Template talk:Human intelligence topics

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any editor discussion of the content or placement of this template anywhere?

I see there is this brand-new template Human intelligence, still being actively edited. I note that it links to and is being added to articles that are the subject of active Arbitration Committee remedies and I wonder if there has been any discussion of the content of this template before it was added (to the top, I might note) of several high-visibility articles here. I think there is sufficient instability in the article structure being linked to and sufficient continuing undue weight problems in several of the linked (or templated) articles that editor discussion of both the design and the use of this template is warranted. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just go fix that article to your liking then. Woodsrock (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of fixing problems here, I'll try to keep editing the template and also editing articles so that they may not include the template at all, or especially not at the head of the page. The articles all need a lot more work before links to them are put on a template that is so prominently displayed. (P.S. Am I to interpret your answer as saying that you didn't discuss this with any other editor before designing the template and posting it on several articles, or am I mistaken about that?) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this template? What is the source for its structure?

I'm curious about what this template is supposed to do for readers of Wikipedia that wasn't already being done by hypertext in each article or in the several templates that were already put on articles to which this template has been added. What is the editorial purpose here? Which goal of the Wikipedia project is being upheld by further use of this template? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no other template for intelligence articles. Obviously a template about intelligence articles will help reader interested in intelligence to navigate. That is why Wikipedia have templates for similar articles.Miradre (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"How many roads must a template walk down, before you can call him a man...?"

The template is for human intelligence articles. It contains intelligence articles. Thanks WBB for adding an article to it, I hope others add stuff too. Woodsrock (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of the race and intelligence controversy is the more suitable link for this template.

Insofar as the race IQ controversy is a topic that relates to human intelligence (and that is debatable by comparison with some of the other topics now linked on the template), it is my editorial judgment that the best available article now on Wikipedia about that topic is History of the race and intelligence controversy rather than any of several other articles in the same category. (The articles in that category are subject to active arbitration sanctions following findings of edit-warring and POV-pushing by single-purpose accounts, with the most recent enforcement action in the case (7 October 2010)[1] coming just before the creation of this template (16 October 2010)[2] by a newly registered wikipedian.[3]) In light of the Arbitration Committee findings, I think it's especially important that our response to WP:BEBOLD, a general Wikipedia conduct guideline, include boldness in discussing and referring to sources as articles in the scope of the case are further discussed. Perhaps new editors are still getting up to speed with the long history of edit-warring on these topics, which I hope will be resolved by editors jointly referring to sources and discussing what those sources say. Because of the much superior sourcing of History of the race and intelligence controversy, which is largely sourced to reliable sources for medicine-related articles and has had substantial editorial attention from multiple editors working on it from top to bottom, I am changing the template here to link to that article rather than to other articles in the scope of the ArbCom case. This issue, of course, can be further discussed here. Referring to sources and to the overall weight of current reliable professional literature on the subject would be helpful in achieving consensus in accord with Wikipedia policy. (And of course all of the articles that might be linked here, just like most of the 6,911,964 articles on Wikipedia, can be improved by further efforts to find good sources. Editors can look up sources and discuss what the sources say on this template talk page and on each article talk page.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why are you still doing this? At least three different editors are expressing a problem with switching the links and reverting you. I don't think that being "bold" applies when you have pretty much no one to back you and yet continue edit-warring about it (that's what it looks like you're doing at this point). Nor did you respond to my point at Sociobiology about why it's important to link to the main R&I article in as many relevant places as possible- it encourages other editors to get involved and help improve it. Wanting to get rid of links to that article because you don't like it (WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) reeks of censorship mentality. If it's not well sourced enough for your sensibilities then please add more sources and allow other editors to do the same.

I also disagree with your characterization of the arbcom ruling. From what I've read, pov-pushing wasn't the main issue from the SPAs and it wasn't just SPAs that got sanctioned, but also experienced editors who couldn't treat others civilly. More importantly, everything you just said about the arbcom ruling applies to the history article just as much as it does to the main R&I article. If you look at the arbitration findings of fact, [4] you'll see that there are just as many diffs of misbehavior on the history article as on the main article, so the arbitration ruling is not a reasonable excuse for replacing links to one article with links to the other.

I see you also added a link to Dysrationalia, and why you think a two-paragraph stub is relevant but not the main R&I article is truly beyond me.-SightWatcher (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WeijiBaikeBianji, you are edit warring. An editor has expressed disagreement with you changing this link. If you still want to change the link, you should respond to his comment and try to build a consensus. You should not just ignore his comment and keep undoing reverts from two editors (Sightwatcher and Woodsrock) who clearly disagree with this change. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each editor who puts text into Wikipedia is to provide a rationale for the edit. My rationale is that the History of the race and intelligence controversy article is a well sourced article (it meticulously cites numerous reliable secondary sources) and has been edited by editors from multiple points of view from top to bottom. I have checked many sources in that article, and while it is not the article I would have written on the same subject (I have had essentially nothing to do with editing article text on that article), it is a fair treatment of an important topic related to this template that fits Wikipedia policies and guidelines well, and it is a good guide to the professional literature for readers of Wikipedia. By contrast, the article Race and intelligence is still subject to much edit-warring, still includes misrepresentations of the current views of several researchers (I'll go fix one of those today), is still skewed by former POV-pushing even after the decision of the recent ArbCom case, cites poor sources (sources too old to be current, or sources too primary to be balanced as to POV), and is generally far less organized and balanced than History of the race and intelligence controversy. Of course many editors and I would like both articles to continue to improve. Most of the 6,911,964 articles on Wikipedia need improvement, and one of the best ways to bring about that improvement is to refer to better sources. I appreciate your concern for consensus. It would help to form a consensus consistent with Wikipedia policy for you and other editors to refer to reliable sources and Wikipedia policies for preferring the link Race and intelligence to the link History of the race and intelligence controversy, which is your responsibility after team reverts to put the one link rather than the other on the template. The template was originally drafted and posted before there was any effort to seek consensus on any talk page of any article to which the template is attached (as will be clear from the page histories of the template and of each article in question), and the editor who created the template has engaged in only very limited discussion of the purpose or contents of the template (as will be clear from his contribution history). The relevant WikiProject (Psychology) has never included any discussion of this template, which I would have thought would be an essential first step before drafting the template at all. The template was posted boldly, and I am editing it boldly. Consensus is a wonderful thing on Wikipedia, and I seek it, just as I have always sought consensus with other editors when working in editorial offices, as I have in my professional career. Let's be sure to avoid pitfalls and not count votes but thoughtfully examine sources in light of Wikipedia core policies. I am happy to listen to any editor's detailed rationale for preferring one article rather than another as an article to be linked to from this Wikipedia template. As I await that discussion, I will edit the template to point to the article that in my best editorial judgment is the better article to link to for helping readers researching the broad topic. Editors who disagree are welcome to provide a detailed rationale for their preferred edits. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WeijiBaikeBianji, you don't seem to understand how this works. This is the seventh time you removed the link to race and intelligence from this template. You have been reverted by four different editors. No one else seems to agree with you that the history article is more sensible in this template. You should change the link after you have obtained a consensus with the rest of us that this change makes sense, not keep undoing our reverts and then posting long-winded explanations of why you're right and everyone else is wrong. For all your complaints about the problems with the race and intelligence article, you have made no recent effort to improve the article. All you've done is remove an image, remove sources, and remove this template. It is not "bold editing" to keep undoing reverts from four different editors on the basis that there’s something wrong with the article being linked, while never providing any explanation of what needs to be fixed about it except vague statements that it’s poorly sourced.

I will be posting an RFC/U about you tonight. If you can't listen to other editors about your behavior on the articles, hopefully you can listen to them in the RFC/U.-SightWatcher (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here I thought you would set out a clear rationale for preferring the link that you prefer. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained this to you in detail here. [5] You never tried to address the point I made there about why it’s better to link to the race and intelligence article, and eventually you just dropped out of the discussion.-SightWatcher (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weiji, it's really simple. People (aka everyone else) don't like your suggestion because it is changing a link from a main article to subsidiary article of that main topic, and the relative quality of sourcing in this case is not felt to be a compelling reason, as sourcing can always be improved (and you could do this yourself). Your continual reverting is edit warring (slow warring is still warring). To reinforce SightWatcher's point above, being "right" in your own mind is not a license to revert at will. WP:NOTADEMOCRACY is rather more nuanced than "I think I have a really good point, so I'll ignore everyone else's opinions".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like the others said, the "history of the race and intelligence controversy" is a sub-page of the "race and intelligence" page - WBB your changes make little sense. Woodsrock (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relationship between this template and Template:Cognition ?

I see from the Template:Cognition talk page that when that template was newly formed, there was editor discussion advocating referring to reliable sources rather than to original research to put together the content of the template. For a while there were bold removals of the template from various articles, just as that template had been created by one editor and then placed on various articles. It seems to me that there is some possible subject overlap between "cognition," on the one hand, and "intelligence" on the other hand, so what do reliable sources say about the subtopics and boundaries of each topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any editors here ready for further discussion of editing this template and discussing its application on the talk pages of the appropriate WikiProjects? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing cognition may refer to similar processes in everything from animals to computers. Another is that cognition is much broader and may include such things such as emotional processing or perceptual processing.Miradre (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obedience and intelligence.

Just an idea... [[6]] 173.183.79.81 (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factors associated with intelligence

The template has a problem with the factors section. While the subsection Inteligence#Factors associated with intelligence details that Correlation is not causation a factor is something that has to have a level of causation. while an attempt to water down the statement using the word associated, it still leads to a scientifically incorrect assertion. I think that the sidebar needs to avoid presenting unsupported correlations alongside mainstream research. Tetron76 (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "factors associated with intelligence" does not imply causation in any direction. Rather, it's just a way of saying that the articles in that subsection are somehow related to intelligence. Which of the associations listed in the template do you think are "unsupported" by "mainstream research"?--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A factor does imply direct influence on intelligence what is not guaranteed is that a factor will lead to a correlation or that it is a separable influence from other factors.Tetron76 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list as it currently stands falls into 3 categories as I see it:

Studies into the factors of IQ: Environment and intelligence, Neuroscience and intelligence,

Evolution of human intelligence, Heritability of IQ and Health and intelligence

Experimental investigation on a specific area: Cognitive epidemiology, Nations and intelligence, Flynn effect and Sex and psychology
Suggested Correlates with IQ: Religiosity and intelligence, Fertility and intelligence, Race and intelligence and Height and intelligence

It is this last group that I think is not supportable as a factor of IQ and in some cases it is measuring a different correlate: Being royal makes someone rich just because someone is rich doesn't automatically make them royal. I think it would be better to have an other correlates to IQ link to Intelligence#Factors_associated_with_intelligence for these as there is no supporting control experiments.Tetron76 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand you. "Factors associated with X" does not imply that there's a causal link. Do a Google Scholar search on "factors associated with" together with "causal", and you'll see that to say that some factors are associated with something else does not imply causation in scientific parlance.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition #1 of factor from Encarta "influence: something that contributes to or has an influence on the result of something". The associated with doesn't semantically alter the meaning of the word factor Tetron76 (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be reorganized significantly. Comparing other templates like Template:Genetics2, Template:Asia_topic, Template:Islam_topics, and others, the second and third divisions in this are just catch all groupings which invite anyone to put pretty much anything in the article. aprock (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for template

Currently, the template is sort of grab bag of related articles, without much organization or rationale. I've reviewed the Intelligence article and come up with a list of other articles to consider for inclusion.

I'm sure there are several other articles which should be included in the template as well, especially some of the more historic views of intelligence. aprock (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this section and the one above, I've gone ahead and cleaned up the template adding an abilities section, and focusing the rest of the links on the major aspects of active research. Feedback invited. aprock (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fields of study

Reviewing the "fields of study" section of the template, most of the items listed are not actual fields. All indications are that this is just a hodge podge of articles which various editors have selected to include based on their own personal interest as opposed to a broad overview of the topic. I suggest removing the entire section for the time being until better sourcing and organization can be developed for the items. aprock (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templates at Wikipedia do not typically need a source for how they are organized. I've not seen this demand made for any other template. Rather than removing this section, I suggest reorganising it to be less of a hodge podge. Cognitive epidemiology, Heritability of IQ, Evolution of human intelligence and Psychometrics should remain in the "fields of study" section, while the rest of the articles should be in a new section called "Factors related to intelligence". This new section should include Religiosity and intelligence, Fertility and intelligence, Height and intelligence, and Nations and intelligence as well. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joining the discussion with "we don't need sources" is nothing less than odd, and hardly constructive. I'll refer you to WP:CLN for the relevant guidelines. Of particular note here is the list of disadvantages, particularly #3. aprock (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline does not say the structure of a template needs a source. Saying that it doesn't need one isn't odd, it's restating the norm for templates at wikipedia. What's odd is demanding something unsupported by the guideline. If you think this template is equating things that shouldn't be equated, we should reorganize the template to fix the problem. I suggested how to reorganize it, and your response did not address my suggestion. Please do not just point out problems and refuse to discuss how to fix them. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already offered up a suggestion for fixing them. Again, your suggestion that we should ignore the WP:Five_pillars and eschew sourcing is nothing less than perplexing. aprock (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested "removing the entire section for the time being until better sourcing and organization can be developed for the items." According to your own description, that isn't a fix, it's something we do temporarily until a fix can be made. There is no reason to postpone developing a better organisation when we can do so now. Since you had no comment about my suggestion of a better organisation, I will implement it now. Please work with me to improve the template, rather than just sticking to your temporary idea. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that you've made constructive changes. I'll suggest removing the "factors" section as that is an amorphous section with no clear criterion for inclusion. Likewise, many of the factors are not in any real sense related to intelligence, most notably the Nations which was remove for POV purposes. aprock (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the Nations, Religiosity and Fertility "factors". aprock (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are in that section of the template because sources are discussing the correlation between intelligence and these factors. That doesn't mean there is a causal relationship. It would be fine with me to change the name of that section to "Factors correlated with intelligence" if you believe that to be more neutral. I don't really think the religiosity, fertility and nations articles should be removed: They aren't causal factors but there are definitely sources discussing how those factors correlate with intelligence, which are cited in those articles. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things correlate with intelligence. Having such a section without any criterion just opens the door for people to add whatever (education, gdp, salary, poverty, etc...). Lacking any clear path, I suggest that if we think a topic is meaningful to include it should be included for the templates for both correlates. Using that sort of guideline, Race and intelligence clearly belongs since it's included in Template:Race. If intelligence is an important factor in religion or fertility, one would expect to see it listed in Template:Religion, or in the fertility article. Given that they are not, it seems including them here is unwarranted. The problems with the content at Nations and intelligence are much deeper since the data generally represent the views of a single small cadre of controversial researchers. aprock (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess that is reasonable. The correlation of Race with intelligence is covered far more in sources than the other correlations, so I can understand why it's more relevant here than the ones you removed. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

collapsing per WP:SOAP aprock (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I also support that at least the articles mentioning intelligence in their title should be included in the template. As such I propose adding back these articles. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having intelligence in the title is in no way a legitimate rationale for inclusion. aprock (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not in an intelligence template? If the articles mainly deal with intelligence? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not indeed? There are ~~hundreds~~ thousands of articles with intelligence in the title. aprock (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the second part above? A template is used to help navigation. If there is an article mainly dealing with human intelligence and having "intelligence" in the title, then it should obviously be included. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not miss it. Please do review the thousands of articles and determine which deal mainly with human intelligence. Alternatively, you could just select the ones that promote the point of view of Pioneer Fund researchers. Though taking the later route will not make for a convincing rationale. aprock (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are not thousands of articles dealing with intelligence. The number mainly dealing with human intelligence is very limited. Are you deleting those articles you think are promoting the Pioneer Fund? I am certainly not advocating such an inclusion criteria. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you've made no suggestion as to what specific article to add, there's not much to say. If you'd like to review the discussion above about the articles that were removed, you're free to do so. aprock (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this: [7] I propose adding back least those articles containing "intelligence" in the title that has been deleted. All deal mainly with intelligence. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing there. As far as I can tell the articles that were removed were removed precisely because they weren't about intelligence. Correlating with intelligence is different from being about intelligence. aprock (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles such as Religon and intelligence, Fertility and intelligence, and Nations and intelligence are certainly not only about correlations. Lots of research on causation also. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are promoting controversial views held by a small number of researchers. There is no scientific consensus that those correlations represent actual causation one way or the other for those factors. Now is the time to end this conversation. The path you're going down doesn't look promising. aprock (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The articles does not take side and discuss sourced views from both sides. Rather it seems that you are do not want to expose people to such discussions at all. It that why you deleted the links to those articles? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue what you're talking about here. The rationale for removing those links from the template have now been discussed ad nauseum. We're done. aprock (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that you are the minority view here since TrevelyanL85A2 has argued for greater inclusiveness. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The collapse above is really not the way to win the discussion. You seem to be the minority view. Both I and TrevelyanL85A2 support more inclusiveness. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using collapse to try to win an argument. You seem to be the minority view here.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

I suggest renaming this article to Intelligence, because intelligence and it's derivatives aren't only for humans. --Rezonansowy (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-humans may have intelligence, but this template is specifically about human intelligence, and all the linked articles are about human intelligence.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't agree with the creation of this template, its earliest layout, or its application to most articles to which it was applied (as this talk page makes clear). My rationale for those objections should be clear from tracing the contribution history of each editor who contributed to the early phase of this template's existence. That said, I agree with Victor Chmara that in its current use, this template is about human intelligence, and while I may (or may not) propose some edits to this template from time to time, or discuss with other editors about which articles should include this template, I don't think there is any need for the good of the Wikipedia project to rename this template. Of course, I invite other editors to express their opinions, to make sure I am considering all aspects of this issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Useful sources for updating this template and the linked articles

I see that there is a renewal of Wikipedian editing of this template. As discussed in the last few months through an RFC on the Race and intelligence article talk page (the talk page of an article often linked from this template), there are a number of current sources available to editors that meet the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources in medicine, which is generally the correct source guideline to apply to articles on human intelligence and IQ testing. (That's because IQ tests are literally used in medical diagnosis, and also used in high-stakes forensic contexts such as finding diminished criminal responsibility in criminal trials, and consequential decisions such as school placement for children.) It's important to note that several of the articles linked to from this template are under active ArbCom sanctions because of past edit-warring. I hope it will be helpful to mention sources previously agreed to in a nonexhaustive list of good sources for the other article that also fit most articles that have ever been linked to from this template here, along with a few other sources that come just with my personal recommendation until other editors comment here (as I encourage all of you to do).

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 articles linked to from this template (in many cases 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) 16:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources recommended in the previous RFC useful here too

Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry, eds. (2011). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521739115. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help) (This authoritative handbook appears to be cited only as a further reading reference, for one specific chapter in this handbook, in the current version of several Wikipedia articles. It deserves dozens of citations to most of its chapters in most Wikipedia articles that fit within the scope of this template. Moreover, this source does a lot to define the scope of the subject of human intelligence.)

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 |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help) (This major review article in a flagship publication by the American Psychological Association deserves a lot more citations than the tiny number it now has in articles linked to from this template. Again, this source reflects a consensus of current researchers on what the scope of the topic is, and thus is especially useful for deciding what to include on the template and what not to include.)

Mackintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and Human Intelligence (second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-958559-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help) (This is the second edition of an authoritative textbook that is exactly focused on the topic of this template. Most articles linked to from this template should be updated with many more citations to this edition, and the template itself could well use checking with this textbook as a guide to the scope of the study of human intelligence.)

Hunt, Earl (2011). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help) (This appears not to be cited at all in the current version of many articles linked to from this template, which is a serious omission. This book too, as its title suggests, is a useful reality check on what to include and what not to include on the template.)

Other useful sources of WP:MEDRS quality for updating this template and linked articles

Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L., eds. (2012). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help) (This comprehensive handbook by multiple authoritative authors is currently mentioned only in the further reading section of a few articles, which is too little use of this high-quality source.)

Gregory, Robert J. (2011). Psychological Testing: History, Principles, and Applications (Sixth ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 978-0-205-78214-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help) (This book includes a solid general overview of principles of psychological testing, including IQ testing. It is completely neglected in the current version of most articles linked to from this template. It is also a good reality check on the scope of the template.)

Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A., eds. (2 October 2012). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help) (This source, the second edition of the key volume of a massive, authoritative handbook of psychology, is so recently published that no editor had seen it as of the last time sources were discussed in the RFC at the other article. It is very good. It should also be used as a reality check on this template and the related articles.)

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[8] 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.

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) 21:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few good sources on the topic of this template that are recent, comprehensively review the earlier literature (both primary research articles and previous secondary sources), and meet the standards of the WP:MEDRS guidelines and yet are entirely unused in the linked articles. I would be delighted to hear suggestions of other sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread removal of Human intelligence series box

The following 2 comments are copied here from Talk:Genius#Scope of See also section:

Transhumanist, would you mind also examining his removal of see also links and the human intelligence template on these articles? [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] He said in his user talk that he had to remove the template from all these articles because he doesn't know what they will look like after he finishes editing them. I don't know if that reason for removing is supported by policy. I thought the template was useful and I would like there to be some discussion about whether it should be removed. --Prmct (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree discussion is needed. With the concerns raised by Prmct and the revert already done by The Transhumanist, there's certainly a lack of consensus for removal of the template. BlackHades (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, nav/series boxes are included in all articles to which a link is included in the box itself, thus linking all the articles in the series to each other. Therefore, I've restored the template only to the links that Prmct mentioned that are represented on the template. I'm in the process of checking all the links on the template to make sure that the template is placed on all of those articles. The Transhumanist 08:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also in the process of splitting off human intelligence from intelligence per WP:SPLIT, and I look forward to your feedback there. If I can find the time, I will endeavor to overhaul the new article. I'm currently working on it's lead paragraph. The Transhumanist 08:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template redesign and move

I've added a bunch of relevant links to the template. -TT

The last time this issue was discussed on this template talk page I took care to read the essay Wikipedia:Navigation_templates, which links to the essay Wikipedia:NENAN. It is from the editorial and user-experience point of view that I look at how the sidebar (why not a navbox rather than a sidebar?) fits on each article page. It is from the point of view of how the broad overall topic is discussed in reliable sources (and, especially for this topic, medically reliable sources) that I look at the issue of which articles might be included in either a sidebar or a navbox. The core content policy of WP:NPOV can be implicated by an unbalanced selection of articles in any sidebar, as many Wikipedians have noticed while viewing many sidebars over the years.

With those considerations in mind, we can have a collegial discussion here about editorial adjustments to the template itself (including whether it might better serve readers as a navbox) and about placement of the template on Wikipedia articles. What sources do each of you recommend for checking what reliable sources say about the structure of the topic of human intelligence? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a preference for nav footers, because they free up space at the top of articles for pictures and diagrams that would otherwise be crowded out by sidebars, and because being located at the bottom of articles they have no intrinsic size limitation. See Template:Philosophy topics for example, at the bottom of the philosophy article.

I agree that the top-down approach of providing a great and frustration free user experience should drive navigation system design, but coupled with the bottom-up approach of building link structures from the material itself to minimize orphans and optimize the link structures for reader access. By "navigation system design", I am referring to the overall nav-structure, starting at Portal:Contents and explained to a degree at WP:CLN. Therefore this is a "big picture" approach, as it takes into account all navigation subsystems and where in them (or in which ones) the various links of a subject and its subtopics should be placed (often in more than one place).

Since Wikipedia is a work in progress, and is incomplete, I believe the main consideration for developing navigation templates, is what articles or subsections Wikipedia has to navigate to. Nav templates are intended to help readers explore the articles in Wikipedia that it has now. (I.e., no redlinks). So, at any given time, we work with whatever Wikipedia has to offer.

This means, in sidebars and navfooters, presenting the most relevant and main subtopic articles that Wikipedia has available on a particular subject. You can usually ascertain what those are from the encyclopedia itself (it's coverage is extensive):

by typical structures shared by many subjects (most fields have branches, history, organizations, and publications, for example, most subjects that are nouns have types, and most countries have geography, politics, history, culture, economics, etc.).
by the contents of the subject's main article (it usually tells you what the main parts of its subject are)
and by the contents of the subtopic articles themselves, which tend to explain how they fit in with or relate to other subjects

Once a structure forms, it can usually be verified and adjusted fairly easily by using the article names as search terms on the Web, which abounds with 3rd-party references. For areas that seem dubious or for which material is scarce, a trip to a good library is useful (preferably a university library, as they tend to have more comprehensive collections.) But books are more useful when writing the material in the articles. For articles that have already gone through that step, what should link to what is already established in the article text.

External sources may help improve the coverage of Wikipedia by revealing subjects for which articles still need to be written. But while we're waiting for those, the navigation features need to be kept current and optimal, and that means making do with what's available on the wiki today. Later the nav templates can be further refined by swapping links out with links to newer and more relevant articles. This is especially true for sidebars.

Simply gathering topics mentioned in an arbitrary (limited) set of textbooks may miss significant topics covered on Wikipedia. But the bottom-up organic approach catches those and provides opportunities to put them somewhere, if necessary.

I think our approaches are compatible. I don't foresee any problems working as a team, and I look forward to collaborating with you.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 21:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: The conversion to navfooter is complete. All the articles have been adjusted so it shows up in the right place (at the bottom of the page). The Transhumanist 00:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I'll take a rest in this time zone, and check the latest updates on the template and the articles in the morning. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Transhumanist, after sleep and thought, and after checking the recent changes on my watchlist, I'm glad to see that the navigation template is now a footer, which aids putting article-specific illustrations in more prominent view on article pages, and I see you have continued to devote consideration to which links belong on the template and where. You raised in this talk page section the interesting issue of whether user navigation on Wikipedia is intelligently designed or whether it haphazardly evolves. Way back in the 1970s, perhaps before when the majority of active Wikipedians were born, I took a library science course in cataloging and classification, and learned about the Dewey Decimal System and the Library of Congress classification system. Of course Dewey tried to consider the whole scope of human knowledge and divide it into ten main categories. By contrast, the Library of Congress librarians looked at what books were already in their collection, and devised classifications to fit the books they had, with some room for future growth in the collection. Wikipedia must necessarily take the latter approach. I will attempt, having seen what thought you are devoting to this issue, to communicate on this template talk page or on the various article talk pages about the criteria for a particular article being on the template or not, and also about which articles are in most urgent need of serious updating in view of their being on a topic that is a key subtopic in the broad topic of human intelligence. Some of the articles have been quite neglected for years, despite being prominently displayed in a very conspicuous sidebar navigation template (which was originally developed without any on-wiki consensus, as the article histories should make clear). Based on your kind example here, I will endeavor to communicate early and often about articles that may need more or less prominence in the navigation template, and of course about which articles especially could use some expansion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments have reminded me of the debate that occurred when I proposed that "Contents" be placed on the main sidebar menu. Some felt the navigation system wasn't ready for prime time and needed more work before it was "complete" enough to be useful to readers. Considering the vast number of pages it includes and the relatively small number of people working on them, that will take decades. Fortunately, the community decided in favor of including the link, because partially completed pages are still useful, and every person who visits them is a potential editor who may become inspired to work on them. The Transhumanist 06:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning consensus on what to add to the encyclopedia, I believe that we should not require prior approval, not even for the creation of new pages, of new sections, or of new templates. That was tried for portals and resulted in a panel of just a handful of people passing judgement on many other editors' ideas. Their biases killed a lot of editors' creative impulses, including that of a guy who wanted to build a portal on cannabis. They told him "no". I interceded, advised the guy to ignore their effort to censor him and just go ahead and build it. To lead the way I built the Thinking Portal without getting approval. Someone nominated it for deletion at MfD because it was unauthorized. I took the fight to the Village Pump where it was confirmed that the greatest strength of Wikipedia, and the reason it has grown so fast, is that we haven't had such choke points on contributions. Just click "edit" and start typing. The panel was dismantled and its approval page rendered historical. If you let people build Wikipedia, they will. Yes, some of it will be crap that will need to be disposed of, but the vast majority of it is surprisingly informative. Would they have contributed as much if they had to jump through hoops to do so? Probably not. The Transhumanist 07:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the history of the encyclopedia, as early as 2004, this type of effort has been bottom-up; even before portal templates were developed, their precursors were developed by a combination of individual initiatives and bottom-up group cooperation. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 07:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your thoughts on how to bring the pages needing work to the attention of more editors. The Transhumanist 07:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it can be clear what we're talking about, the statement that the template was "developed without any on-wiki consensus" is only true for the first few weeks after the template was created. When WeijiBaikeBianji first began removing it from articles, a consensus formed that it should not be removed. See (for example) the discussion here, where five other editors commented on his removal of the template, all in favor of its inclusion. The only thing which did not have consensus was whether the template should be at the top or the bottom of the page. --185.2.138.125 (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there has been evolution in the positioning. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 07:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New removal

The template has been removed again from Fertility and intelligence, with no explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page. [15] Why was it was removed again? --Prmct (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the positive rationale for having the template on any particular page? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation templates are there for navigation, essentially to direct people to similar topics. It only makes sense to have the human intelligence navigation template on an article that is about one aspect of research into human intelligence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the bigger problem is the fact that we have an article on Fertility and intelligence. Do we have many other "XYZ and intelligence" articles? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the same edit, what was the reason for removing the paragraph that was cited to the Meisenberg paper? Neither editor who removed that paragraph gave a reason for removing it. I thought when editors remove sourced material without discussing it on the talk page, they are supposed to give a reason in the edit summary. --Prmct (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What WBB and AM said. Furthermore, I think that using Meisenberg's - an editor of the racist Mankind Quarterly - stuff violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 04:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter if the author is a racist? The paper isn't about race. It was published in the Journal of Biosocial Science, which is a reliable source. We don't dismiss reliable sources because of the author's irrelevant affiliations. --Prmct (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear you are new here. We source Wikipedia according to reliable secondary sources. It is actually quite unusual by general Wikipedia sourcing guidelines, and especially by Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sourcing on medical topics, to support statements in article text by primary research articles at all. Much preferred is to use secondary sources to sift through the huge mass of primary research articles that have been published to see which of those have stood the test of time and the scrutiny of other researchers. Reading those two sourcing guidelines will do much to help every editor here on Wikipedia do a lot to fix all of the 6,911,964 articles on Wikipedia by improving article content through use of better sources. So deleting a statement made by just one primary research article--and a dubious statement at that--is very normal editing here on Wikipedia. (Best wishes to you and to all editors reading this for a very happy new year.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 07:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the talk page for the fertility and intelligence article, so let us take it there.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WeijiBaikeBianji, I can't make sense of what your perspective is about primary sources in general. You say here that we shouldn't use them on the Fertility and intelligence article, but you restored them on the Richard Lynn article because they are fine for a BLP. See my comments here. [16] Why are you in favor of using primary sources in a biography of a living person, but opposed to using them elsewhere? --Prmct (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments on the types category in the template?

I'm curious if any of the editors watching this page have commments on the top category (currently) of the template, namely the Types category. Is this a typical way to divide up the topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should this template subsume Template:High IQ?

I think something like "Intelligence assessment" is a more appropriate scope for {{High IQ}}, but maybe it's better still to assimilate the most useful bits into {{Human intelligence topics}}. My only reservation about the latter is a vague uneasiness about listing standardised tests in {{Human intelligence topics}}. Thoughts? —Ringbang (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]