Talk:Race and intelligence

Please: place new messages at bottom of page.

Proposed deletion of IQ testing environmental variances

The article IQ testing environmental variances has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There's an ongoing deletion discussion concerning this article. More people should take a look at it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Variance table

Percentage of variance and average difference in IQ associated independently with race (black or white), social class, within-families, and measurement error.

Source	% Variance		Average IQ Difference
Between races (within social classes)	14	30	12
Between social classes (within races)	8		6
Interaction of race and social class	8		N/A
Between families (within race and social class)	26	65	9
Within families (siblings)	39		11
Measurement error	5		7
Total	100		17

Should be part of the test scores section because it demonstrates that racial differences are a small fraction of total IQ differences (i.e., there is more variance within than between races).This is commonly accepted, but numbers speak louder than words in making the point. --Cant1lev3r (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In my copy, the average IQ difference due to measurement error is 4 not 7 (which also matches the the variance %).--Victor Chmara (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Many people will have difficulty understanding that table. Better would be an image like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sketch-4race-transparent.png Miradre (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)○

Yeah, a bell curve image like that would be informative. We could also make a new graph based on WAIS-IV data; the one you linked to is from the 1980s (although the new data are more or less identical).--Victor Chmara (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with using bell curves is that they tend to conflate model with reality. Actual intelligence scores are not distributed on a bell curve. Rather the actual distributions are well modeled by bell curves. aprock (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

All models are wrong, but some are useful, and modelling the distributions of IQ scores as bell curves is certainly a reasonable thing to do.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, modeling IQ scores as bell curves is fine. It's modeling bell curves as IQ scores which is wrong. Cheers. aprock (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I just created this graph of WAIS-IV data:

WAIS-IV scores by race/ethnicity in the US

What do you think?--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine.Miradre (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly WP:SYNTH, not to mention that the bell curves are all messed up. Additionally, it puts too much emphasis on US testing. aprock (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I also don't know why we would include this - as we were discussing - data is relevant for the conclusions scholars are drawing from it. We shouldn't encourage laypeople to draw conclusions based on data that they are not qualified to interpret.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how this could be synth anymore than the many other graphs and diagrams in Wikipedia that have been created using cited sources. Such a graph would be a fine way to illustrate that the differences between means are small compared to variance of each group. If we need a source for that then we need look no further than the table at the top of this section.Miradre (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Those curves to not represent IQs of populations. They represent models of IQs of populations. And yes, there is other synthesis in wikipedia. aprock (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That is of course correct, they are models, but the same could be said of other mathematical model of the world like Newton's laws of motion which most would accept as usually valid and useful with various limitations despite not giving perfect predictions in every circumstance.Miradre (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the image could be WP:Synth any more than other graphs in Wikipedia. The whole article puts lots of emphasis on US testing, so I don't think this graph would be a problem. I don't know what you mean when you say that the bell curves are messed up, but it's a gnuplot image, so the the color scheme and other specifics can easily be altered. The bell curve of course represents an idealized distribution, but this could be mentioned in the caption.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You are discussing using content not included in any reliable source. These are exactly the sort of problems I discussed above about using data. [1] Not only do I have no desire to spend unbounded energy discussing the difference between physics and statistical models, but that's not an appropriate use of the talk page. If that chart isn't something that's used by reliable sources, then it's not appropriate for the article. If you have strong concerns that I may be misinterpreting policy, then by all means raise this in an RfC or the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia policy stating that graphical representations of numerical data from reliable sources are automatically regarded as WP:OR? I don't think so. Are you opposed to including these data in general, or just to the specific bell curve format? Would something like this [2] be preferable?--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to go around and around with you here. If the chart is not in a reliable source, it is not in a reliable source. aprock (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the policy you're looking for is WP:OI: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. The unpublished ideas here being that intelligence scores are actually distributed as a bell curve, have no uncertainty, and that US scores are representative of the racial disparities. aprock (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the image is essentially what Rageh Omaar drew by hand in his BBC special while making the same point. The use of normal curves to show how the means and variances measured reflect overlapping distributions is also in Jensen (1998). --Cant1lev3r (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The cautionary note is given immediately above the Weiss et al table itself: "Although we have taken care to elaborate the psychometric, environmental and individual difference variables that must be considered when interpreting these data, we are nonetheless concerned that some will take this information out of context and interpret it either as evidence of genetically determined differences in intelligence among the races, or as proof of test bias. We are convinced that such interpretations would be scientifically unsound, divisive to society, and harmful to patients". And this is after an in depth discussion about what's being measured, the factors known or conjectured that contribute to these scores, and the rationale for their sampling system. To use the data in showing a different argument than the authors is original research (as in arraying them in overlapping bell curves to contrast the magnitude of "between groups" differences against their respective sample variances.)

And the figures obviously hold no value at all for conclusions about group differences outside the US. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. Obviously a graph showing racial/ethnic differences in IQ means and variances does not imply anything about what causes those differences. And as I pointed out above, this article is largely about the US, so it's only natural that the images used are as well.

I'm not that adamant about including this particular graph in the article. We could create a different one, or use a different data set, but in general I think we should add some pics, and one describing racial IQ differences in a recent representative data set like the WISC-IV standardization sample would be a good choice.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The WAIS, do you mean? Or is there a second chart under discussion? Professor marginalia (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WAIS. Sorry.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So, does someone want to add this to the article? I agree with Victor Chmara and Miradre that it would help illustrate how IQ scores are distributed, and that the scores of all racial groups overlap more than they differ. And if anyone really thinks that IQ scores being distributed on a bell curve is an unpublished idea, it's pretty easy to find a source for that.Boothello (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that it was published with a disclaimer is a good indication that we should be cautious in presenting this data. The further fact that using it here is essentially doing exactly what they warned against, namely taking the data out of context, I think it would be quite simplly a big mistake to use it.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

They warned against using the data to conclude that the differences were due to genetic causes or test bias. As we would not use the graph to claim either of those things, what's the problem?--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you could explain what the graph is being used for. aprock (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It could be used in the Test scores section to illustrate how the IQ scores of the largest ethnic/racial groups in the US differ and overlap.-- Victor Chmara (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That would certainly be OR, and seems to go against the quoted caveat that precedes the data "we are nonetheless concerned that some will take this information out of context". aprock (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how it would be OR, or taken out of context. Strictly speaking, every single sourced argument presented in this article has been taken out of context because the full argument as it exists in the source has not been reproduced. That, however, is a silly criticism. The WAIS-IV data are based on representative samples, and they reflect actual, existing differences between populations -- the authors of the cited book do not disagree with this.--Victor Chmara (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That, however, is a silly criticism. There's no need for that, so I'll ask you to please strike. Multiple issues have been raised about the use of the image. At this point I think it's pretty clear that synthesizing such an image without presenting the data in the same context as the source constitutes original research. If you are interested in including such a chart in the article, it would probably be better to find such an image published in a reliable secondary source used in a manner similar to how it would be used here. As mentioned above, if you think there is some misuse of policy, I suggest an RfC or taking the issue to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously an image in a publication falls under copyright. Otherwise we could take such images from for example the Bell Curve book. An image simply showing the distributions of IQ according to an IQ test is not more OR than an image of any other statistic of which there are numerous in Wikipedia.Miradre (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

An image != chart. If you have specific questions about what sorts of things fall under copyright, by all means bring them up at the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CMF only lists text, images, video, and audio files as media types. All images in a publication are under copyright. Data is not, which is why Wikipedia have contains numerous user created illustrations of statistics. So an user created image simply showing the distributions of IQ according to an IQ test is not more OR than an image of any other statistic of which there are numerous in Wikipedia.Miradre (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking here. If you have a specific question about policies, I suggest that you bring it up on the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Let see what the objections are: 1. IQ is only a model. The same could said for numerous other statistics and theories. Anyway, Wikipedia does not aim to decide what is the Truth regarding reality, we only represent different views and the same applies to images. 2. The image is WP:SYNTH. Again, not anymore than any other image in WP of various statistics. 3. No one has published such images before. Wrong, look at the book "The Bell Curve", for example. 4. The authors of the IQ test cautioned interpreting the data incorrectly. No interpretation of the data is claimed by a graph simply illustrating the data. Obviously the authors intended for the test and data to be used, otherwise they would not have published.

So if no further good objections are raised I suggest inserting the image.Miradre (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

All the objections above still stand. None of your points address the concerns highlighted above. Please review the discussion above for details of the objections. I will at this point note: saying that introducing WP:SYNTH here because there is synth elsewhere in wikipedia is not an acceptable policy interpretation. If you'd like to post an RfC to get outside views, you are welcome to do so. aprock (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why the objections stand after they have been replied to. No, there is nothing in WP:SYNTH prohibiting illustring statistcs with images. To quote "Because of copyright law in a number of countries, there are relatively few images available for use in Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under the GFDL, CC-BY-SA, or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." As noted such bell curves images have been published previously and such an image does not advocate an unpublished argument.Miradre (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you feel that I am not correctly interpreting policy, you should post an RfC or bring it to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I may, if the issue cannot be resolved here. You have no further arguments which you want to add or replies to those I and others have given?Miradre (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Degree of geographic ancestry section

The degree of ancestry section fails to note the specific Hereditarian reply on a few issues. Since Flynn, Nisbett, and others give much weight to these studies, it might be more balanced to note the specific criticisms. Each criticism can be abbreviated in one sentence.

1. Human skin color: "Nisbett writes that the correlation between US skin color and IQ are very weak, typically in the range of 0.1-0.15. The correlations between facial features rated as stereotypically African and IQ are similarly low in a 1966 study. Nibett argues that even if one ignores the possible advantages a whiter skin color may give this is inconsistent with a strong genetic influence"

Jensen discussed this issue in his 1974 work "Educatability and group differences (p. 222-223)." According to Jensen (1974), the skin color correlation could be .2 at maximum.

To quote: "The highest correlation that can be obtained between the two measures is the square root of the product of their reliabilities. So the highest correlation we could expect to find between IQ and skin color would be sqrt [(.16)(.25)]= .20. Any higher correlation than this would most probably be attributed to factors other than racial admixture, per se."

[Reliability is the square of the correlation between two factors; Jensen argued that the ancestry-skin correlation for African Americans is about .4 and that the maximum the ancestry-IQ correlation could be, assuming that the Hereditarian hypothesis is correct, is .5.]

2. Prodigiousness Black Children: "A study from 1934 and 1936 of black schoolchildren with high IQ examined their self-reported family history and found that they had slightly less European ancestry than the black average at that time.[19]"

According to Mackenzie (1984), in "Explaining race differences in IQ: The logic, the methodology, and the evidence," the study invalidly compared the sample group to an unrepresentative national sample.

To quote: "The Witty and Jenkins study. In their reviews of studies on race differences in IQ, Loehlin et al. (1975) and Flynn (1980) both placed considerable emphasis on a study of 63 black Chicago schoolchildren by Witty and Jenkins (1936). In fact, the study cannot support a heavy weight of interpretation, but it does have some uniquely relevant features in its design. Witty and Jenkins did not compare the IQs of blacks with different proportions of white ancestry. Instead, they focused on the distribution of ancestry in a selected high IQ sample of black students. Their rationale was that "the hypothesis that Negroes are inferior to whites in mental ability" should generate the prediction that "Negroes who make the very highest scores on mental tests should be those who come from admixtures predominantly white" (Witty & Jenkins, 1936, p. 180). They therefore estimated their subjects' racial admixture, on the basis of parent interviews, as N (all Negro), NNW (more Negro than white), NW (equally Negro and white), or NWW (more white than Negro) and compared the distribution of reported ancestry to that found in a national sample of adult blacks by Herskovits (1930). There were no significant differ1226 ences between the two distributions, and the small differences that existed were not in a consistent direction. They concluded that their findings provided fairly strong evidence against the "hypothesis of Negro inferiority" (p. 191). In fact, however, these findings do not provide such evidence, even if the genealogical estimates are taken at face value. For Witty and Jenkins's findings to have any value as evidence, it is essential that their comparison sample (Herskovits's national sample) be an appropriate one. An appropriate sample would be one that represented the population from which the children were drawn, that is, a comparison sample of black Chicago schoolchildren. This point is not mere nit-picking; in Reed's (1969) figures, blacks in Chicago have less white ancestry than the average for the black population in the U.S. If the same was true in 1936, then a Chicago sample matched to a national sample would have more white ancestry than the local average. More important, Herskovits's national sample cannot be considered representative. About 32% of his sample was composed of Howard University undergraduates, and another 16% was taken from the "well-to-do and professional portion of the population of the Harlem district of New York City" (Herskovits, 1930, p. 5). Thus, almost half of Herskovits's national sample was highly selected for scholastic achievement or SES.3 A genetic hypothesis for race differences in IQ is not embarrassed by the finding that such a sample had a similar distribution of ancestry to a smaller sample that was highly selected for IQ. A genetic hypothesis is not actually supported by this finding, because it remains an open question whether the national sample itself had more white ancestry than the average for the black population. It is clear, however, that as it stands, the Witty and Jenkins study yields no interpretable results."

3. Blood group studies: "The frequency of different blood types vary with race. Correlations between degree of European blood types and IQ have varied between 0.05 and -0.38 in two studies from 1973 and 1977. Nisbett writes that one problem is that white blood genes are very weakly, if at all, associated with one another, and therefore they may not be associated with white IQ genes.[19]"

According to Reed (1997,"The Genetic Hypothesis: It Was Not Tested but It Could Have Been"), an expert on blood groups, given the methodology used, these studies were unable to detect any difference.

To quote: "I wish to comment on “The genetic hypothesis” (p. 95; for the Black-White difference in psychometric intelligence) in the Neisser et al. (February 1996) article, particularly the reference to two studies that used blood groups to estimate the degree of African ancestry in American Blacks in relation to their IQ scores (they found no relation). I have experience in such admixture estimation (e.g., Reed, 1969, 1973) and, as mentioned in the target article (Reed & Jensen, 1992, 1993), in studying biological factors in intelligence. My 1969 article gave the fast estimate of the proportion of White ancestry in American Blacks (Pw) with a standard error, 0.220 ± 0.0093 (using the Duffy blood group gene Fy~), and because it was based on large samples (more than 3,000 each of Blacks and Whites), it remains the best single estimate for non-Southern American Blacks. I contend that, because of their methodology, the two studies cited above—Loehlin, Vandenberg, and Osborne (1973) and Scarr, Pakstis, Katz, and Barker (1977)–did not adequately test the possible association of cognitive ability with Pw” Consequently, their negative results provide no evidence against the genetic hypothesis. I suggest a method that, had it been used with data of the second study and if the genetic hypothesis is true, probably would have confirmed the genetic hypothesis. The methodologies of these two studies share a basic misconception–that all blood (and serum) groups are useful in estimating P. This is plainly false, as I (Reed, 1969) showed. The P estimate in this population, w using the A and B genes of the ABO blood groups, was 0.200 ± 0.044; the above esti- mate with Fy’ provides (.044)V(.0093) 2 = 22 times more information than this ABO estimate. If I had estimated Pw using the MN blood groups (both the Loehlin and Scarr groups used them), the standard error would have been even much larger than for ABO and would have been worthless (see below). The racial informativeness of a gene used to estimate P (measured by the reciprocal of the variance of Pw) is a function of its relative frequencies in the two ancestral populations, African and White. A genetic Locus I is perfectly informative (an “ideal locus”; MacLean et al., 1974; Reed, 1973) when it has two codominant alleles (genes; say I and 12), with one allele being homozygous (i.e., PI ]) in all individuals of one ancestral population and the other allele being homozygnus (I 2I 2) in all individuals of the other ancestral population. Thus, when testing an American Black, every allele at this ideal locus derived from a White ancestor is recognized as such. The Gm serum group locus (testing for nine factors) closely approximates such an ideal locus, but with multiple alleles; three are White alleles and four are sub-Saharan African alleles (Roychoudhury & Nei, 1988). The Fy ~ allele alone, with a frequency of about .43 in Whites and about 01 in Africans, is not ideal. When present in. an American Black person, we are reason- ably sure that it came from a White ancestor, but other White matings could have contributed an Fy b allele (frequency about .57 in Whites and about .01 in Africans) and so would not be recognized (when testing only for Fy~). But contrast this with the situation using the MN blood groups: In both Whites and Africans, the M and N alleles each have frequencies close to .50. This locus provides essentially no information on the ancestry of American Blacks! The consequences of using all blood and serum groups available, without regard to their great differences in racial informativeness, as the Loehlin (Loehlin et al., 1973) and Scarr (Scarr et al., 1977) teams did, are severe." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

New section needed: racial hybid

Under the "Degree of geographic ancestry" section you include the following:

"Rushton (2008) in a study of South African university students, found that the IQ of Coloured, a mixed-race group, was between that of blacks and whites."

Rushton (2008) was a racial hybrid study. It might be worth making a separate section on this as there were two additional such studies:

Rowe, 2002. IQ, birth weight, and number of sexual partners in White, African American, and mixed race adolescents. Willerman, 1974. Intellectual development of children from interracial matings: Performance in infancy and at 4 years

At very least, it might be informative to mention these studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

comment on "Gradual gap appearance" section

In this section, Flynn is references. Levitt and Fryer (2006), in "Testing for racial differences in the mental ability of young children," make a similar argument. They could also be noted.

Additionally, Rushton and Jensen are references: "Rushton and Jensen argue that the black-white IQ difference of one SD is present at the age of 3 and does not change significantly afterwards."

There are two (inconsistent) hereditarian replies: 1) the gap emerges by age 3 and does not change afterwards (Jensen and Rushton), and 2) the gap's increase with age is consistent with the hereditarian hypothesis as geneotypic differences express themselves with age (Murray, 2005). Murray makes the last point in the "The inequality taboo" (fully annotated version):

"32. The black-white difference emerges as early as IQ can be tested, but the gap is usually smaller in pre-adolescence. Among pre-schoolers, the gap can be just a few IQ points. Why does it increase with age? One obvious hypothesis is inferior schooling—e.g., Fryer and Levitt (2004). But black children attending excellent schools also fall behind their white counterparts, as discussed subsequently in the text and in note 14. The alternative explanation is that the heritability of IQ increases with age for people of all races, and this is reflected in black IQ scores in adolescence and adulthood. See Jensen (1998): 178." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions.Miradre (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Effort optimism be merged into Race and intelligence. One sentence article. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Miradre (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Or just into Intelligence or just prod as non-notable? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

heritability and group differences

The section on heritability and group differences doesn't make sense.

You have:

High heritability does not imply that a trait is unchangeable, however, as environmental factors that affect all group members equally will not be measured by heritability, average height increase despite high heritability being an example, and the heritability of a trait may also change in response to changes in the distribution of genes and environmental factors.[1]

And then you start talking about X-factors.

This is a fairly complex issue; let me try to outline it and then you can decide if it's worth making changes. ............................................................................................................................................

Lewontin and others have pointed out that one can not infer between population heritability from within population heritability; Jensen, however, argues that high within group heritability constrains environmental explanations for between group differences[1]. Flynn has summarized the argument thusly [2]:

Originally, Jensen argued: (1) the heritability of IQ within whites and probably within blacks was 0.80 and betweenfamily factors accounted for only 0.12 of IQ variance — with only the latter relevant to group differences; (2) the square root of the percentage of variance explained gives the correlation between between-family environment and IQ, a correlation of about 0.33 (square root of 0.12=0.34); (3) if there is no genetic difference, blacks can be treated as a sample of the white population selected out by environmental inferiority; (4) enter regression to the mean — for blacks to be one SD below whites for IQ, they would have to be 3 SDs (3 ×.33 =1) below the white mean for quality of environment; (5) no sane person can believe that — it means the average black cognitive environment is below the bottom 0.2% of white environments; (6) evading this dilemma entails positing a fantastic “factor X”, something that blights the environment of every black to the same degree (and thus does not reduce within-black heritability estimates), while being totally absent among whites (thus having no effect on within-white heritability estimates).

Given the high within population heritability, Jensen maintains that environmentalists need to posit an implausible X-factor to explain group differences [4]. Given the accumulated evidence, Both Flynn and Nisbett, two leading environmentalists, now agree that X-factors are implausible [2] [3]. Nisbett, however, maintains that the heritability within the Black population is lower than Jensen's estimate and that high within group heritability only rules out major, single environmental causes of the gap; he argues that the gap can be explained by many small factors [4]. Hunt and Carlson agree, stating that "[i]t is quite possible that the present discrepancy in achievement is due to multiple small and subtle social effects, many of which may be due to cultural practices in the affected groups, such as attitudes toward education, indirect effects of health practices, and relative degrees of family solidarity." [4] Flynn, on the other hand, argues that the conventional understanding of heritability is incorrect; he maintains that the Flynn effect demonstrates this [5]. Flynn states that [2]:

"I used the Flynn Effect to break this steel chain of ideas: (1) the heritability of IQ both within the present and the last generations may well be 0.80 with factors relevant to group differences at 0.12; (2) the correlation between IQ and relevant environment is 0.33; (3) the present generation is analogous to a sample of the last selected out by a more enriched environment (a proposition I defend by denying a significant role to genetic enhancement); (4) enter regression to the mean — since the Dutch of 1982 scored 1.33 SDs higher than the Dutch of 1952 on Raven's Progressive Matrices, the latter would have had to have a cognitive environment 4 SDs (4 × 0.33 =1.33) below the average environment of the former; (5) either there was a factor X that separated the generations (which I too dismiss as fantastic) or something was wrong with Jensen's case. When Dickens and Flynn developed their model, I knew what was wrong: it shows how heritability estimates can be as high as you please without robbing environment of its potency to create huge IQ gains over time"

Flynn's interpretation of heritability and intelligence has been challenged by Linda Gottfredson and others [6] [7] [8]

[1] Sesardic, 2000. Philosophy of Science that Ignores Science: Race, IQ and Heritability, Philosophy of Science [2] Flynn. 2010. The spectacles through which I see the race and IQ debate [3] Nisbett, 2010. Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count. [4] Nielson, 2010. Intelligence of Culture. Contemporary sociology. [4] Hunt and Carlson, 2007. Research on group differences in intelligence is scientifically valid and socially important [5] Taylor, 2006. Heritability and Heterogeneity: The Irrelevance of Heritability in Explaining Differences between Means for Different Human Groups or Generations [6] Gottfredson, 2007. Shattering logic to explain the Flynn Effect. [7] Rowe, et al., 2001. Expanding variance and the case of historical changes in IQ means: A critique of Dickens and Flynn [8] Mingroni, 2007. Resolving the IQ paradox: Heterosis as a cause of the Flynn effect and other trends ....

Hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Regression towards the mean

This section could use some editing. This is how I would put it: .......................................................................................................................................

"Jensen and Hans Eysenck reasoned that if average racial differences in IQ had a genetic basis, then the average IQs of black and whites would show regression towards their respective population means [2] [3]. Studies have confirmed that blacks and whites do regress towards their respective population means [1]. Jensen and Eysenck argued that this provides evidence for genetic based differences in IQ. This line of argument, however, has been criticized [2].

Nisbett (2009) agrees that blacks and whites do regress towards their population means, but he argues that this effect would also be expected if environmental factors depressed the average black IQ more than average white IQ.[19] Rushton and Jensen have replied that the results are seen for siblings who should have a very similar environment, that low scoring blacks regress upwards, and that, when looking at the magnitude of regression, the results are as predicted by a partial genetic hypothesis [20]. Rushton agrees that the differential regression could be explain environmentally, but he argues that such an explanation would be contrived [4]"

[1] Murray, 1999. The Secular Increase in IQ and Longitudinal Changes in the Magnitude of the Black-White Difference: Evidence from the NLSY [2] Mackenzie, 1984. Explaining Race Differences in IQ: The Logic, the Methodology, and the Evidence. [3] By Sohan Modgil, Celia Modgil, Hans Jürgen Eysenck, 1986. Hans Eysenck: consensus and controversy. page. 116 [4] Rushton, "Race differences in g and the "Jensen effect." In "The scientific study of general intelligence: tribute to Arthur R. Jensen" H. Nyborg (ed.). Pergamon, London, 2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Uniform rearing conditions

Some of the numbers are off in the section on "universal rearing conditions."

Ignore the previous comment on the Moore study.

In the Minnesota study, there was attrition. At age 7, there were 143 biological white, 25 adopted white, 68 adopted biracial, and 29 adopted black. At age 17 there were 104 biological white, 17 adopted white, 55 biracial, and 21 black.

In Eyferth there were 98 interracial and 83 white children. In Tizard et al. (1972)the numbers (and scores) vary depending on the assessment you are talking about (there were four different ones). Look up: Tizard, 1974. Race and IQ. The only statistically significant finding was on the Minnesota non-verbal test (White N=24, 101.3; BW N= 15, 109.8; Black N= 15, 105.7.) The highest Ns were in the Reynell's comprehension and Reynell's expression assessment, which are not IQ tests. Those N's were White = 39, BW =24, Black = 22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Logographic writing systems

Hangul is not logographic, and Koreans have the highest national IQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.14.52 (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Which kind of precludes writing system to intelligence causality. Also trans-national adoption does not affect IQ distribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.14.52 (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Fertility and intelligence differences

There is one hereditarian line of argument that you forgot: relative rates of dysgenic fertility. Shockely, Jensen, and others have made this. They argue that given a non-zero heritability and differential reproduction patterns a genotypic gap is inevitable; they then cite evidence showing that African-Americans have more dysgenic fertility than European Americans.

From: Jensen, 1998. Population Differences In Intelligence: Causal Hypotheses. In: The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability

"Genetic Implications of IQ and Fertility for Black and White Women.

If IQ were more negatively correlated with fertility in one population than in another (for example, the American black and white populations), over two or more generations the difference between the two populations’ mean IQs would be expected to diverge increasingly in each successive generation. Since some part of the total IQ variance within each population is partly genetic (i.e., the heritability), the intergenerational divergence in population means would also have to be partly genetic. It could not be otherwise, unless one assumed that the mother-child correlation for IQ is entirely environmental (an assumption that has been conclusively ruled out by adoption studies). Therefore, in each successive generation, as long as there is a fairly consistent difference in the correlation between IQ and fertility for the black and white populations, some part of the increasing mean group difference in IQ is necessarily genetic. If fertility is negatively correlated with a desirable trait that has a genetic component, IQ for example, the trend is called dysgenic; if positively correlated, eugenic...

Is there any evidence for such a trend in the American black and white populations? There is, at least presently and during the last half of this century, since U.S. Census data relevant to this question have been available. A detailed study based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and affiliated agencies was conducted by Daniel Vining, a demographer at the University of Pennsylvania. His analyses indicate that, if IQ is, to some degree heritable (which it is), then throughout most of this century (and particularly since about 1950) there has been an overall downward trend in the genotypic IQ of both the white and the black populations. The trend has been more unfavorable for the black population."

References

Jensen, 1998. The G-Factor Meisenberg, 2010. The reproduction of intelligence Shockely, 1972. Dysgenics, Geneticity, Raceology: A Chalenge to the Intelectual Responsibility of Educator Vining, 1982. On the possibility of the reemergence of a dysgenic trend with respect to intelligence in American fertility differentials —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Rushton and Jensen do not mention this argument in their later reviews. Even if correct, there seems only to be evidence for a recent and weak effect and would at most mean that a very small part of the US gap is genetic (and this is of recent origin).Miradre (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't think it adds to the discussion don't add it.

Flynn effect

"Others argue against expecting the Flynn Effect to narrow the US black-white IQ gap since they see that gap as mostly genetic in origin.[53]"

You might mention that Wicherts, Dolan, Hessen, et al. (2004) [1] found the the Flynn effect was qualitatively different from the US Black-White gap.

"This clearly contrasts with our current findings on the Flynn effect. It appears therefore that the nature of the Flynn effect is qualitatively different from the nature of B–W differences in the United States. Each comparison of groups should be investigated separately. IQ gaps between cohorts do not teach us anything about IQ gaps between contemporary groups, except that each IQ gap should not be confused with real (i.e., latent) differences in intelligence. Only after a proper analysis of measurement invariance of these IQ gaps is conducted can anything be concluded concerning true differences between groups."

Wicherts, Dolan, Hessen, et al. 2004. Are intelligence tests measurement invariant over time? Investigating the nature of the Flynn effect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems only to refute someone claiming that the Flynn effect and BW gaps have exactly the same causes. To quote Flynn:

"I never claimed that the Flynn Effect had causal relevance for the black/white IQ gap. I claimed that it had analytic relevance. Jensen had argued that environment (at least between groups both located in a modern Western society) was so feeble that an astronomical environmental difference had to be posited to explain a one SD IQ gap. The Dutch showed that the environmental difference in question was less than whatever environmental enhancement they had enjoyed over 30 years. The gap needed was dragged out of the stars down to earth."Miradre (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I will add some material on this.Miradre (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

I feel this should be removed now after much of the article being rewritten since I do not think the article currently has systematic POV problems. There may possible still be POV problems but then a more constructive approach would be to mark a specific section or sentence with POV tags and explain the reason.Miradre (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

When you're through making your hundreds of edits, post a notice here and I'm sure you can get some editors to review it. aprock (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this was that notice?·Maunus·ƛ· 00:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on his contribution history, he's not quite done yet. aprock (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There are still things that should be fixed. But I do no think there are systematic POV issues. Stating that something is POV without explaining why is not constructive (and also unfalsifiable). So in order to be constructive, please state what is POV and tag the appropriate section or sentence.Miradre (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that the template does not state that someone may or may not check to see if there are POV issues sometime in the future. Is states that the neutrality is disputed and that one should check the discussion on the talk page. So, if there are reasons for the article being systematically POV, then please state them. If there are problems with a particular sentence or section, then please state them and tag that section or sentence.Miradre (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I quote from WP:NPOV: "If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article."Miradre (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. 1. I don't like what you've done with the lead. It does not seem very biased but it doesn't adequately describe what the actual issue is and why it is contentious. And rather than a summary of the article it gives cherry picked bits of information. 2. The history section is now simply a chronological list of hereditarian publications, that are not put into historical context, it seems very lopsidedly focused on hereditarian publications and describe their viewpoints in more detail than the opposing side. It mentions the 52 signatories in favor of the hereditarian hypothesis, but none of the much larger mobilizations against it. It also fails to supply the relevant historical context of most of the events: The relation between IQ testing and the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. Jensens original paper was written in the context of the supreme court case regarding segregation in the school system, that is relevant for understanding the events. When it does provide historical context it does so in a tendentious fashion - e.g. noting that Stalin and Hitler were against IQ testing, but not mentioning that their eugenic policies were similar to the one's advocated by those who investigated the relation between IQ and race at that time. It also suggests that the environmental view became standard because of fear of repressalia rather than because of the overwhelming evidence in favor. The validity of race and IQ section make the fallacy of attributing widely held consensus views, such as the invalidity of race as a biological concept to a single proponent (not just Sternberg rejectes the validity of race - the entire profession of anthropologists do so). Such as misrepresentation is classic POV tool. By putting Rowe's and Hunt and Carlson's problematic statements before the critics it suggests that race is generally accepted as a valid biological category with only a few fringe critics - that is at best a gross oversimplification and at worst a complete falsification of the actual state of affairs. In all earnestness - the past two times that someone said that they wanted to remove the POV I have given detailed accounts of the POV issues - you do not seem to have taken them into account in your rewriting of the article at all. In fact I would say that the problems have become worse.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the archive page where I last gave my objections last time someone wanted to remove the POV-tag. Most of it is also valid for your version. There are also some relevant objections from Professor Marginalia Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_86#Straw_Polls·Maunus·ƛ· 13:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

1. What exactly do you not like about the lead? Be specific. That is the part I have edited the least. 2. Ok, will make some changes regarding that. I note that you make lots of claims without sources so those will be difficult to fix. 3. Again, if you have a source for what "the entire profession of anthropologists" argues, then we could add that. If those two section, the history and validity sections, are the only problematic ones, then do you oppose tagging only them?Miradre (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I was assuming that you had done at least the most basic homework, including reading books by authors you may not agree with. And acquiring working knowledge of issues that have been debated to death in the archives. As for the profession of anthropologists you could check: the American Anthropological Association's website on race: [www.understandingrace.org] or their statement on race from 1996.[www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm]. I haven't read the rest of the article yet.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that every anthropologist agree with that statement anymore than that every psychologist agreed with the APA report. But I will add that view. Until you may read the rest of the article, do you oppose you tagging those secitons? Miradre (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Even Mikemikev was aware that the overwhelming consensus in anthropology is that race is not a biological but a social reality. Whether or not "every" anthropologist agrees is irrelevant - it is clearly and verifiably the majority view in the profession. I don't oppose tagging those sections - I oppose untagging the article. Also I don't think you can adress the concerns of weight by merely removing superfluous information, e.g. where it was published from the hereditarian publications. That will turn the section into a mere chronology of publications - that is not what the history section is supposed to be - it is supposed to be a prose narrative explaining the development and historical context of the debate.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have a whole long subarticle for the history. Obviously we cannot replicate all of it here. It may too long as it is according to MOS. Also, I fail to find a source in the subarticle for that Jensen's 1969 paper was a response to the 1954 Supreme court decision. If you have one we could add it. What is wrong with the other sections? Miradre (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, you write "It also suggests that the environmental view became standard because of fear of repressalia rather than because of the overwhelming evidence in favor." Here is what the subarticle states regarding this (not written by me): "According to Franz Samelson, this change in attitude had become widespread by then,[32] with very few studies in race differences in intelligence, a change brought out by an increase in the number of psychologists not from a "lily-white ... Anglo-Saxon" background but from Jewish backgrounds. Other factors that influenced American psychologists were the economic changes brought about by the depression and the reluctance of psychologists to risk being associated with the Nazi claims of a master race."Miradre (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The entire pargraph states that "In 1935 Otto Klineberg wrote two books "Negro Intelligence and Selective Migration" and "Race Differences",[30][31] dismissing claims that African Americans in the northern states were more intelligent than those in the south. He concluded that there was no scientific proof of racial differences in intelligence and that this should not therefore be used as a justification for policies in education or employment. In the 1940s many psychologists, particularly social psychologists, conceded that environmental and cultural factors, as well as discrimination and prejudice, provided a more probable explanation of disparities in intelligence. According to Franz Samelson, this change in attitude had become widespread by then,[32] with very few studies in race differences in intelligence, a change brought out by an increase in the number of psychologists not from a "lily-white ... Anglo-Saxon" background but from Jewish backgrounds. Other factors that influenced American psychologists were the economic changes brought about by the depression and the reluctance of psychologists to risk being associated with the Nazi claims of a master race.[33] The 1950 race statement of UNESCO, prepared in consultation with scientists including Klineberg, created a further taboo against conducting scientific research on issues related to race.[34] Hitler banned IQ testing for being "Jewish" as did Stalin for being "bourgeois"" For some reason out of this entire paragraphg that clearly documents that Klineberg produced evidence against the racial disparity and that the general dismissal of the topic was first and foremost based in increased knowledge about the nature of race among social scientists who were now less influenced by doctrines of white racial superiority, you only include the statement that IQ tstudies were abandoned due to fear of being associated with Hitler, and the statement about Hitler and Stalin.... ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing there stating that Klineberg presented overwhelming evidence or that it was he who the main cause of the changed view. The two sources [30][31] go to the books by Klineberb, not someone claiming they were the important cause. Franz Samelson has a different opinion as stated.Miradre (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You cannot see that out of the many ways in which this paragraph could have been summarised and framed you have chosen to focus only on the part that suggests that the primary reasons for abandoning research in biological racial differences was politically rather than scientifically motivated? That leaves very little hope for your ability to improve the POV problem of this article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have a source stating that increased evidence was part of the reason for changed view, then please state it. The books themselves are hardly evidence for their importance. I will add the depression.Miradre (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you seriously doubt that the abandonment of research in racial biological differences had nothing to do with the mass of evidence produced by Boas and Mantagu against the biological reality of race, or the mass of evidence in favor of social and environmental causes of racial disparities in the US produced by Myrdal, DuBois, Klineberg, Powdermaker? Are you asking me to prove that the moon isn't made of green cheese? If you were interested in presenting a balanced view of this topic you would be fully able to find some of those sources yourself - I ghuarantee you that they are there. I don't have more time to deal with this now, but I obviously do not support removing the POV tag. I hope other editors like Slr, Aprock or Professor Marginalia will be able to review your changes and provide more input. But untill you start taking the environmentalist side seriously, which includes acknowledging that those who hold it are not just brainwashed communists but do base their argumentation on evidence I don't see how any edit you make can counter the bias.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I, as Wikipedia, likes sources. I have found one myself on the history of psychology that I will add.Miradre (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We all like sources. But you are looking at a subset of sources and challenging other editors to include information from the ones you don't look at - which happens to represent one entire side of the debate. If you were interested in making the article balanced you would be looking at the entire body of sources. I am telling you that that way to proceed will not cause balance. And I really cannot understand how you can be surprised that the article requires a POV tag as long as you are not actually working to integrate the other side equally into the treatement. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look at my editing you will that I have added many pro-environmental arguments and sources. I have already responded to your arguments and added more material. I will also add some more like the AAA statement. I hope you will continue to with constructive criticism if there are remaining problems. If no concrete POV problems remains, then there will be no reason for a NPOV tag.Miradre (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the statement that "Stalin banned intelligence testing as bourgeois", cited to Eysenck, is questionable. Eysenck was not an expert on Soviet social science. In fact the USSR had its own school of psychology, founded by Lev Vygotsky, who died before Stalin came to power. Vygotsky was highly critical of Cyril Burt's "psychology of individual difference". So intelligence testing was never really on the agenda in the USSR. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact that is like citing McCarthy about the correct interpretation of Marxism.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Eysenck was at his death the most frequently cited psychologist in the world and as such certainly is an acceptable source. He was also of German origin and published the book originally in Germany so I see little reason to doubt the part regarding Hitler. If you have a reliable source stating that Eysenck was wrong regarding Stalin, then please state it.Miradre (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a substantial academic literature on Soviet developmental psychology. I will have a quick trawl, but I doubt any of it deals with Stalin in detail. It was one of the areas he left alone, unlike linguistics. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a recent scholarly account that, as you will see, is far more nuanced than Eysenck's. It does support the idea that the ban on intelligence testing was political in nature. It should be read in conjunction with the fact that Luria developed the Luria-Nebraska test as an alternative. Although Vygotsky's texts weren't read during the Stalin period, his ideas remained influential on Soviet psychology (and are now influential worldwide). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot read the Google link to so please add the relevant paragraph here and I will add this view to the article. Or add it to the article immediately.Miradre (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

After some concrete and constructive criticism the article has been modified and improved. I feel that the concrete objections regarding POV has been answered. Are there anything more concrete that is problematic? Then please state it so the situation can be corrected. I will eventually remove the NPOV tag if no more concrete POV problems can be identified.Miradre (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You have done some cosmetic changes, none of the problems are resolved. You should be quite a bit more patient I think. Several other editors will be interested. You can of course remove the POV tag if you believe no-one will reinsert it. I won't. But I caution you not to think that so fundamental problems can be resolved with so little effort.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I will let others judge if the changes were cosmetic. I will certainly wait and hear the views of others. I think the article has been improved by your criticism and hope that other can contribute with other concrete suggestions.Miradre (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As another point, it is not only in psychology that IQ is viewed as important. All the g-correlated tests are used because they are viewed as useful by those who pay to use them. IQ testing is used in medical research like on dementia and other diseases. It is used by economists who study relations to other variables. And so on.Miradre (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that other fields don't us IQ, but they are not really in a position to state whether it accurately measures the psychological traits its designed to measure - because psychologists are the experts on whom they have to rely on that issue. I have just gotten my hands on a good Psychology textbook and its description of intelligence is actaully a lot more nuanced than simply saying ""IQ" is the measure of intelligence". For example it does not at all dismiss Gardner's intelligence theories, or make any blanket statements about what intelligence is or isn't, or how well measurable it is. After a long discussion they end up defining intelligence like this: "We may then (at long last) define intelligence as a hypothetical mental ability that enables people to direct their thinking, adapt to their circumstances, and learn from their experiences. Although this definition is not particularly crisp, it does seem to capture the basic themes that characterize both the scientist’s and the layperson’s conception of intelligence."·Maunus·ƛ· 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Also the APA report pointed this out. I do not think most psychologists try to argue that IQ is important because it may or nor may not capture everything that people think is in the concept intelligence. I think they would rather argue that it captures some part and that the value of IQ testing depends on its ability to predict future achievements. I will add something on this.Miradre (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I will edit in some new material, but think that it would be helpful to get some more expert editors to look at the article. I also think that the Eysenck quote is probably rather inaccurate on the Hitler side as well. Not really because of bias, but because of the time in which it was written. Historians of the Nazi period have put in a lot of effort to disentangle the views and actions of Hitler himself from those of other Nazis and sympathisers. So that needs attention to. Or the Eysenck quote can come out. Does this article actually need to say anything about intelligence testing in the USSR and Nazi Germany? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Eysenck is a very noted researcher and a book by him pass all criteria for a WP source. If there are opposing views regarding Hitler, then they should be added. What happened in Nazi Germany is obviously very interesting due to the popular view of IQ testing being connected with Nazi atrocities.Miradre (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So in sum, the NPOV tag should stay. aprock (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? Please state your concrete objections so the article can be improved.Miradre (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above clearly mentions many issues. There is no need to repeat them. When you're done with your hundreds of edits, let me know and I will review the article and point out the various POV issues. aprock (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that the template does not state that it is there to signal that someone may or may not check to see if there are POV issues sometime in the future. If there are reasons for the article being systematically POV, then please state them. If there are problems with a particular sentence or section, then please state them and tag that section or sentence. As stated, I feel that the article has been modified and improved by the above the concrete criticism but if no more concrete, constructive criticisms can be added, then the tag should be removed.Miradre (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

They've already been discussed above by other editors. If you really have a problem with me waiting until you're done with all of your edits before investing significant effort into the article, I'm not sure what to tell you. There is no WP:DEADLINE here, and I have work to do. Spending significant time going through an ever changing article is not high on my priority list, sorry. I'm certainly not saying that you can't edit the article after I read it. I'm just asking you to let me know when you think it's mostly there in terms of what you want to do with the article. aprock (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the article currently do not have systematic POV issues. The concrete objections above has been answered. If no there are no further concrete objections I will remove the tag. When you get the time to read the article, and if you then find concrete POV issues, then it would be helpful if you added POV tags to the appropriate sections or sentences. But as I said, we do not add a POV tag because someone will review it in the future to see if there are POV issues.Miradre (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

One editor has mentioned that the objections have not been addressed. Based on the discussion above, it's clear that you think there are no NPOV issues, and that other editors feel there are. Again, there is no WP:DEADLINE here. Once you are done making 20+ edits per day, I will review the content and list the issues in the talk page. aprock (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My editing number has no relevance for if the article is POV or not. I will certainly wait for the current editing of the validity section to resolve and hear the views of other editors regarding whether there are remaining issues. It would be most constructive if you stated concretely what you feel is not NPOV.Miradre (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand how you feel about this. I've said what I have to say for the time being. You may have whatever last word you feel you need to say.aprock (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope that you will add constructive criticisms if you feel something is not NPOV. Only in that way can the article be improved.Miradre (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

niggers

Let's just call a spade a spade. We hate niggers because they're dumb. Isn't that the gist of this article? Why all this posturing to prove your high IQs? Your skin colour says it all. You're white (or even better, a hook-nose), so you're racially superior. Fuck the niggers, they're unemployed crackheads. Now drop a dime on this vandalism and go back to your small-dicked cubicle job or whatever you waste your life doing.