Talk:How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

Redirecting per previous AfD

See [1]. aprock (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I am making a mistake, but I am new to the page creation process. I read the previous dispute but, as best I can tell, this version of the article is avoiding the problems that Phantomsteve identified last time. I certainly don't want this to be a fork of any kind. I have tried to add a lot of citations to sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Were those used the last time around? Are there other sources that I should be adding? All advice much appreciated! Yfever (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we can take the article to AfD again. It's not about sources, it's about notability and POV forking. I invite you to restore the redirect. aprock (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objections to having a discussion about notability and POV forking. How should we proceed? I have never dealt with the page deletion process, beyond brief discussions about two other pages I created. Yfever (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read up on AFD. I will do my best to carry out the necessary steps to start the conversation. Apologies in advance if I mess this up. Yfever (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the afd here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? (2nd nomination). Thanks for the suggestion. Yfever (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating the AfD. I'll add my comments here. Generally, those who propose the AfD are of the mind that the article should be deleted. I take it that you disagree with that evaluation. If so, it might help if you discussed why you think the article content should be kept in a stand alone form, as opposed to being handled in Arthur Jensen. If you actually think the article should be deleted, restoring the redirect should be sufficient. aprock (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining that. I do think the article should be kept and will add my comments there. Yfever (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat hard to believe that this page is not, instead, a section in the Arthur Jensen page. And why is his paper called an "article"? 123 pages seems rather long for an "article". Dadge (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material is already covered in the Arthur Jensen page and the History of the race and intelligence controversy. Both of the other two articles not only cover the exact same material, but both already say a lot more about the topic than this new article does. Not sure what point there is in putting so much effort into recreating the deleted article if this is all it's going to say. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More material

I am going to add more material, mostly from other parts of Wikipedia. My goal is to provide better context and to address some of the reasonable concerns expressed in the AFD. I hope other people will add material too! Yfever (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and care must be taken when copy/pasting from one article to another. See WP:CWW. aprock (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may not accomplish as much as I would like in this article. Hope that others will pitch in! Yfever (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the edit history for this article's "resurrection". And things just don't seem to add up. What prompted this again? Professor marginalia (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV

There is no criticism of one of the worst articles ever published in this article. We all know there's reliable criticism, but the ostensible new editor who wrote the article decided not to include it. Why would he do that? I mean, we all know the answer. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that this is directed at me. How about assuming some good faith? Anyway, let me take another shot at this and try again. I guess that the material that I gathered from other parts of Wikipedia did not do the job? So, unless there are objections, I will delete it and try again from scratch. Surely it most be possible to write a Wikipedia article that is neutral. Since I failed in my first attempt, I will try again. Yfever (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was deleted on the basis that it was a POVfork, built from content selectively cut and pasted from articles elsewhere to push a particular POV. From my read of the AFD there was nearly unanimous agreement this was a controversial topic--the fact that it was controversial was not in dispute. When you recreated the article you did the very same thing that led to it being deleted the first time: you selectively cut and pasted from content elsewhere, and lent it a different slant. And when challenged about this focused your energies on demonstrating that it was a controversial topic-again, that was not in dispute. Virtually none of the material you added to this article was actually written by you-it was copied. The "objections" already expressed in the past AFD told us that's a justification to delete. You indicated awareness of the original AFD. Is there a reason you have ignored those objections?Professor marginalia (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second Try

It seems that I was wrong to use so much material from other portions of Wikipedia in extending this article. Sorry. It seemed like good text to me, but I guess that I am unfamiliar with the standards in this context. So, I am going to give it a second go. I have reverted back to the version of the article that existed when the decision was made to Keep it at the end of the second AfD. (If this was a mistake, my apologies.) I will next add (over the course of this week, I hope) all new material. That is, using only reliable sources, I will try to create a balanced article that adheres to a neutral point of view. In particular, I will try to do a better job of incorporating the views of the many critics of Jensen. Of course, anyone who wants to edit alongside of me is welcome to join in. With luck, the result by Friday will be a good article. Suggestions would be much appreciated. Yfever (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not entirely familiar with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, you might consider editing existing articles, or creating less controversial articles. Investing your energies in creating articles in a topic area covered by Arbitration is certainly another option in getting an education in policy. Your mileage may vary. aprock (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also urge that you make the effort to be more accurate in defending your edits. This is very important given the degree of disruption we're forced to deal with in these involved articles. When you said in the edit summary, "I think that almost all this content (exception might be Hunt) is new to this version of the article," this isn't so. Two thirds of it is still copied.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. I will rewrite those portions as well. Yfever (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten those portions. I believe that none of the article (except some of the actual references) is copy/pasted from any other part of Wikipedia. Of course, if I do add a Jensen photo (see below), I will probably get that from Wikipedia. I don't think anyone would object to that. Yfever (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

I was thinking on making some changes to the article and am curious what others thinks. For example, we clearly need a thorough overview of criticisms of the article. Perhaps a picture of Jensen would be nice, maybe from the page about him? What about using the same image of the earlier draft of the article that is used in the history of race and intelligence? I was also thinking of tracking to the library and getting a scan of the first page of the original article. Would that be good? I am certainly going to add more details from the references that are already used in the article. Do people think it would be useful to gather more references? Yfever (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First order of business to justify a stand-alone article on this topic should be to outline and develop noteworthy content and aspects to this topic that don't simply duplicate content already appearing elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is not to "justify a stand-alone article." The decision of the AFD was to Keep. My goal is to write a good article. Suggestions on how to do that are most welcome. I don't think that any of the sentences now in the article are copy/pasted from anyplace else in Wikipedia. If I have missed something, please let me know. Yfever (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the AfD was no consensus: [2]. I expect that the article will be re-evaluated in the near term. aprock (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page says "Keep." If you think that is wrong, I think you should have the admin make a correction. Yfever (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the supplied diff. aprock (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of us, maybe me, is confusing the result of the AFD which was "keep" with the result of the deletion review, which was no consensus. Yfever (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have signposted your relative inexperience, and asked here and many times elsewhere "if I have missed something let me know", so why blow off attempts to answer you? The deletion process can be confusing. The latest decision was simply procedural--the decision was that lack of consensus and remaining concerns about the article should not be handled at WP:Deletion Review but should be taken back to WP:AFD if they remain unresolved. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, don't you understand, he's gaining that experience at a rapid rate! He's not a sock, he's just SUPER IN TOUCH with the difference between no-consensus and keep. Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite: What is your goal in participating in this discussion? My goal is to help to write a good article on this topic. If you have suggestions, please provide them. As to the difference between a "keep" and "no consensus," this is not a hard distinction to grasp. Wikipedia is not quantum mechanics. Yfever (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits are taking this article on a controversial and noteworthy topic in an excellent direction. The topic is defined and the issues delineated with many references. NPOV is maintained. I hope the article will not be expanded overmuch; more material is likely to lead to the battles that are so common in the R&I area. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion! Unless someone else disagrees wih Xxanthippe, I won't be adding much more material to the article at this stage. (Of course, if someone disagrees, they are free to edit as they see fit.) Yfever (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is it from me for now. I have tried to incorporate suggestions from everyone. The article now includes clear (I hope) criticism of Jensen (1969) but, following Xxanthippe's request, I have not expanded the article too much. I also tried to rewrite everything. I don't think that there is a single portion of the article that is copy/pasted from Wikipedia. (Thanks to several others for pointing this out.) Needless to say, others are free to add material as they see fit. I am just going to take a break. Yfever (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just two take away's from this:

You're done. Even while there's less content in this article than exists about the paper in other articles, "following Xxanthippe's request"

And a conviction that your minor word tweaks resolve the problems raised in earlier AFDs about copy/pasting and povforking.

My take.? Is all this just a game to you? Professor marginalia (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political/Historical background

The article lacks discussion of the historical background in to which the article was projected: the discussion of racial segregation and of the efficacy of remedial education for minorities. The article had a political agenda tht was clear to everyone at the time, which is frequently mentioned in critical analyses and which should be included if this article is to be kept.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the article had a political agenda that was clear to everyone at the time will have to be backed by authoritative reliable sources if it is not to be dismissed as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

neutrality tag

The article is currently tagged with a concern about neutrality. What sort of material should I add to allay this concern? Perhaps more from Loughlin et al, or from Tucker? Yfever (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the article, there is little discussion from critics, with only a single op-ed from 1969 being cited. Given that the article is notable for it's controversy, more discussion is warranted. The "too controversial to be productively discussed" claim appears to be particular to the editorial, and is not particular to the paper. aprock (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has the feel of a total stunt to me. The validly wikipedian rationale for this article 's notability is because it was probably the single most scandalous and vehemently battled over paper so far cited in the field of psychology. (This can be verified with a minimal effort of genuinely NPOV library research.) Reading the article currently here, we wouldn't walk away with this picture, would we? You're more likely to be told this reading about it elsewhere on the wiki, such as -oh- History of the race and intelligence controversy, which just by happenstance (I'm sure) was the chief article implicating this article as a POVfork during its initial deletion review, and was -oh- accidentally (I'm sure) completely overlooked before my edit here.

I abstained from article deletion discussions because I was (and still am, to be honest) ambivalent. I do think it's a notable topic. I also believed (and my belief has only been confirmed over the half year since) there wasn't a remote chance that there would be sufficient editor NPOV energy in supply for "double checking" to keep the article even half-way honest. While a certain naivete on my part may have resulted in my creating messes for others to clean up without my fully comprehending it elsewhere on the wiki, I've really tried to avoid creating a big mess for others to mop up where I see the headaches involved ahead and which I really can't (or won't) make the needed commitment to tackling myself.

But the article's here. Somebody needs to put some pants on and improve it. If I can find the time, I'll try. I just don't have much lately. Sorry. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is junk - delete it!

There are so many problems with this that it amazes me that it continues to exist. 1. It is claimed that the subject "article" (written in 1969) initiated the "current debate". How does a paper written 45 years ago qualify as current? This is nonsense! 2. It is absolutely RIDICULOUS to claim that race and intelligence correlations were not a significant area of study and controversy before 1969!!! No one who understands the basics of American (indeed European) Racial History would make such an assertion!!! 3. This article (speaking about the Wikipedia article) confuses IQ with intelligence. (It also presumes that IQ is a characteristic of an individual and group rather than a result of language. culture, environment, and subject matter decisions). Either IQ is an individual characteristic (leaving aside its stability or usefulness) or it is not. (I claim the research proves it is not, but that is off topic.) 4. Here are the first four references: A. Jensen 1969 ← what does this mean? Not a valid reference! B. Richard E. Nisbett(9 December 2007)."All Brains Are the Same Color" The New York Times ← Valid link to an OP-ED piece, NO Scientific value (although written by a academic psychologist) and FAILS to address what it is cited for - that the Jensen article is among the most controversial in American Psychology (what ever that is supposed to mean!) C. Tucker, p201 (also ref. 7 Tucker, p 204) links back to this same wiki-article!! Dead/vandalized link. D. Hunt and Carlson, 2007 links back to this also. Dead or vandalized link.

Given our current understanding of what IQ can measure, and what it can not, and how sensitive it is to context, (none of which is mentioned here), this article's inclusion in Wikipedia is unjustified. Plus it fail to provide reliable references. DELETE IT.72.172.1.20 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]