reports,

low priority to the Rindermann (2013) review article, the Gottfredson (1997) report

no consensus on the rest of the sources. (This does not mean they are lower priority; it only means there was insufficient participation or argumentation to form a conclusion.)

On Question C, though few editors responded, the consensus was that, given that the term "mainstream" does not necessarily imply a single, dominant view, it was agreed that explaining the entire IQ test score gap through environmental effects as a probable cause is a mainstream viewpoint.

On Question D, editors agreed that J. Philippe Rushton is not considered a mainstream scientist on the basis of how his work is received and discussed in the field. Consequently, in consideration of our principles on due weight, that his work is less prioritized and also contextualized based on commentary whenever it is relevant to discuss.

With regard to the no consensus sources above, editors are welcome to be bold and weigh them as they see fit in the article, but be prepared to discuss them on the talk page if challenged. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

In order to move forward I propose that we establish a criterion to evaluate the ideal sources on which to depend for establishing notability, status and relative weight of different viewpoints within the Race and Intelligence literature. The proposal has been modeled on WP:MEDRS. Following this general proposal for a decision regarding quality of sourcing, we will be able to make decisions about specific sources, about how they should be weighed in determining the weight of arguments.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal A.

When establishing notability and relative balance of viewpoints within the Race and Intelligence literature should we give priority to the following kinds of sources: "1.) recent, general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable psychological and anthropological journals, 2.) widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in either the fields of intelligence, and/or Race and human biological variation, and 3.) professional guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies"?

Survey

Yes For a controversial field such as Race and Intelligence which relies entirely on the quality of research and argumentation that it is beyond either the capability or responsibility of wikipedians to assess, it is of the utmost importance that we closely follow the most reliable mainstream sources and the way they weigh views and arguments.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes although I have to add one caveat specifically about the phrase "race and human biological variation", because from what little I know the concept of "race" itself as the word is generally used is pretty much discredited by academia, although they do apparently acknowledge that there are significant differences between what might be called ethnicities in some "races." John Carter (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I wonder if just agreeing to apply the sourcing requirements of WP:MEDRS directly and explicitly might be more straightforward, and provide a stronger foundation from which to manage sourcing questions. For example, say: Use WP:MEDRS as applicable. ... <RfC text> ... aprock (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes. It is essential that we follow the contemporary consensus on this issue, and the proposed sources are those that will best do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Standard sourcing approach for science articles, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes. But we should cede to existing wikipedia policies when we require more thorough detail regarding balance and notability. BlackHades (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes of course. As written, this is basically just an expression of Wikipedia policy. I have been keeping source lists on human intelligence and on race and related issues in user space here on Wikipedia for a long time. (I invite anyone participating in this discussion to recommend further sources for those source lists, each of which has a talk page.) I will comment on some specific sources below. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes MEDRS is a fine model, which works because it represents consensus among editors (even though it's not policy); MEDRS is also valuable because current policy sets the sourcing bar too low for contentious, high-traffic areas of the literature. -- Scray (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Use of high quality mainstream sources is always in order. And I concur with Scray, "MEDRS is a fine model, which works..." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. As above. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Comment Are you trying to rewrite WP:NPOV? When trying to establish notability and relative balance of viewpoints, we should be following existing wikipedia policies. Which is WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE etc. We already have wikipedia policies in place to establish notability and relative balance. BlackHades (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have moved your comment into a separate discussion section. If you meant it to be "no" then please move it up with that wording instead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no position at this point. You said you're modeling your proposal after WP:MEDRS. And much of what you wrote would already fall in line with existing wikipedia policies regarding notability and balance. Could you explain what you feel this proposal would accomplish that already existing wikipedia policies regarding notability and balance such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:MEDRS would not? And if this proposal does pass, does it supersede existing wikipedia policies on notability and balance? What happens if a source follows existing wikipedia policies but doesn't follow the guidelines for your proposal? Or how about the reverse, what happens if a source follows your guidelines but happens to violate some wikipedia policy? Which supersedes which? BlackHades (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I need to answer this question. Policy is policy. An RfC is a way to establish a local consensus for how to move forward in writing a specific article. I see no no possibility of conflict between any WP policy and this proposal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Much of your proposal is already in line with already existing policies. Which is why I guess I still don't quite understand the necessity of this proposal. On the face of it, I would support it since much of it already aligns with existing policy. The concern, I guess you can say, is if this proposal to meant to supersede existing wikipedia policies or not. If under existing wikipedia policies, a source should have such and such amount of due weight, but under your proposal a different amount of weight is assessed, which guidelines do we follow? Wikipedia policies or this proposal? Your guidelines are a good starting start point in determining relevant and important sources, but ultimately, I would say existing wikipedia policies should be followed to determine notability and balance. If this proposal is meant to be a good starting point to establish notability and balance, but that ultimately wikipedia policies will still be followed and has final say, meaning this proposal is not actually meant to supersede existing wikipedia policies, then yes I would support it. BlackHades (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Local consensus can not override policy as I am sure you know. But local consensus can decide to follow a particular interpretation of policy for a particular purpose, and it can decide to impose a particularly strict interpretation of policy if deemed in the interest of the article. I consider this to be a stricter interpretation of WP:RS, just as WP:MEDRS is for the field of medicine. I am also not proposing that less reliable sources cannot be included, but that they cannot be used for the purpose of determining weight and balance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

@Aprock: I don't think we can use the phrasing of MEDRS directly because it specifies "medical journals" and "medical guidelines" - and of course most the relevant literature in this topic is not medical.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, though I think being explicit that this is modeled after WP:MEDRS is important. If this does make things a little easier to manage, it might make sense to eventually carve out a generalization of WP:MEDRS, which can be more broadly applied in the most controversial topic areas. aprock (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus and Aprock both make good points here, and I agree with Aprock's suggestion that WP:MEDRS should be explicitly named as a model policy. I note for the record that I do use a bio-medical library and medical textbooks for some of my research, and there are quite a few reliable sources among that literature with important information for the topic of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why notability is mentioned. Weight and notability are different things, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

They are related in that non-notable viewpoints and relatively non-notable viewpoints, receive no or limited weight.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

We give weight to viewpoints based on their prominence in the most reliable sources, in contrast, notability is a binary decision (either something is notable or not). Merely being notable does not give a viewpoint any due weight to be mentioned in another article. The flat earth movement is notable, but it does not have weight to be mentioned in earth (standard example from WP:NPOV). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don' think there is anything weird or wrong with saying "notable" where you say "prominent", although it is a different kind of notability than the one we use to determine whether an topic deserves an article. For me it is the same principle - if a viewpoint is notable/prominent enough to be mentioned in mainstream articles about the topic (which flat earth isn't regarding the topic "earth", but which the hereditarian viewpoint clearly is regarding the ropic R&I) then we include it - but weighted relative to its prominence in those sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal B. Reliability of Sources

For each of the following sources please give your opinion on whether the following sources should be considered highly reliable mainstream sources that should receive priority in establishing balance and notability of different viewpoints. In your evaluation try to asses whether a source should have Highest, High, Medium, Low or No weight.

Handbook Articles

Daley, Christine E.; Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. (2011). "Chapter 15: Race and Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 293–306. ISBN 9780521739115. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Survey

Highest priorityUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority aprock (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority This is actually not my favorite treatment of the topic, but the nature of the source makes it authoritative, and I have the whole book at hand. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Suzuki, Lisa A.; Short, Ellen L.; Lee, Christina S. (2011). "Chapter 14: Racial and Ethnic Group Differences in Intelligence in the United States". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 273–292. ISBN 9780521739115. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Survey

Highest priorityUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority aprock (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority A good chapter from the same Cambridge handbook I have in my office, and I actually like this chapter a bit better than the Daley et al. chapter. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Weiss, Lawrence G.; Chen, Hsinyi; Harris, Jossette G.; Holdnack, James A.; Saklofske, Donald H. (2010). "Chapter 4: WAIS-IV Use in Societal Context". In Weiss, Lawrence G.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Coalson, Diane; Raiford, Susan (eds.). WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner Perspectives. Practical Resources for the Mental Health Professional. Alan S. Kaufman (Foreword). Amsterdam: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-375035-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Survey

High priority Includes important information about Wechsler test score trends. I have the full text of this chapter, which is useful for editing other articles as well. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
High priority. Where applicable. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Loehlin, John C. (2000). "Chapter 9: Group Differences in Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J. (ed.). Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 176–193. ISBN 978-0-521-59648-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Survey

Medium priority somewhat more dated than the other handbook articles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Low priority Too dated compared to the others. Presumably changes were well considered. aprock (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Medium priority The Loehlin chapter, in a handbook I also have in my office, is useful mostly for showing how the topic was viewed more than a decade ago (and thus how it has developed since the chapter was published). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
High priority A solid general overview on the topic from a prominent psychologist. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Low priority. Dated. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Review Articles

Nisbett, Richard E.; Aronson, Joshua; Blair, Clancy; Dickens, William; Flynn, James; Halpern, Diane F.; Turkheimer, Eric (2012). "Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments" (PDF). American Psychologist. 67 (2): 130–159. doi:10.1037/a0026699. ISSN 0003-066X. PMID 22233090. Retrieved 22 July 2013. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Survey

Highest priority A recent review article in the flagship journal of the APA, coauthored by 7 of the most well-respected intelligence researchers. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority The author list of this article is basically an all-star cast of researchers on the topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
High priority By this I mean it's noteworthy and relevant as a review for the all environment position of the field. However, they are very selective in their arguments and they completely avoid discussing many studies and points that would contradict their position. A concern raised by several psychologists. Many of these points is highlighted by Hunt's "Human Intelligence". Great care should be taken here to avoid representing their views as the views of the broader scientific field. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority. Current understanding of the field from highly respected mainstream researchers. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Nisbett, Richard E.; Aronson, Joshua; Blair, Clancy; Dickens, William; Flynn, James; Halpern, Diane F.; Turkheimer, Eric (2012). "Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin" (PDF). American Psychologist. 67 (6): 503–504. doi:10.1037/a0029772. ISSN 0003-066X. PMID 22963427. Retrieved 22 July 2013. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Survey

High priority A followup piece to the above where the autors explicitly states their view and explain why certain studies and arguments have been left out of the review. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
High priority The rejoinder by the authors of the main article is very important for establishing what is mainstream and what is fringe in regard to controversial aspects of this article's topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Lowest priority This is just a one page response in the usual tit for tat, back and forth argument between hereditarians and environmentalists that's been going on for decades. If it does deserve weight, it should be based on the same presentation that American Psychologist made in their issue. Which was side by side, equal time with Rushton and Woodley and Meisenberg. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
High priority. Mainstream understanding of the field. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hunt, Earl; Carlson, Jerry (June 2007). "Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2 (2): 194–213. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00037.x. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Survey

Highest priorityUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
High priority There are newer publications on this article's topic that go beyond Hunt and Carlson, but this was a good overview of the topic for the time it was published. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority High quality secondary source that overviews the issue from different perspectives. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Medium priority. "If not for two major unsupported statements, "Considerations Relating to the Study of Group Differences in Intelligence" would be a superb piece."[17] It is also not a research review. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Rindermann, Heiner (2013). "African cognitive ability: Research, results, divergences and recommendations". Personality and Individual Differences. 55 (3). International Society for the Study of Individual Differences: 229–233. ISSN 0191-8869. Retrieved 22 July 2013. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Survey

Medium priority Single authored review in a specialized journal historically linked to the hereditarian side of the argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Low priority It looks like this paper was delayed in actually being published, as the preprints online all claim a date of 2012, but the citation of the actual published paper is for the year 2013. This paper is so far only cited (per Google Scholar) in other papers by the same author. Other signs of uptake of this paper are conspicuous by their absence. It will be important to verify the published text of the article, as it looks like editors called for changes in the submitted author manuscript. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Lowest priority. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Wicherts, Jelte M.; Dolan, Conor V.; van der Maas, Han L. J. (2010). "A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans" (PDF). Intelligence. 38 (1). International Society for Intelligence Research: 1–20. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2009.05.002. Retrieved 22 July 2013. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Survey

Highest priorityUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority Wicherts is a researcher of impeccable integrity who has often examined the data underlying other publications on the topic of this article. I think Wicherts has a journal article soon to be in press related to the topic of this article that will be well worth looking for when it is available online. (Wicherts is very good about posting links to his articles from his faculty website when publishers allow him to do so.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority. High quality review. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R. (2005). "Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability" (PDF). Psychology, public policy, and law. 11 (2): 235. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235. Retrieved 22 July 2013. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Survey

Medium priority While this is a primary source for some of the most controversial research, it does represent the final summation of that research. While it can't be used to establish the weight, it can be used to establish which lines of research best represent their final views. aprock (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
High priority When I say high priority here, I mean conscientious editors will read this to be sure what the late professors said about their line of research. What weight their views should have in the article here will depend on what other sources say about those views. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Medium priority: Useful for understanding the view of Jensen and Rushton - not for understanding the relative weight of views within the field.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
High priority An important source as far as the overview of the hereditarian view of the field. Without actually going into the merits of their argument, the paper itself is heavily cited in the field. Their points heavily discussed, which means it needs to be discussed here. BlackHades (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Low priority. Best covered by secondary sources. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Reports and statements by professional organizations, groups and bodies

Neisser, Ulrich; Boodoo, Gwyneth; Bouchard, Thomas J.; Boykin, A. Wade; Brody, Nathan; Ceci, Stephen J.; Halpern, Diane F.; Loehlin, John C.; Perloff, Robert; Sternberg, Robert J.; Urbina, Susana (1996). "Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns" (PDF). American Psychologist. 51: 77–101. ISSN 0003-066X. Retrieved 22 July 2013. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Survey

Medium priority Now a very dated statement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Medium priority Dated, but relevant from the controversy perspective. aprock (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Medium priority Of course I read it when it was published, and have a copy mailed out by the APA in my office. New research has superseded this one, but it gives an overview of this article's topic as it appeared to a broad spectrum of APA leaders in the year of publication. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority The position of scientific organizations heavily intertwined in the issue, is always relevant. The main significant statements made in the report still holds today. That individual IQ is highly heritable, racial IQ gaps do exist, the cause of racial IQ gaps is largely unknown. These three points are still largely held today. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Medium priority. Dated and superseded. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" and Intelligence[18]

Survey

Low priority Only a statement of concern, not an assessment of results.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Medium priority Useful for Wikipedians to read as very few Wikipedia articles about race pay much attention to the scholars best acquainted with race scholarship. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Medium priority While I do maintain the importance of the views of scientific organizations, the field of anthropology does not appear to have done much research on this particular issue and certainly far less so than the field of psychology. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Low priority. Dated statement of concern. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (1997). "Mainstream Science on Intelligence (editorial)" (PDF). Intelligence. 24: 13–23. ISSN 0160-2896. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Survey

Low priority A statement of opinion, not peer reviewed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Primary source. Not peer reviewed. The piece claiming it is mainstream does not make it so, requires secondary sources for that. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Low priority aprock (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Medium priority Important for knowing what one group of authors signed off on at a previous period in the controversy. Both signers of this statement and persons who specifically refused to sign this statement are still active in research on this topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Medium priority It's not peer reviewed which does lower it's notability. It'e still noteworthy however in understanding the position of some of the most active and prominent researchers on this issue. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Lowest priority, primary source. Dated, uninvited "letter to the editor" type newspaper opinion piece with a misleading title. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Texbooks

Johnson, Wendy (2012). "How Much Can We Boost IQ? An Updated Look at Jensen's (1969) Question and Answer". In Slater, Alan M.; Quinn, Paul C. (eds.). Developmental Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies. Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE. ISBN 978-0-85702-757-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Survey

Highest priority Wendy Johnson is an experienced researcher in human behavior genetics, a respected colleague of most of the big names active in research in that discipline. Her book chapter in the cited book, which is part of a more extensive Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies series of textbooks, is a model of reexamining and integrating the evidence that has been discovered since Jensen's 1969 paper that did so much to reignite interest in the topic of this Wikipedia article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

James Mielke, Lyle W. Konigsberg & John Relethford. 2006. Human biological variation". Oxford University Press.

Survey

High priority Being specialized in human biological variation its strength lies in its ability to assess the likelihood of a genetic component to race/IQ correlations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
High priority This is a very important source for this article. I've seen this textbook before, but I'll have to obtain it again, probably by interlibrary loan. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hunt, Earl (2011). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Survey

Highest priority A thorough review by a well respected scholar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority A good skeptical review of many relevant aspects of the issue. aprock (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority I own this book. There are some mistakes on some other issues in this book, but it is much more mainstream and thoughtful than most of what has been used to source this Wikipedia article for years. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority Very thorough overview of the issue. Solidly displays the bias and nitpicking that both environmentalists and hereditarians in the field are guilty of. Investigates many key issues in great detail. BlackHades (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Mackintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and Human Intelligence (second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-958559-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Survey

Highest priority A thorough review by a well respected scholar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority A high level current presentation. aprock (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Highest priority A classic on its topic. Especially useful because the book is in its second edition, after being used for years as a textbook at Harvard, Caltech, and other universities where psychology students are expected to read thorough textbooks. I own this book, just as I still own the first edition. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Rod Plotnik & Haig Kojoumdjian, 2007. “Introduction to Psychology”. Cengage Press

Survey

High priority Because it is an college level textbook its strength is to assess the general balance of hereditarian/environmental arguments in the general discipline of Psychology, not just intelligence testingUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Schacter, D. S., Gilbert, D. T., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Psychology. New York: Worth.

Survey

High priority Because it is an college level textbook its strength is to assess the general balance of hereditarian/environmental arguments in the general discipline of Psychology, not just intelligence testingUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Nick Haslam, 2007. "Introduction to Personality and Intelligence" SAGE Publications Ltd

Survey

High priority Because it is an college level textbook focused on the field of intelligence and individual differences its strength is to assess the general balance of hereditarian/environmental arguments in the general field of intelligence studies.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Scott Lilienfeld, 2013. Psychology: From Inquiry to Understanding. Pearson. ISBN:978-0205961672

Survey

High priority I'd like to suggest the Lilienfeld textbook because Lilienfeld did his Ph.D. studies in a milieu of behavior genetics research with a lot of emphasis on research rigor. This book is in its third edition, so it has been examined by professors for its usefulness and accuracy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Gregory, Robert J. (2011). Psychological Testing: History, Principles, and Applications (Sixth ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 978-0-205-78214-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Survey

Richards, Graham (2009). Psychology: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-43201-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Survey

High priority I don't currenlty have access to this book but it seems highly useful.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You feel Nisbett et al. "Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments" should have the highest priority. There have been criticism published against this paper, which is certainly expected in a field as contentious, disputed, and controversial as this one, which is published in the exact same peer review journal as Nisbett et al. Which include Rushton, J.P "No narrowing in mean Black–White IQ differences—Predicted by heritable g." and MA Woodley, G Meisenberg. “Ability differentials between nations are unlikely to disappear.” You didn't even bother listing any criticism to this paper in your list which seems to imply you feel there should be no weight. Yet the response that Nisbett et al. makes directly to these criticism which is "Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin." you feel is also highest priority? So its..

Nisbett et al. = highest priority.

Criticism to Nisbett et al = zero priority

Nisbett et al's response to criticism = highest priority

Is this correct? BlackHades (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The list of sources does not pretend to be exhaustive, if you feel high quality mainstream sources are missing feel free to add them to the survey and we'll let consensus decide.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I brought this up is that the criticism to Nisbett et al is published in the exact same peer review journal that Nisbett et al is published on. Not only are they published in the exact same journal, they were published in the exact same issue and date. Which is "American Psychologist 67(6) (2012)". With JP Rushton on pages 500-501. Woodley and Meisenberg on pages 501-502 and Nisbett et al on pages 503-504. Given that they are all coming from the exact same source and same journal, the weight in this particular instance should be equal since it's impossible to try to argue one is coming from a higher quality source than the other. American Psychologist makes no indication that it favors one particular view over the other. BlackHades (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that follows. It is not unusual for journals to publish responses when specific researchers are criticized as Rushton is in Nisbett et al's. review. Rushton's criticism is single authored article which is not a review and it receives a response that can only be understood to mean that his research is simply no longer considered part of the mainstream by the group of scientists who wrote the review and was therefore excluded. There is ample evidence for the general view of Rushton as being on the fringe of science. If you believe Rushton's article should receive as high priority as Nisbett et al.'s review then you are free to add it, but I believe it should receive little or no weight. Even if he were still alive he could not have been claimed to be a part of the scholarly dialogue after such a forceful rejection of his research by the mainstream. But by all means enter it into the survey and consensus will decide the weight. Woodley and Meisenberg I have no opinion on at the moment, they might be worth including but I haven't read their piece yet.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin" isn't a review either. It's just a direct response to the criticism as raised by Rushton and Woodley and Meisenberg. It seems inappropriate to give weight to the response of the criticism but no weight to the criticism that actually lead to the response when both the criticism and response are from the exact same reliable source, which is American Psychologist, in the exact same issue and date. This tit for tat response in the field has been going on for decades where environmentalists respond to hereditarians, who then responds back to environmentalists, and back and forth, often times in the exact same journal.

Hereditarian positions are not fringe and this constant attempt to make it appear as such needs to stop. Fringe cannot get publication in such a mainstream peer review journal like the APA. Per WP:NPOV "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

There is no indication that the extreme environment positions as expressed by Nisbett/Flynn are more prominent in mainstream peer review journals like the APA, Intelligence, etc. In fact Jensen would have more papers published in mainstream peer review journals than anyone else in the field. Would you agree with this? High quality textbooks such as Hunt's "Human Intelligence" are quite heavily critical of the extreme environment positions such as Nisbett/Flynn. To be fair they are critical of Jensen/Rushton as well but this push of yours to make Nisbett/Flynn mainstream, when there is no evidence to support they are, is inappropriate. The obituary of Arthur Jensen published in the peer review journal Intelligence, called Nisbett's position a "dwindling band"

"Art's case was still not universally accepted but supporters of a wholly environmental explanation had become a dwindling band among whom the most prominent is Richard Nisbett (2009)."

Lynn, R. (2012). Obituary: Arthur Robert Jensen, 1924–2012. Intelligence.

As previously stated Nisbett has been outside the mainstream in the field of psychology for decades. So much of what he asserts completely conflicts with the accepted "knowns" from the "Intelligence Knowns and Unknowns" APA Task Force Report of 1996. Criticism of Nisbett isn't even just from hereditarians. His position even conflicts heavily from more neutral psychologists such as Hunt and Loehlin. Are you familiar with his "Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental process (1977)" paper? It's the paper that made him infamous and brought on strong condemnation from the psychology field.

Dickens, who's one of the coauthors with Nisbett/Flynn, made it very clear that while he agrees with Nisbett/Flynn, their point remains controversial.

“Both Flynn and Nisbett take the view, as do I, that genetic differences probably do not play an important role in explaining differences between the races, but the point remains controversial, and Arthur Jensen provides a recent discussion from a hereditarian perspective.”--Dickens, William T. "Genetic differences and school readiness." The Future of Children (2005): 55-69.

Hunt, while he does have some criticism for Jensen/Rushton, called their 2005 paper, which was published in a highly mainstream peer review journal, "well presented".

“The argument for genetic causes for group differences has been maintained by several serious researchers over the years. The three most prominent advocates of this position today are Arthur Jensen of the University of California, Berkeley; Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster; and J. Phillipe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario. The arguments they propose, which are essentially identical, were well presented in a 2005 paper by Rushton and Jensen.”--Hunt Earl. (2011) “Human Intelligence” pg. 433

You continue to completely undermine the controversy that exists in the scientific field. This issue is strongly contentious, disputed, and controversial. Dickens himself admits their position is controversial. In no way does he ever indicate that it is mainstream. You insist the extreme environment position of Nisbett/Flynn is mainstream and that hereditarian positions are fringe. When I've repeatedly requested for any reliable source that makes this claim, you never provide any. This is the kind of advocacy that would be forbidden by active arbitration remedies. Per WP:NPOV, all significant views must be given weight and the weight should be on the prominence of the view as it exists in reliable sources. BlackHades (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Well presented" is hardly praise - it means it is well written, not that it makes sense or is true - Hunt gives the two of them plenty of harsh criticism in the 2011 book - basically he considers Jensen's statistical vector model to be useless. And yes I will continue to insist that the mainstream view should be treated as the mainstream view. And i will continue to state that the mainstream view is the one found in reliable mainstream sources such as Nisbett&Flynns review which is not extreme, and which no one has called extreme. And yes, the point of this RfC is to establish that it clearly is the mainstream view, because it is the view that is favored in most mainstream sources. Dickens' does not say that his view is extreme, he says it is controversial which is something else and obviously true.Rushton and Jensen will get their weight according to their prominence in reliable sources - but they are not reliable sources themselves. Richard Lynn's glowing obituary of Jensen is not a reliable source for anything at all - and suggesting it is, is extremely poor judgment. Your obfuscation and pov pushing becomes more and more pathetic by the hour. Rushton is fringe and has always been fringe as a brief review of his article here will attest. Nisbett on the other hand is not fringe, but thoroughly mainstream, and fringe authors who have been rejected from the discipline do not publish review authors with 6 prominent and well respected co-authors in AP. You are clearly desparate .User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

By "rejecting from the discipline" do you mean mainstream journals like American Psychologist and Intelligence publishing Rushton's work over and over again? Or are you arguing that scientific journals like American Psychologist and Intelligence are actually fringe sources? They must be if Rushton is fringe and yet they continue to publish his work over and over again. Let me see if I understand this. American Psychologist publishes Nisbett et al. You then proclaim Nisbett et al is coming from a highly mainstream source. American Psychologist publishes Jensen/Rushton. You proclaim Jensen/Rushton is fringe....You do realize they're both coming from the same source right? When you say fringe are you even going by WP:FRINGE? Reliable sources in WP:FRINGE is defined as:

"Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas."

You're really claiming that Rushton is not prominent in any of the above? In particular "academic and peer-reviewed publications" which is defined by wikipedia policies as the "most reliable sources". You really want to claim that Rushton fits the wikipedia policy of WP:FRINGE? You even explicitly stated that you didn't even bother reading any of the criticism to Nisbett et. al. Which I don't even understand how when they're published in the exact same journal and issue on adjoining pages. You didn't even read it and yet you've already established it is fringe and deserves no weight...based on? It can't be the source, if you proclaim the source is unreliable we have to remove Nisbett et al as well as it's the same source. If you proclaim it is a reliable source, then we would have to give weight in accordance to the prominence that it is the source. You can't give unequal weight when American Psychologist themselves allocated weight based on their own expertise. American Psychologist gave equal time and weight to Rushton, Woodley and Meisenberg, and Nisbett et al. In no way did the journal American Psychologist indicate which view is the minority and which is the majority. It can't be high level textbooks, since such high level textbooks such as Hunt's "Human Intelligence" flat out reject the primary conclusion by Nisbett et al. and clearly outlines the problem that environmentalists like Nisbett constantly make:

“The direct evidence that we have for genetic effects does not come close to accounting for the size of the gap between White and African American test scores. Neither do environmental effects. And, unfortunately, the environmental evidence has often been presented as evidence that environmental effects do occur – which no advocate of genetic models has ever denied – but has not been presented in a way that permits a quantitative estimate of how important environmental effects are in determining group differences in intelligence in the population.”--Hunt, Earl. (2011) “Human Intelligence”, pg. 435.

So when you say Nisbett et al is the mainstream position in the field, what is this based on? I must have asked you 10 times now for a source, ANY source, to support this repeated claim of yours. You claim "mainstream sources" say so. What mainstream sources? American Psychologist? Intelligence? Cambridge University Press? So once again, what is your source for this bold claim? BlackHades (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

We are not going to agree through discussion on this. I think you are either wilfully trying to misrepresent the mainstream of science or simply not sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic. I am sure you think the same about me. Further discussion between us will get us nowhere. I have added two additional questions to the RfC to let the consensus decide what is more mainstream - the "100% environmental view" or Rushton.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The way you word the RfCs, I would agree with both of them. You can pull these RfCs since there is no dispute here. Or keep them up if you want but I don't see the point since no one is challenging them nor do I think anyone would argue against them. If this is what you thought I was challenging then you appear to have misinterpreted me. Mainstream is defined as the majority prevailing position. This is what I meant by mainstream. Are you still confident that Nisbett's 100% environment position is the mainstream position? Mainstream being defined as the prevailing majority dominant position of the field? Keeping in mind that if it is true, it would mean Hunt is not mainstream. Loehlin is not mainstream. The APA Task Force report is not mainstream. I HIGHLY doubt this. Nisbett's position is not more prevalent than Hunt's position, Loehlin's position, or the APA's Task Force position.

Regarding the other RfC, our argument was not whether Rushton was mainstream, it was whether he was fringe. If you still maintain he is fringe, then we can open a new RfC on it. But if you agree that he is "prominent and notable enough to be included", meaning you believe he passes WP:FRINGE, then we appear to be on the same page and there doesn't appear to be a dispute here and an RfC is not necessary. BlackHades (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have defined what I mean by mainstream a long time ago. I can hardly be held accountable for your failure to read that. Rushton's position is a fringe view within psychology and within intelligence testing. It is not considered a part of the central mainstream paradigm to which Hunt, Loehlin, Nisbett and the APA and the many other mainstream sources we are reviewing belong. But he is a prominent figure within the debate (I would say more out of notoriety than merit), and hence should receive more weight than zero. The exact amount should be determined by the weight given him by the best mainstream sources. As Rushton himself noted, for example in his rejoinder to Nisbett et al. the weight his scholarship was allotted was not necessarily as much as he would have preferred. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You stated that you feel fringe 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." This could be considered accurate to Rushton depending on what specific part of Rushton's position you're referring to as some parts of his position is more accepted than others. For example, Hunt does agree with some specific points by Rushton. The question though is do you feel Rushton fits wikipedia's policy of WP:FRINGE, more specifically do you feel his position doesn't meet "significant view" as published in reliable sources as stated by WP:NPOV? Just so we're super clear, I'm not asking if he's mainstream, I'm asking does he pass the threshold for "significant view" per policy. I can't see how he doesn't pass this threshold. His view is repeatedly published by reliable sources, often times in the same reliable sources that publishes Nisbett or Flynn's view. Secondary sources in support of his position does exist. Again from similar or same reliable sources. Prominent adherents to his position can easily be named as required by WP:NPOV. Per wikipedia policies, he meets "significant view" as stated in WP:NPOV and hence due weight is certainly greater than zero. BlackHades (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE states "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." and yes I do think Rushton fits that category. Particularly I think he falls under the category 3. "questionable science". But Rushton also clearly passes the criteria of notability for a fringe theorist: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia." As such I think what we need to do is to follow the mainstream sources and see how they describe him and his work and how much weight they assign it - and we need to make his position within the field clear to the readers so as to not mislead them. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I personally think that in a lot of cases like this, which involve contentious matters, maybe one of the best ways to start is to try to develop articles on some of the proposed sources themselves, indicating what the academic world thinks of them, and, if it is encyclopedia-type or otherwise a collection of separate works of more than one editor, indicating where possible which of those sources are more highly regarded than others. Those articles on sources could then be included in links of some sort to this article, and maybe any other related articles. Having that data available on site here to all would almost certainly make it much easier for others to come into the discussion and more quickly assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of the article, at least as regards those sources which have been given their own articles. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but this list of proposed sources are the kind of sources that could presumably be used to write those types of articles - not the kind of classical sources that would typically have an article written about them. The Bell Curve and How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? and similarly classic texts within the field already have articles - but they are primary sources and should not be used to base the article on.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering this is an RfC, it speeds up matters, for those with no background knowledge of the dispute, if ISBN's and DOI's are included in all books and papers etc mentioned. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, see the source list I keep in my user space for many more bibliographic details, and some other recommended sources. I'll try to edit entries here tomorrow, now that I've seen your request. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Question C: Is the "100% Environmental" position a mainstream view?

The question is whether it is a widely held mainstream view that the entire IQ test score gap is likely to be explainable by environmental effects. Note that the question is not whether it is the only mainstream view, nor whether it has been proven to account for the entire gap, but only about whether it is considered a probable explanation by a wide selection of mainstream scholars.

Survey

Yes The "100% Environement" explanation has been mainstream since the first UNESCO statement on race continued to be so in the subsequent statement and in the statement of the 1997 AAPA statement[19]. The view is espoused in psychology textbooks such as those by Schacter et al., Plotkin & Kujoumdjian, and in Intelligence and Personality textbooks such as the one by Haslam. The articles by Daley and Ongwuebuzie and by Suzuki et al. in the 2011 Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence describe only environmental factors and are highly critical of most of the published material pruporting to show genetic causes. Wicherts et al. also favor environmental factors in explaining the gap, though they do not exclude the possibility of some genetic factors being found. The 2011 review article and rejoinder to Rushton by Nisbett, Flynn, Turkheimer, Halpern, Aronson, Dickens & Blair show conclusively that the 100% environmentalist is not a fringe view but espoused by a wide selection of highly esteemed intelligence researcher. The views that see the intelligence gap is explainable is either by equal measures of genetic and environmental factors, or sees it as being mostly environmental with some possible yet to be ascertained genetic factors are also mainstream views. The 80% genetic hypothesis of Rushton and Jensen is not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes If this is how you're defining mainstream, then the answer is obviously yes. BlackHades (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
No According to the definition of mainstream below which is different from this one. 210.183.210.10 (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Comment Your question is completely faulty. By definition, there can only be one mainstream position. Wikipedia article Mainstream defines it as "the common current thought of the majority." Mainstream is the prevailing dominant view. It is not possible to have more than one majority. The RfC needs to be written. BlackHades (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any such definition of mainstream. I have given the definition of mainstream that I use above on this talkpage. It means the centre of dialogue within a discipline, not just the single dominant or majority view in disciplines where there is so. I have no where claimed that the 100% environmental view is the majority or dominant view within the discipline. There is no single dominant view in the field of R&I now.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Then the problem appears to be that we were not using the same definition of mainstream. Based on the definition of mainstream you mentioned, we would be completely on the same page. Yes there is no single dominant view. That was ironically what I was trying to prove you to this whole time.. BlackHades (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Which was why I wrote this a long time ago: Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Some_definitions User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Question D: Is J. Philippe Rushton considered a mainstream scientist?

The question is whether Rushton as a person and a scholar is generally considered to be within the mainstream of the field of Psychology. The question is not whether he is prominent and notable enough to be included, but about whether his views should be given equal weight to mainstream views within the article.

Discussion

No Rushton is not mainstream. I know of few scholars who have been faced with harsher criticism than Rushton both on methdologiogical and theoretical grounds (the moral and ethical criticisms of course do not count when assessing a scientific view). There is a veritable body of literature of critiques of all aspects of Rushton's methods and analyses, from faulty data collection to cherrypicking of studies, to misrepresentation of studies, to statistical blunders or statistical malpractice and to theoretical misunderstandings of the theories he is applying. Rushton has been roundly critiqued on all fronts from mainstream researcher in all of the relevant disciplines. EVen the other pyshcologists in his own department at UWO published scathing critiques of his work. I know of three textbooks (Alland's "Race in Mind", Brace's "Race is a four letter word" and Graves' "The emperor's new clothes") with chapters about Rushton's work in which it is criticized as racist pseudoscience, and I know of several other textbooks that mention Rushton in passing dismissing his research as obviously flawed. He is simply not considered a serious scientist. Why is his work sometimes published in highly respected journals? I think it is out of courtesy to give him a chance to defend against the serious criticisms, and because hereditarians have a habit of complaining about being "censored" whenever their work is rejected by a journal. I think many journals consider it a better strategy to publish it and let it fall on its own (lack of) merits. Also note that Rushton's work is generally single authored except for his co-publications with Jensen and Lynn - both of whom were his close friends and were occupying similar positions as pariahs within the science and hence had little to lose. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
No The argument we had was whether Rushton was fringe not whether he was mainstream. This RfC needs to be rewritten as well. BlackHades (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
No To be on-point with what is discussed here in relation to the editing of the Wikipedia article Race and intelligence, any view on that issue that is distinctive to the late J. Philippe Rushton and not prominently mentioned with support (rather than refutation) in a mainstream reliable source is a fringe view (or, at best, the view of a tiny minority). As such, it would receive little or no weight to receive due weight during the editing of this article. I know of many researchers on this topic who evaluate Rushton's distinctive contributions to the literature similarly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
No. Rushton's views are devoid of scientific merit. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe. Rushton's views are significant minority to mainstream. 210.183.210.10 (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Objection. Such matters are not suitable to be settled by popular vote. Targaryen^{speak or forever remain silent} 23:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Such issues are to be decided by referring to reliable sources on the article's topic, which is the focus of some of the other recent talk page threads. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:17, 17 October 2013 (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.

The consensus is that this RfC is garbage and uses two mutually exclusive definitions of mainstream: "multiple mainstreams" for the author's preferred minority view, and "single mainstream" for the author's personally disliked minority view. Shall we open another RfC and switch it around? No, that would be transparently disingenuous wouldn't it. Did the closer even read it? 27.1.214.45 (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Maunus does completely alter the definition of "mainstream" from Question C to Question D. I was one of the 2 votes for "Yes" in Question C, with Maunus being the other vote for yes. But if the more traditional English definition of mainstream is used, defining "mainstream" as the current prevailing position, the answer to Question C would be "No". If Maunus used the same definition of "mainstream" in Question C as he did for Question D, then the answer would also be "No". Nisbett's position is definitely NOT the prevailing position and there's been absolutely no evidence presented to support that it is. His position only made up 15% of the field when the Snyderman & Rothman survey was taken. This position ranked 3rd in the survey, behind the genetics/environment combination position as well as the insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion position. Many of Nisbett et al's arguments also conflict with the "Knowns" of the "Intelligence Knowns and Unknowns" 1994 APA Task Force Report, meaning it tends to argue over specific points that already previously achieved consensus. Many mainstream researchers have repeatedly argued against this 100% environmental position. Including Loehlin, Hunt, Carlson, Bouchard, Scarr, etc.

But with the specific way that Maunus worded Question C, the answer would be yes. This should be interpreted to mean the view is notable and should carry weight in the article but should not be mistaken for the more traditional definition of mainstream that means "prevailing or dominant position". BlackHades (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. My definition of mainstream is very clear and it is also ery commonly used. In most fields there is more than a single mainstream view. Fringe views are the views of those who such as Rushton are not a part of any of the mainstyream tracks of research but is generally considered to be working on problems or with tchniques that are of dubious validity. I think it is a little sad to see you guys whine when the consensus is against you. By your definition of "Mainstream" which is only valid when there is a single dominant position in a field there is no mainstream in theoretical physics, because the different variants of string theory are mutually exclusie and none hae a clear majority. There is also no mainstream way of classifying primates, or human ancestors since there are several taxonomic classifications in use by scientists. And wikipedia would hae no way to distinguish between a clear fringe view such that almost everyone in the discipline agrees is wrong such as say Aquatic Ape Theory and the different iews that are accepted as possible hypotheses. Your idea of how science works is erroneous and adopting your definition of "mainstream" would be a huge problem for wikipedia. The 100% environmental hypothesis is one of the mainstream views regarding the Racial IQ gap - the 80% biology view is not. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Except you don't have a definition of mainstream, you have two defintions of mainstream, the choice of which depends on whether you are applying it to your favorite POV or not. Your 'multiple mainstreams' schitck is just nonsense. Please desist. 211.119.109.57 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's not debate whether words can have different definitions. They can. That said, Question D clarifies that the use of mainstream in this context was intended to get at the following: The question is not whether he is prominent and notable enough to be included, but about whether his views should be given equal weight to mainstream views within the article. So the question was one of the application of WP:DUE. Whatever definition of "mainstream" being used here seems less relevant than responding to this question. Accusations that words were intentionally twisted to suit the proposer or my close doesn't appear to be based on anything factual (also, I've never edited this article), so I see no reason to reconsider my close. I suggest you go to WP:AN if you want a more formal reconsideration. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There is very good evidence that the 100% environmental position is mainstream: a coauthored review by 6 of the most respected intelligence researchers in the discipline's flagship journal. COntrary to hereditarian Hunt, Mackintosh in his texbook writes: ""In spite of claims to the contrary, there is remarkably little evidence that the difference is genetic in origin: when brought up in relatively comparable environments black and white children usually obtain relatively similar test scores; and studies of the degree of white ancestry in American blacks suggest that this has little or no impact on test scores. By contrast, there is quite good evidence that several environmental factors, prevalence of low birth weight, breast-feeding, and especially style of parental interaction, do contribute to the difference in test scores.(p. 358)". By the way I agree that the hereditarian position in its reasonable versions such as those by Hunt is a mainstream view. That would be clear to anyone reading what I have actually written.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources identified here (professional handbooks and widely adopted textbooks) are examples of the best of reliable sources on this contentious topic, and I will be looking to these as I pursue further article edits. I have taken care during several trips to my friendly flagship state university library to look up all the other sources that have been used in this article over the last few years, so that I have those at hand, and it is high time to begin rewriting this article from top to bottom according to Wikipedia policy on sourcing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that there has been time for editors to check the sources and read through those that are readily available, this will be a productive time of year for updating the article from top to bottom for coherency, due weight on various subtopics, and referencing according to Wikipedia content policy. I look forward to seeing the next edits to article text along those lines and expect to edit some article sections from my own keyboard in the next few months. Let's all discuss here how to make the article better. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Knowing full well that this is a late comment, I see how the 2008 Macmillan Encyclopedia of Race & Racism has a composite entry of about 11 pages on the topic of "IQ and Testing" in its second volume. The individual subarticles are an overview, a two-page article on the origin and development of intelligence tests applied to matters of race, a two page article on "culture, education, and IQ scores," and a 3-page article on "Critiques," including issues of cultural bias, nature and nurture, applying heritability measures, environmental factors, and the fact that races are not considered valid biological units. Yeah, it is only one reference work, and I'm not sure how highly regarded it is, but it might be one indicator of what to cover in this and related articles. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I will check the availability of that edition of the encyclopedia and of its new second edition (2013) at libraries accessible to me. Thank you for the source suggestion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Brain size map

May I add this one to the article down at brain size and intelligence https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brain_Size_Map.png

I see nothing on the Commons upload page to indicate that permission to upload the image has been provided by the copyright holder, or that the image is in the public domain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh.. But it is just a remake of this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Race_brain_size_cranial_capacity.png The old colors just seem weird to me. and the size was too small. Anyway, you can remove the map if you want! :)MicroMacroMania (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a different matter - from what the Commons page says, I assumed that the image had been copied from Current Anthropology. I'm not sure that the map is actually all that much use on its own, without further explanation, in the context of this article. Looking at the source, it seems that the authors suggest that much of the variation in cranial capacity is due to biophysical thermoregulatory considerations - something our article doesn't discuss. Including the map without any explanation of where the data comes from and what it is intended to show is unlikely to do anything other than confuse the reader. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have recommended making an article about race differences in brain sizes. So do we keep or delete it?MicroMacroMania (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

IF the copyright status of the maps is cleared I dont have a problem with including it in the article about variation in brain size, but I dont think it belongs here. Hardly any works on R&I include such a map.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Here by deleted. Article about race difference in brain sizes have begun.MicroMacroMania (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest making the article about Biogeographic variation in brain size instead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_differences_in_brain_size I have made the article. I dont think I can change the name of an article.. Og for resten er du dansker? MicroMacroMania (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You can use the move function to change the title. Og ja, det er jeg.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

^ Berk, Laura E. Infants, Children, and Adolescents, 7th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, 12/2010. VitalBook file.

[1] Berk, Laura E. Infants, Children, and Adolescents, 7th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, 12/2010. VitalBook file.

[1]