Talk:IQ and Global Inequality

Request to add back the list of I.Q scores

Honestly, I don't see the commonsense or logic to add an map showing "I.Q statistics from 2002" which is less informative than the list ( that someone removed) which already showed way better and accurate information that displays the number of I.Q scores in each countries from 2002. And their both basically the same thing, only difference is the list was way more accurate and informative on statistics. How exactly do we know which country has the highest I.Q to lowest I.Q? please stop vandalism and reducing accurate information. (And sorry for my english). WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 6:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE

The reception section gives UNDUE weight to Rushton's praise- as if Rushton represents a significant portion of academia rather than merely the outer edges of the fringe which consists of pretty much just him and the author of the book. WP:BALASPS and WP:VALID etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Fringe or not, I can hardly see three paragraphs of praise as due weight no matter who was offering it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of data

Ok. What's the rationale behind this? I see a redlink user removing large chunks of data on a controversial book, with no intelligible rationale. My revert reflex is acting up. Perhaps a rewording is in order to maintain an encyclopedic tone ("remarkably" etc), but I can see no basis for claims of WP:UNDUE, not by a long shot. And anyway, invocations of UNDUE are always suspect for WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, when no kind of relevant support is given. That's a highly arbitrary bit of policy. -- Director (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

For some background, you might review the RfC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations/Archive_2#Request_for_comment

There is also WP:ARBR&I. aprock (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:ARB&I; as regards the RfC, I again see no relevance as to the removal of the text. -- Director (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Which text? The diff you posted has the table in question. aprock (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This redlinked user removed 1) a copyright violation because it is a copyright violation- the content of the table is an extensive lifting from a creative work (and of such completely dubious value -except perhaps as an example of pseudoscience- that even if it were not prohibited by copyright its encyclopedic value would be nil.) 2) removed content that was inappropriately appearing to present a paper as supporting the claims in the book, when in fact the Abstract clearly identifies that the authors' work is a contradiction the claims made in Lynn and Vanhanen's book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Map

The map is clearly relevant to the topic, illustrating an aspect of the book's subject. That's not "publication" beyond what is perfectly reasonable for an encyclopedia article. Whether one is offended or not by the (quote) "garbage" - should not factor into this discussion. It doesn't matter at all whether or not the map, or the book, are factually wrong. To claim that briefly depicting some of the claims voiced in the publication is "publicizing it", and that therefore we shouldn't have images on the topic of this book - is obvious WP:TE caused by the offensive nature of the claim. If you're against Wikipedia talking about this book - then propose deletion. If its claimed that the map is somehow a violation of copyright (which its not) - then propose its deletion. As long as both the article and the image are around, putting them together can't be opposed in any policy-relevant way.

Frankly I find the removal is clear ideology-based TE. Who gives a damn if it is "garbage"? A "garbage" map for an article about a "garbage" book. -- Director (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The map is clearly garbage eyecandy drawing away from the text where its complete irrelevance to anything other than pushing Lynn's agenda is clear. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Its an image; all images are technically "eyecandy". It seems you don't understand that this article is about Lynn's book. Its perfectly legitimate to explain what the book says. Its unbelievable that we're even having this discussion.. or it would be if one doesn't consider ideology might factor into this.

Re "not based on reliable sources": that's nonsense. Verified the map myself, it is indeed based on Lynn's figures. -- Director (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

and lynn's figures are garbage by any standard. the image does nothing to enhance the encyclopedic knowledge of the subject of the article - the book, it merely takes away from the text where someone glancing at the article would go away with the impression from the image rather than the actual scholarly text. We have no reason to do that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't care if they're garbage. If they are, then this is apparently an article about garbage, and therefore should strive to be the best "garbage" article on Wiki - or be deleted. And Wikipedia does not concern itself with issues of propaganda such as you describe. If that's what the book says - then there is no valid reason for the reader not to go away with the clearest possible picture of what the book says. This would go equally for Mein Kampf itself.

By your reasoning we might as well delete the cover up there as well. No sense posting "eyecandy" promoting the book, eh? I still can't believe I'm having a discussion about this.

Re @WeijiBaikeBianji's edit summary: to claim that what the book says is not a reliable source for what the book says - is kind of absurd. -- Director (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Godwin's Law, but if you want to remove the cover, go ahead, but it is not passing off garbage as if it were something of encyclopedic value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought you might like the analogy. If you successfully post an AfD, and show therein that this subject has "no encyclopedic value" - we'll delete all of this. Until such a time, there is no justification for your position (and the position of your friend back there). Note once again: whether or not the figures or the book are "garbage" is irrelevant.

This is just outrageous TE, feel free to bring it up on any noticeboard you like. Can't believe it went under the radar for so long. -- Director (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You dont AfD because a map has no encyclopedic value. ANd I will note that you have passed the clear redline of 3RR on an article that is under discretionary sanctions. THAT is TE. Revert yourself.

If you are able to establish that consensus has changed and that there is somehow encyclopedic value in that crap map, THEN you can add it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The map merely illustrates the subject. If the subject has encyclopedic value - so does the map. To claim one does, and not the other - is untenable. In other words: if we do cover the subject of what Lynn says, there's no conceivable justification not to simply add pictures to that coverage.

If you can point to a previous WP:CONSENSUS for removing the map, I will revert myself. Note however that I read the talkpage and found none. What I did find was opposition to its removal, and a whole lot of veiled threats and obnoxious bullying for what seems like a political agenda. With nothing even resembling a relevant argument behind it all. -- Director (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the book cover illustrates the subject of the article, a book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

So the contents of the book are not part of the subject, but only its cover? The actual physical book? Fascinating theory, but I'm afraid I'm not quite drunk enough at this hour.

Look, so far as I can see, there's nothing to discuss here: your "arguments" simply do not make contact with project policy. Once again: if we do cover the subject of what Lynn says in his book, there's no conceivable justification not to add pictures to that coverage. Get that straight, please. And spare me, and this project, your brand of political POV-pushing. -- Director (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:STICK. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

STICK? I'm afraid your ability to edit-war (though admittedly impressive), does not count as having in any way closed this issue.

@ArtifexMayhem. "Not an art project"? Actually Wikimedia and its projects, can, in part, be described as an "art project" [1]. Users are perfectly free to publish and post illustrations of article subjects. That's encouraged, and lauded. This map is sourced, relevant to the topic, and well-made. It may show disputed data, but its data from this book. In fact, I think I'll post a vector version of my own. -- Director (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not the role of Wikipedia to argue in favor of theories. Had the authors produced the map in their book, we might have copied it, subject to copyright laws. I suggest deleting the file image. TFD (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said: if the file is judged to merit deletion, then fine. Such issues belong on Commons, not here, though, and I will oppose deletion there on grounds that simply depicting data from a book on a map - does not by any means constitute "promotion" of that book or its "theories" (though I don't think this book proposes any "theories"). No, the book does not need to carry a map of its own to justify putting data from it on a map - in fact, taking the trouble to do so is laudable. No doubt if the book did contain a map, we'd be hearing all about copyright infringement now.

It seems alarm bells are ringing for a wikiclique? Gentlemen, feel free to point out in the caption that the book's data is disputed. It certainly is. But don't delete relevant content because it offends you. -- Director (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The proper caption would be "Pretty much EVERYTHING this map suggests is incorrect." Why in the world would we want to include that? what possible encyclopedic value does that present? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In short: if we're presenting data from the book, we're free to illustrate that presentation. The map simply illustrates content from the book: it has no more or less encyclopedic value than the book itself - if we were to delete the map because "EVERYTHING in it is wrong", then it'd be logical to delete the whole article on those same grounds. But we don't delete articles about books simply because they're wrong, and we don't prohibit illustrations in articles about books that carry incorrect content. -- Director (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The extent that data in the book should be covered is best determined by secondary sources. Your line of reasoning suggests we should just copy paste the entire text of the book into wikipedia, which is clearly absurd. aprock (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My "reasoning" (though I think its more like "stating the obvious" than anything else) is that we must, and do, summarize and present the content of the book, as with any other such article on Wiki. It does not follow that we must copy-paste the entire book, that's a non sequitur. The idea that adding a single image just manages to "cover too much of the book" content-wise, sounds more like a weak excuse to remove an offensive image than an honest position. -- Director (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

as pertains to the article about the book, the book is indeed a primary source. we are not writing a book report to cover what the book claims. we are writing an encyclopedia article about what impact and reception of the book have been. little and negative. and the map serves to illustrate neither of those. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't matter, but no. A secondary source is a secondary source, which is evaluated through peer review (which is what Aprock presumably meant). If this book is a "primary" source, then what do you call the (primary) sources that it quotes? "zeroth sources"?

We are not writing the article solely about the impact and reception of the book, that's just one, minor part of a book article. -- Director (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

no, see WP:PSTS - for this article book is a primary source and of little value for content. In any other article (except for Lynn), the book is a secondary source, but because of its incredibly low quality of no use in them, either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This book is not a "primary source", period. It is a secondary source. Its a publication "which cites, comments on, or builds upon primary sources". It may be disputed, panned in peer review, rejected, but if used as a source, it is inevitably "secondary" as per, among other definitions - the very policy that you cite (as well as the secondary source article). You are apparently not familiar with scientific terminology in this regard, and I'll thank you not to try and "educate" me there.

Also please spare me your continuous remarks regarding the importance, accuracy, value etc. of this work. With respect, if I want a review, I'll seek out Lynn's academic peers - not random Wikipedia users. I assure you, there are enough of those writing negatively on this publication that your comments are superfluous, and unless you're arguing to delete the article - they are irrelevant for this discussion. All they do is kind of illustrate the depth of your personal feelings on this issue. -- Director (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

given that you completely misunderstand primary sources, i will not waste any more time on this "discussion". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yah, still I somehow think only one of the two of us actually had something published in scientific literature. -- Director (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Map removed again on grounds of being quote "distinguishable" from the cover?! How does that constitute an argument for deletion?
And TRPoD removed yet another chunk of the text without consensus.. I think its really high time the random butchery of this article is put a stop to. We really oughtn't have to deal with users who're just here to get their kicks bashing racists ("yeah, I'm gonna delete another bunch of sentences today!")

I'll say again: if we do cover what Lynn says in his book, there's no justification to prohibit adding pictures to that coverage. -- Director (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

An overarching content guideline on Wikipedia is the reliable sources content guideline. That's an expression of the core Wikipedia policy of verifiability. The independent reviews identify the book that is the topic of the article here as an unreliable source (which we could also see from the article about the book's publisher) and decry its factual conclusions as dubious. That's reason enough not to put those factual conclusions in Wikipedia article text, whether in visual form or in the form of paragraphs of text. Moreover, there is considerable doubt (as seen on the file page in Wikimedia Commons) that the image was prepared with proper regard to copyright law (or, in the alternative, with proper regard for reliable sources in light of the no original research content guideline). Basically, earlier editing states of this article and the presence of the image file on Wikipedia Commons both reflect an earlier era of Wikipedia editing when these important policies and guidelines were too often ignored. We are now trying to clean up here as we build an encyclopedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Map was inaccurate before, I had re-edited the image after reading the actual statistics. I agree that the map is non-neutral and it should not be used. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• @WeijiBaikeBianji. Wow. I should definitely NOT have to say this. This book would be an "unreliable source" if cited for a general claim, e.g. "Europans have a lower IQ than Asians". The book is absolutely not an "unreliable source" when cited for what it claims. Similarly, Mein Kampf would be a "reliable source" for any statement that starts with "Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf.." [2]. That's just ridiculous. As regards copyright etc. - that's an issue for Commons. If you can show any of that over there and delete the map, we will not be having a discussion on enWiki.
• Again, the book itself, in a general sense, is certainly not "neutral" - but pray tell me how the book is not "neutral" for explaining what the book says?

Honestly, I feel sick to my stomach just having this discussion. It is absolutely ridiculous and disgraceful, and I really hope you're all ashamed for allowing a knee-jerk reaction, however understandable, to define your position. I hope next you will remove maps, e.g., depicting the "Aryan race" [3] on these same cockamamie grounds: "they are wrong and non-neutral!", sure they are - but they're there to illustrate the book's claims! Not to make general statements of fact! Ugh... -- Director (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The late J. Philippe Rushton provided a very similar map ("World Distribution of IQ Scores of Indigenous (pre European migration) Peoples (Adapted from Lynn, 2006)) for his 2007 article "Indians Aren’t That Intelligent (On Average)" published on VDARE, which the SPLC calls an " anti-immigration hate website." The Wikimedia map has been picked up in the far right Metapedia website's article, "Countries and intelligence." No mainstream sources see the need to use a map to explain the book. There is no need to illustrate the book's claims, we are merely to supposed to summarize them, and report reactions to them. TFD (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I could not care less "what Metapedia does", as I don't base my position on what neo-Nazis may or may not do. I'm sure you know full well that "neo-Nazis like it!" isn't an argument, but a manipulation. That goes for Rushton as well. As I said, if we had a map by Adolf Hitler himself of "lands that he considered rightfully Aryan" - we would include that map on Wikipedia. That doesn't constitute promotion of Hitler's views - but an elaboration of them. Apply this analogy every time before posting anything, and it'll save us a lot of repetitive dialogue. -- Director (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that no mainstream sources take the same approach as you? TFD (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What "approach" is that? Neither mainstream sources nor Wikipedia censor claims, as long as they're notable - whether they're wrong or not. We of course point out if they're wrong, but we don't hide them. That's what's called propaganda through censorship. -- Director (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about the map. The primary source (IQ and Global Inequality) does not have a map, and no mainstream source has created one. So we are not censoring them. Webster's defines propaganda as "ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc." Could you also please explain what ideas you think the other editors are propagating. Certainly creating a map that is not in the original source propagates the views expressed in the book. TFD (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the policy you are searching for is WP:UNDUE weight. As it stands, the map is not excluded because of censorship, but because no independent secondary sources have used anything like it, at all. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with policy and guidelines. aprock (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In my 8 years and 60,000 edits I've had quite enough time to familiarize myself with policy and guidelines, thanks very much. Enough to know that UNDUE is the vague policy that can always be stretched to justify almost anything, and any democratic vote, simply because what's "undue" is insufficiently defined. But this is stretching even that policy thin, note: adding the map placed no weight at all, on anything. The entire article is about this book and its content. Displaying some data from it on a map, or in a wikitable, or a chart of some sort - is 100% perfectly fine. It does not suggest the data in the chart/table/map is any more accurate than the text itself does. The text (unless finally butchered beyond recognition) #1 explains the book's claims, and then #2 elaborates on the criticism of it. No one's stopping us from pointing out the latter in the image caption if we find that necessary.

In short the idea is once again absurd: the map doesn't place any weight on anything - this entire article is about the book, and all it does is present some info from it. The reasoning is similar to claiming that, say, a map of Hitler's planned conquests in the Mein Kampf article places "undue weight" on the accuracy of the book - its just an accompanying image used to clarify the claims in the book! If this were the Race and intelligence article, then the UNDUE argument would make sense, but this entire article is wholly dedicated to this book - how can one place undue weight on it!? Its nonsense. -- Director (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, then you know that to establish due weight, you need secondary sources. Please let us know when you've found secondary sources which establish due weight. aprock (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems I wasn't clear enough. #1 Adding the map does not place "weight" on anything in any way whatsoever. #2 Second, the very concept that you can place weight on the book in the article about the book - is absurd. This is not the Race and intelligence article. #3 Thirdly, it is perfectly acceptable on this project to put data from sources on maps, pie charts, and tables of all sorts - even if said charts, etc. are not present as such in the original material.

That's nothing but an obviously unfounded appeal to the standard go-to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT excuse policy. Naturally, if you one like something or other, one would consider its mention "undue" - that doesn't mean you aren't misquoting policy to push censorship of this book's content. -- Director (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

it does so give undue weight. see WP:STRUCTURE "Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view." The map as you have been restoring is visual eye candy presenting, without context the primary source claims of the book. and as discussed above, with the appropriate caption "Everything this map seems to suggest is pure hokum" the "value " of including the map at all is clear. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Director: #1 – It is most certainly WP:UNDUE to presents highly questionable, false, or misleading information in a graphical form when there is no possibility to offer the reader a similar visual that would provide proper context, etc. #2 – This article is about a book that is not WP:RS for anything other than the opinions of its authors. How we present those opinions is a question that can only be answered by assessing the weight they are given in secondary sources. #3 – Possibly correct, but irrelevant (see Straw man).

If you believe editors are "misquoting policy to push censorship of this book's content", or that editors oppose your edits simply because they just don't like it, then I'd suggest filling a request for arbitration enforcement. This is not the venue for such accusations. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Most illogical: you're misapplying policy (very obviously). The primary task of this article is to describe this book (adding the background and the response etc. as well). How, in your view, is it possible to place "undue weight" on the content of this book, in an article dedicated to describing the content of this book? By just posting a singular image, to boot. Just absurd... -- Director (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@"This article is about a book that is not WP:RS for anything other than the opinions of its authors. How we present those opinions is a question that can only be answered by assessing the weight they are given in secondary sources." - Firstly and very importantly, this is not about the "opinions of the authors" - but about the book. We are here, primarily, to describe and present the content of the book is a succinct manner. How we summarize its content is entirely up to us, here, on Wikipedia, and determined solely by concerns of article size and copyright infringement. It is NOT determined by "secondary sources" (please do finally note that you are misusing the term, as this publication is itself "secondary"). In other words, it is quite impossible to place "undue weight" on a book in an article dedicated to that book. To claim otherwise is really, fundamentally nonsensical. -- Director (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

we clearly depend upon third party sources to determine what in the book is relevant and noteworthy and do not base it upon our personal opinions and observations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think ArtifexMayhem is correct. You haven't been able to convince people, so at this point your best bet is to move the discussion to a noticeboard to determine whether the other editors are being disruptive, and if so what the proper remedy is. aprock (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Director, you write your opinion that how "we summarize its content is entirely up to us," and all I can say to that directly is that if it were up to me, as someone who has been an editor of an academic journal and also of a popular magazine for wide audiences, I would leave out the map entirely and add quite a few articles to Wikipedia pointing out the factual and logical errors in the book that is the topic of the Wikipedia article under discussion here. (I can certainly do the latter, of course, in collaboration with other Wikipedians. I have been reading reliable sources on these topics since the early 1990s, arguably since the early 1970s.) But actually what TRPoD says is correct, that all of us are required by core Wikipedia policies here to make our editorial decisions on the basis of reliable sources. I'm willing to go along with that rule of the project in all of my editing. As User:Aprock has pointed out, you are welcome to seek a second opinion if the consensus of the editors actively watching this article and looking up reliable sources differs from your own, as it surely does here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We do depend upon third-party sources to provide an evaluation of this book - but not for the presentation of its content. Evaluation of the book by third-party sources is a separate section and topic, one that follows the basic description of its content.

This is not an academic journal, its an encyclopedia. The obvious difference being that a peer review publication publishes papers in the name of the authors: I also wouldn't unilaterally publish this map if I were an editor of an academic magazine. Reviewing this publication is not our purpose here - this is a tertiary source. We are here, basically, to #1 describe this book, and #2 describe its reviews/impact. In "Task no.1", we do not depend upon reviews - but upon the book itself. -- Director (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

i really suggest you read WP:PSTS and WP:OR and WP:UNDUE , but if you still will not make that effort to read what has been presented to you multiple times before- in a nutshell it comes down to: article content should be based mostly on secondary sources and not primary sources so that we ensure that we are not placing our interpretations into the article or focusing on inappropriate aspects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Its no use WP:WIKILAWYERING with me, I know them all quite well and none support you position or justify removing this content. That's just how it is. What I said from the start has still not been addressed: if we're describing the contents of this book, we're free to use images in that coverage. Whether those images are or are not a part of the original book: no policy prohibits user-made maps, charts etc. Said description is a part of the article that's not based on third-party reviews as sources, but on the book itself. The book is perfectly fine as a source for its own content. Describing the content in more detail or with an image is not placing "undue weight" on that content - indeed, its impossible in principle to place "undue weight" on a book in its own article. Its like if someone were to place "undue weight" on Paris in the Paris article. Its silly. -- Director (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No, no matter how many times you decide to ignore the policy, we are not "free" to use the book as we choose. Read the damn policy: " reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." In this instance the primary source isnt even reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a "primary" source. Its the classic, textbook example of a secondary publication. And it is perfectly reliable as a source for its own content. If you doubt that the book actually says what the map shows, then I suggest you verify it yourself - as can easily be done by anyone. This point is silly. -- Director (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be a secondary source if we were talking IQ in general. But we are not talking about IQ in general, we are talking about the book itself and it is a primary source for content about itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

And if you want to use it as a "secondary source", it is still completely unacceptable because it is an utter failure as a reliable source for talking about IQ or pretty much anything else. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Again: a source is not "secondary" based on where its used - but on how its written. In short: its "secondary", if its based on listed, available (existing) primary sources. This is a secondary publication.

But none of that matters, its vain to call on the "reliability" of the source - it has been verified with regard to this map: the map faithfully represents claims in the book. Which is all that matters since its only used to represent claims in the book, not human intelligence in general on the Race and intelligence article! Move on, please. -- Director (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

faithful representation of hogwash does not confer reliability onto the hogwash. its still hogwash. And I agree its time we move on, next step if you do not drop the stick is WP:AE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You just don't seem to get it... the job of this article is to represent that hogwash. Understand!? -- Director (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

and again you are wrong. we are not a platform to promote the fringe theory content of the book . WP:GEVAL / [[WP:UNDUE] / WP:FRINGE / WP:NOTSOAP. we present an encyclopedic review of the the mainstream academic reaction to the book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

NO. A book article does not just post reviews - but also, and primarily, covers the content of the book! And that doesn't make us a platform! Are we also therefore a "platform" for Mein Kampf? All I'm hearing from you is "this book is wrong!". Stop repeating that - and start coming to terms with the fact that we are covering it on this project, and therefore must explain what it says! I explained in my first post that it basically doesn't matter if the data is wrong or not - and you still don't seem to understand that concept, so if that's all you have to say I think you can probably take a break from repeating that same meaningless factoid over and over and over again as if its some kind of argument. That goes double for the pointless WIKILAWYERING. -- Director (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Excessive weight to non reliable primary sources

An editor recently restored large chunks of text regurgitating content and claims from the book [4]. As the book is clearly not a reliable source, such content based solely on the non reliable source with no third party indications that the claims received notice, they should be removed per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant, we should by no means use the book to source what's in the book! Of course. And for the final time, your lack of understanding of scientific terminology does not render this publication "primary". Not that it matters at all. -- Director (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

again, we are not doing a book report "in this book it says blah blah blah" we are writing an encyclopedia article about the book - its reception and impact. The reception has been "its contents are crap" hence there is no encyclopedic value in spreading that crap. for this article, it is a primary source which should be used with care and certainly not presented as if its claims have any actual basis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD?

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

And the whole crew is here, excellent. Hello MarkBernstein, its just as "interesting" to see you appear out of nowhere on this article for the first time. I'm thinking this is either telepathy or e-mail WP:CANVASSING? I hope you don't doubt I'll request input from the community on the first sign of your slipping back into your standard repertoire of character assassination in the form of emotional tirades? -- Director (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Director, you should strike that uncivil talk page comment. Anyone on Wikipedia is entitled to look at any article (and other paths that lead to this article, like the edit-warring notice board). Don't assume bad faith. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD is an interesting idea for this particular book. Take a look at the Wikipedia notability guideline about books and see what applies here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

I shall certainly not strike anything with MarkBernstein continuing to post more PAs and slander such as the above. He's a specialist in character assassination, who tends to favor ad hominem attacks as a method to push his extreme, politically-coloured agendas. None of what he writes regarding myself is in fact true, nor even reasonably approximate to the facts - I'd advise anyone who reads his posts to check and double-check them for attempted manipulation ("racist", "antisemite" etc. are his favorites, I guess when you're not bound to the real world and invent anything you like, it probably makes sense not to pull punches).

I'm a social democrat by political conviction, and my only gripe here is that I perceive scientific objectivity being sidelined in favor of (American) liberal/conservative political games. I don't think this book is accurate in its claims, but I also think that hiding those claims, on an article dedicated to them(!) - is censorship. If the article is deleted, the point is of course moot, but I think we all know it passes WP:NOTE no question. -- Director (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Both of you please strike your comments about other editors. This page is for discussing how to improve the article by representing the sources according to our policies.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. If he will strike them. -- Director (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Director: so you will not rise to the level of being civil unless someone beats you to it? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a history here, I'm quite sick of MarkBernstein's hateful comments. I am not convinced he is about to stop slandering me, and you can't expect me to agree to sit quietly while he does so. That's how mudslinging works. -- Director (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) @Director: you have been notified about the discretionary sanctions . "he did it first!!!" and "he did not remove his comments yet!!!" are not valid exemption claims. Strike your comments or we will be headed to AE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is not the proper WP:FORUM for handling these issues. If you feel there is editor misconduct, please take it to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Of course its above NOTE, it'd be very hard to argue otherwise.

There are a lot of serious accusations being thrown around here, TFD. I won't be the only one apologizing, I've had quite enough of that.

The map does not seem to originate with a racist source? As I told you before, I'll be damned if Neo-Nazis and their ilk will dictate my views and/or actions by what they may or may not do. Be that as it may, I found the map quite shocking and starkly illustrative of the outrageous claims voiced in this book: its extremely useful in that it instantly conveys why this book is so controversial. I find it offensive that its been moved simply because it manages to convey the book's content "too well", that's contrary to the very basic principles of this project.

And I hope you'll forgive me if I find it ironic you of all users are calling out others on consistency. -- Director (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The map instantly conveys questionable, false, and misleading data. No knowledge to that effect is conveyed by the presentation of the data. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't care, that doesn't matter. If we're gonna have an article wherein we must explain that questionable, false, and misleading data - then we're free to do as good a job as we can! That's the "rub". That data is what this book is about, talking about it is the central part of this article - and the map helps the text immensely in that part of its job. -- Director (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you "found the map quite shocking and starkly illustrative of the outrageous claims voiced in this book", then the article is tendentiously arguing against the claims in the book. That is not our role - we are supposed to report what the book says and the reaction it received. TFD (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on.. you called me out on consistency one post ago. Didn't you just support its removal because it supposedly argues too much "for" the claims in the book? I guess its either one or the other, and either can be framed as an argument for removing it, right?

Don't put words into my mouth. My point was that it was effective in conveying the claims in the book. That's all that matters. -- Director (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that it argues in favor of the theory, while you claim it does the opposite. The problem is that even if you were right, it would still be tendentious original research. It is not our role to argue for or against racialist theories. It is our role to present them along with the analysis of them reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't claim it argues "for" or "against" anything (there's no "racial theory" here), its just data from the book - not an "argument". The data, whether its presented on a map or otherwise, will either appeal or not appeal to a reader - that's not something for us to concern ourselves with. Ours is to present the contents of the book as best we can, which is what the map does very well (and of course to include reviews and impact, etc).

It is not original research under any definition of the term, nor can it possibly be "tendentious" given that this article's subject is this book. On the contrary, it is tendentious editing to hide the data, as opposed to presenting it on an article dedicated to it. Textbook and brazen TE, in fact.

Also let me point out again that, by your logic, anything at all could be justifiably removed from this project, on grounds of either appealing or not appealing to the reader with regard to the subject. In framing the discussion in those terms - you can't lose. One might as well equally remove the collage in the Paris article, for example, on grounds that it "argues" too much in favor of Paris being scenic. Its a fine bit, but no dice. -- Director (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It received lots of reviews in mainstream sources and his over 300 cites in google scholar. You are going to find it difficult to persuade editors to delete it since it meets at least the very low standards set by Wikipedia for notability of books, let alone the far lower standards used by half the editors likely to respond. TFD (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I could see a merge to Works of Lynn and Vanhanen since every book is essentially the same regurgitation of bad data and racialist claims and every review is about the bad data and methods and specious claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That might be an idea if sufficient secondary sources treat the books together. See if any of them have a better term for the series - it's three books now. TFD (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The standard method of coverage in that case is to have both a series article and individual articles. But I don't think that's the case. ("Dissident"? I'll take it.) -- Director (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of important content

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

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

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

Victor, I respect your reasons for suggesting that a description of the authors' methodology is a sensible thing to include in a Wikipedia article about their book. I would submit that one problem is that their methodology has been roundly criticized by all observers who have examined it, and maybe it would be much fairer to describe the methodology as it has been described in reliable, independent sources. (Wicherts is one of several authors who come to mind as authors have examined the methodology and found it wanting.) This is all being discussed openly in the scholarly community, and Wikipedia's article here may as well accurately report what the informed scholarly community thinks about the book and its underlying research base. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Victor - It is bizarre to suggest that controversial methodology would not be seen as controversial.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Victor, if we need an article about this highly unremarkable book then at least we should have a summary of its actual contents including the methods. It might be worth to write the description of the methods together with the critique of them instead of separating them out into a "content" and "reception" sections.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should have content beyond what is covered in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

This article formerly went into much greater detail about the argument made by the book, including a map of global IQ scores according to the book, and a series of tables showing the correlations the book found between IQ and measures of prosperity. Over the past year this information has been removed, in this edit and this one. I request the opinion of uninvolved editors: is the article better off without these details about the book's argument, or would it be better to include them? 43.228.158.36 (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• oppose expansion these have been discussed before (see the archives) and essentially: based upon the fact that "the argument made by the book" has either been thoroughly dismissed as irrelevant or thoroughly debunked as bad science by established academia, it serves no encyclopedic purpose promote such dross. see WP:FRINGE / WP:NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that your removal of the map was extensively discussed. However, there was not much participation by editors from outside this topic, which is why I think your removals warrant outside attention. Also, there seems to have not been any discussion when you removed the "Associations between national IQ and other factors" section in March. 43.228.158.25 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There has been a lot of positions, and the only ones feeling that crap "research" should be highlighted are , well, SPA IPs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The article should present the views in the book as reported in reliable secondary sources. For example if there is a book review. But going beyond that introduces problems of neutrality and or. TFD (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)