Talk:Race and intelligence

Please: place new messages at bottom of page.

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)

Also Vietnam and Japan dropped their logographic systems. In Vietnam it was done recently and the adoption is complete. In Japan the adoption is not complete and very long and gradual. There is a mixed logographic with syllabary system with continuously growing syllabary part usage. Also the Chinese themselves simplified their writing in mainland China. And the now trend is growing logographic illiteracy due to technology, so younger generation forget how to actually write the complicated characters by hand, since there are written from choose-and-pick input systems. I think these situations must have influence on intelligence. But is there any research on that ? pwjbbb (talk) 10:57, 8 March 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)

the only way to improve this article is to get rid of primary sources and reverse the undue weight given to fringe views.-- mustihussain (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are essentially no primary sources in the sense of citing IQ surveys or brain size studies or other variables directly. Both hereditarians and non-hereditarians review lots of other studies not done by themselves when they argue.Miradre (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I will summarize what has been claimed to be POV in the past and why this does not apply currently:

• Lead and history section does not go into as much detail as some may desire. -That is not a POV issue. Both are also summaries, the lead of this article, and the history section of the history article, so both are necessarily limited in size. Also note that the history section is not the place for presenting current arguments, that comes later in the article.
• There are more space for hereditarian publications than non-hereditarians in the history section. -Fixed.
• Eugenics not mentioned in the history section. -Fixed.
• That Jensen's 1969 reply was a response to the 1954 Supreme Court case on segration is not mentioned. -The subarticle does not claim that or has a source for that. If a source was presented it could be included. Wikipedia requires material based on reliable sources.
• Not all the causes of the hereditarian positon being abandoned between the wars were included in the history section. -Fixed, would have been easier if sources had been provided for claims, added now both to this article and the subarticle.
• The validity section does not mention the AAA statement on race. -Fixed.
• The validity section make claims about heritability and bias without opposing views. -Fixed, this material now in other sections with opposing views.
• Ethical section does not mention why some consider research unethical. -Fixed.
• No opposing views on g-loading and the b-w gap -Fixed, now there is a whole separate section on this.
• Critique of US and world IQ scores not mentioned. -Fixed, opposing views on this included
• Policy section does not mention non-hereditarian view. -Fixed.

I think that when concrete suggestions of what is not POV have been made, then the article has improved in response. If there are remaining concrete objections, then please state them. I will otherwise soon remove the tag.Miradre (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the tag as per above. User Mustihussain reinserted it. I would ask to please state the concrete reason for this as I argue that all concrete objections have been answered. I quote from Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "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." I will eventually remove the tag again if the concrete reasons for its existence are not explained.Miradre (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE -- mustihussain (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, what part? Explain clearly and exactly why as Wikipedia:NPOV dispute states should be done.Miradre (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag. The how-to page that Miradre linked to says: "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies […] Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." WP:TAGGING also says "Especially in the case of a tag such as {{npov}}, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed." Linking to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, with no explanation of what parts of the article are examples of this or why, is not specific or actionable. It seems to me that some editors just want this tag to stay on the article permanently, but that isn’t what tags are for. The NPOV tag is to point out a specific NPOV issue that's being actively debated on the talk page. If there isn't any specific NPOV issue under active debate, the tag should be removed.Boothello (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

By all means see the extensive discussion above about some of the NPOV issues. aprock (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

They has all been resolved as stated with no one giving any concrete remaining objection. What exactly are you still considering POV?Miradre (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The only one who's said that the issues have been resolved is you. Until the other editors who raised the concerns speak up, let's not make any assumptions. It appears that you're generally through with your editing of the article. If that's the case, I'll take a look at it sometime next week. aprock (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have asked for remaining concrete issues and no have one given any. Boothello also thinks the tag should be removed. Whether I will edit the article again does affect its current POV status and the tag is not there to indicate that someone may or may not review in the future.Miradre (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a misuse of the tag to add it just because you might find POV issues when you review the article next week. If you find POV issues when you review the article, you can add the tag then, as long as you're specific about what the problems are and what could be done to fix them.Boothello (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

@Miradre, the editors who raised the specific POV concerns above have not weighed in on whether your edits have adequately addressed those concerns. If you feel that your concerns need to be addressed ASAP, I suggest contacting the editors on their talk page.

@Boothello, I did not add the POV tag, I reverted it's removal as the discussion about POV is still open. aprock (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Majority

I cannot provide a citation that a majority of social scientists consider historical and political processes to be the cause of global inequality. And I shouldn't have to. Lynn and Vanhanen's view is so fringe that nobody in the field of global economics or development even take it into account. Books about global inequality and the north south divide do not mention lynn and vanhanen at all. We mention them here because they are related to the topic of the article, but we shouldn't try to fool the reader into thinking that this theory has any currency in the field of international development or political and economic history.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The same goes for the policy relevance section. It is uncontroversially the mainstream view that disparities in educational succes are to be adressed by social means. The hereditarian view has no currency in policymaking at all. I am sure you realize this.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. You will not find claims of what a "majority" thinks in academic publications unless there is a poll regarding this. Instead, words like mainstream is used. L and V's data have been used in numerous peer-reviewed articles by economists. Considering the overall long-term failure of programs attempting to reduce IQ differences in the US, except super-intensive and super-expensive programs, claims of what the majority researchers and policy-makers currently think should be done need to be well-sourced.Miradre (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Whites" and "Blacks" or "whites" and "blacks"

The APA report as well as the US census prefer the first alternative (see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census). In the literature it seems that hereditarians often prefer the first alternative while all-environmentalists often prefer the second alternative. Are there any WP guidelines? I do not feel strongly about either alternative but the article should be consistent.Miradre (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think both should be lowercase.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to not stick in capitals where they're not needed, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), (yes there's a whole big page about it!) Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

problems with the current version

Because I am of limited time, I will attempt to go through the article section by section. Many of the problems I'm listing are WP:POV issues, but some of them are not. I will go over the lede today, but I make no claim that I have found all the issues.

• the debate over r/i has been ongoing for hundreds of years
• the debate over r/i encompasses more than test scores
• the lede reads as if the competing viewpoints are the primary meat of the topic
• the hereditarian position is misstated
• researchers from minority viewpoint are presented more prominantly than the generally accepted viewpoint
• the main conclusion of the APA report is misrepresented

As time permits, I will go over more sections. I will be happy to discuss any of the issues above as long the discussion continues to be productive. aprock (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree especially with the fact that the historical context of the topic is still inadequately treated. Miradre inserted an oblique reference to "colonialism and genocide" and stated that that fixed the issue- it doesn't - what is required is contextualization. I also agree that minority viewpoints such as Lynn, Rushton and Jensen are giving much more weight than the prominence of their views in a greater context merits. The article also leaves out all of the social science research that has approached the topic of race disparities in education from other angles than IQ tests. It also leaves out most of the literature written from environmentalist viewpoints except Nisbett and Flynn. Scholars such as Marks, Fishman, Alland Jr., Sternberg, Jencks, Smedley, and several others are hardly included. The focus is much too narrowly on the particular topic that interests hereditarians - while the actual topic is much larger. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• APA is claimed to be misrepresented how. How?
• The debate is about more than test scores. The article is about more than test scores, is it anything specific you are missing?
• The hereditarian position is misstated. How?
• Viewpoints are missing. Which?
• There is little history. It may already be too much according to MOS considering we have a whole subarticle.
• Relevant research is claimed to be missing. Impossible to verify unless sources and arguments are given.
• Claims about what is the minority viewpoint is unsourced. According to the only poll of experts ever done so is the hereditarian viewpoint the majority one (The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book))

So to summarize, generally very unclear and often unsourced claims. Be specific and give sources for claims.Miradre (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested in looking at specific sources, I would suggest starting with the APA report to be sure that you are properly summarizing the main points of the report. The description in the lead reads nothing like the introduction or main conclusions of the report. If you would like to defend the content you've created with specific sources, you are welcome to. After I've gone through every section, I will invest some time into researching sources for the article. aprock (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what is wrong with the summary? Again, be specific. Saying that something is wrong without explaining why is unverifiable and not constructive. Regarding sources so is the article full of sources.Miradre (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please go back and reread the Preface, and section 6, "Summary and Conclusions". What you'll find there looks nothing what is presented in the lede here. aprock (talk)

Obviously we cannot copy word for word due to copyright. Apart from that, exactly are you arguing to be incorrect or pov? Miradre (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The summary of the APA report in the lede does not concord with the summary in the APA report. aprock (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have already stated that you think that the APA report is misrepresented. Claiming something is wrong without explaining how is not constructive. Please state how the report is misrepresented.Miradre (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll state at this moment in time that I have no real desire to spend unbounded energy trying to convince you of things which are obvious. If you read the preface and summary, it should be clear that there is a discord between the APA report and what is in the lede. The lede represents the conclusions of the report by incorrectly paraphrasing one of seven open questions presented in the conclusion. I'm not advocating for any specific change to the article at this point in time, I'm just noting problems as I read through sections. aprock (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is the paraphrasing wrong? If you have no concrete objections, then there is no reason for the tag.Miradre (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already listed the concrete objections. At this point I'm going to disengage. I have no desire to endlessly repeat things. If you don't find the objections concrete enough for your liking, it appears there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise. aprock (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The list has been answered to. Simply stating that something is wrong without explaining why is not constructive. Furthermore, if you have complaints about a specific sentence or section, then it is that which should be tagged and not the whole article.Miradre (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have dismissed all of the problems I raised. The one specific problem I brought up with respect to the APA summary was also dismissed. I'm afraid that your dismissal of both general and specific problems does not resolve the problems. When I have more time, I will go over the next section of the article. aprock (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

So how can the claimed problem with the summary of the APA be resolved? There is supposed to be "incorrectly paraphrasing" but what is incorrect has never been explained. That is not constructive.Miradre (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

How can it be resolved? By making the content conform to the source. If you would like to do that be my guest. As I said above, when I'm done review the article for problems, I will start going through sources. After I've done some review on sources I'll start making constructive edits to improve the article. But you are certainly not bound by my time constraints. If you wish to improve any problems which I discuss, you are free to do so. aprock (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "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) 17:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting the NPOV policy for me. I am working on doing what the policy suggests. I apologize if I don't have the time budget to do things as fast as you would like. But please be patient, and keep in mind that there is no WP:DEADLINE. aprock (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy does not state that you can add a tag and then wait for days before adding an explanation. Miradre (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was not the one who added the tag. aprock (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding back a tag is the same as adding back a removed sentence. That someone else once may added material to an article does not mean that any other person may restore that material without explaining why.Miradre (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your asking here. As noted above, I am raising the NPOV concerns. If you have some sort of policy problem with the way that I am raising concerns, it might be better at this point to bring your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are some explanation of where the article is POV and some concrete suggestions on how to improve the article: The entire article is constructed in a way that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint that is clearly in the minority. The proponents of that viepoint themselves acknowledge in all of their writings that they are in the minority - they even claim to be persecuted and denied access to publish because the majority opinion disfavours their view. The article makes it not only seem as if the issue of race and intelligence is mostly a question of answering the question of what causes the racial IQ gap, but it also very consistently privileges arguments for and against a hereditarian viewpoint, but does not explore at all the various mainstream explanations of the cause of the gap. Mainstream viewpoint is that the gap is caused by social and environmental factors. Jensen. Rushton and Lynn acknowledge that this is the mainstream viewpoint, they argue that the mainstream viewpoint is not supported by fact but is politically motivated. Even if this is the case it does not mean that it is not the majority viewpoint. The article should describe the topic with due weight to the majority viewpoint and it doesn't. The article can be improved by restructuring the article so that it describes the controversy not as a debate between equally weighted viewpoints but as a minority viewpoint that is arguing against a majority view. This includes including much better explanations of all of the studies that have documented correlations between social, cultural and economic factors and intelligence. It also includes providing a much better explanation of the reasoning behind the reluctance of a majority (the politically correct majority) to accept the arguments of the minority group - in order to explain this reasoning it is crucial to provide ample political and historical context - not simply a list of publications about the topic since 1960.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That some hereditarians claim to be persecuted by the larger society does not mean that professional scholars on IQ also disagree. As noted, the only poll on IQ experts found that the partial genetic explanation was the majority one. (The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book)) If there are arguments missing, please add them. An unsourced claim that something is missing is not evidence for that this is the case.Miradre (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The majority of professional scholars of IQ is not the majority perspective that should determine the weight of the article. It is the majority of scholars in all of the fields and of the general public. So yes the fact that the hereditarians claim to be persecuted does strongly suggest that they realize that their ideas are not shared by a majority of their colleagues or by the general public. The Rothman/Snyder study studies only a very small subsection of the professionals working with race and intelligence and it is not even claiming to be representing the general public. You cannot ask for specific criticism and then proceed to dismiss them like this. When several editors agree that there is a fundamental problem here - you simply need to take into account that there might be something about it, and try to see how the problem can be satisfactorily solved and consensus can be generated. Simply dismissing opposing views is not the right way to go about it.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have evidence for what most scholars in all fields think on the issue, or what the general public think, then please include that with sources. That some hereditarians claim to have been persecuted in some cases is not evidence for what the rest of the world think.Miradre (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The claim that the non-hereditarian view is the mainstream one while the hereditarian view is a minority one has been put forth numerous times in R&I discussions at Wikipedia, and I have several times asked for sources to back the claim up, never getting any replies. If you want to make that claim, you need reliable sources to support it. The mere fact that some editors think that some particular viewpoint is mainstream is irrelevant unless they can prove it with reliable sources.

My reading suggests that at least publicly, the mainstream scientific position in the R&I debate is that of agnosticism. For example, Earl B. Hunt writes in his new book that "Plausible cases can be made for both genetic and environmental contributions to [group] differences in intelligence. The evidence required to quantify the relative sizes of these contributions to group differences is lacking... Denials or overly precise statements on either the pro-genetic or pro-environmental side do not move the debate forward." (p. 436)

The fact that hereditarian scholars have been ostracised and mistreated in the academic community (and this is something even the anti-hereditarian camp admits -- see Williams & Ceci in Nature's 2009 race & intelligence debate) does not mean that the anti-hereditarian view is the mainstream one. It's naive and idealistic to think that scientists get ostracised by their colleagues only for purely scientific reasons, particularly when said scientists are publishing research findings that powerful political interest groups both within and outside of the academy find highly inconvenient.

Note also that despite the attacks against them, leading hereditarian researchers all have impressive publishing records in peer-reviewed journals. This suggests that most journal reviewers and editors are not opposed to their research program. The Snyderman & Rothman survey (which certainly did NOT survey "only a very small subsection of the professionals working with race and intelligence", but rather was large and representative -- it's not like there are thousands of people who are experts in the topic) showed that the extreme environmentalist view had relatively few supporters among experts. The fact that the small group of anti-hereditarian IQ scholars has sometimes managed to portray their views as mainstream in the media indicates that they are determined, hardworking, well-connected, and unscrupulous, but it does NOT mean that their views are widely supported among IQ experts. They have of course been aided in their quest by the fact that most hereditarian scholars have been missing in action in the public debate, preferring to keep their politically incorrect views private -- note that even someone like Eysenck was surprised by the results of the Snyderman & Rothman survey. Maunus, where have Jensen, Rushton, and Lynn said that anti-hereditarianism is mainstream in IQ research?--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Snyderman/Rothman study covers only psychologists a small subsection of those who work with the topics of race and intelligence - namely the subsection that has some level of expertise in intelligence, but little expertise in the topic of race, genetics, cultural and social influences on educational outcome. The hereditarian viewpoint is not a fringe viewpoint that is probably true but it is not the one that guides educational policies, it is not a viewpoint that anyone interested in winning a seat in government would be caught holding. This quite obviously suggests that the viewpoint is not held bya majority of the general public. My main point in the above is not to say that the article should weigh the hereditarian side as a fringe viewpoint it is to protest over the fact that it only describes the environementalist, mainstream viewpoint as it responds to hereditarian arguments, but does not at all try to convey the arguments that are particular for the enviromentalist side. Having read the article one would have no way of knowing that the environmentalist side has arguments that it has not produced simply as answers to hereditarians. It does not show the vast amount of research that shows that biases in the educational system severly hampers educational outcomes for socially marginalized groups all over the world, or the degree to which even "culturally unbiased" IQ tests rely on and are influenced by literacy levels. (you may have hereditarian counterpoints to thgese arguments but that is irrelevant the point is that they are not being presented in accordance with their prominence in the social sciences or in the general public - but actually are not considered at all). The article is written totally on the premise of the hereditarian viewpoint. Whether or not that viewpoint is a small or a large minority, that is wrong and not NPOV.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that in for example Japan is would be political suicide to not consider public opinion on race and intelligence when considering for example immigration issues. What the public and politicians may or may not think likely varies worldwide. Regardless, unless someone has sources, this is not verifiable and reliable for WP purposes. If there are scholarly arguments missing, then please add that to the article with sources. However, an unproven claim that there is something missing is not a good reason for a NPOV tag. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, not unproven claims.Miradre (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but no one has put you in charge of determining what is a good reason for an NPOV tag and what isn't.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am following policy. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. Not unverifiable claims. If there are arguments missing, then you should state what with sources. Why did you remove Diamond's famous book which he explicitly wrote in order to disprove claims that innate racial abilities were behind differences in achievement between different parts of the world? Miradre (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you wrote "remove diamond - he is not talking about intelligence and race but of "civilization" achievements". That is incorrect, he talks about the research on IQ and races on page 20 for example.Miradre (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much respect for the way that you apply policy, you apply the letter a lot but not the spirit. I removed diamond's book because the short section didn't put the books argument into the context of race and intelligence, but instead discussed how geography has influenced historical processes. I do't disagree that it might be an idea to include it, but not in a section that is professing to give environmentalist explanations of the racial iq gap. If Diamond does discuss research in race and intelligence then the section should describe that not why the chinese build a great wall and the zulu only small walls. If you want to include it again I won't remove it again.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I added it back to a more relevant section. Regarding policy, it is there for a reason. Many people have opinions that they may feel strongly about and think are right but have little objective support. Which is why good sources for claims are required in WP. That is also why why editing Wikipedia may be helpful. I have several times realized that my opinions were not based on facts and have then changed them in accordance with what the evidence shows.Miradre (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that most of the discussion above is rather like the Global warming one where a lot of the public and politicians and newspapers say what a load of rubbish it is and yet the scientists overwhelmingly say it is true? I guess the questions here are a lot less clearcut but it is pretty clear in WP:WEIGHT that scientific papers should in general be given higher weight, but that public controversies should also be properly discussed. The global warming one sidesteps the problem slightly by having a separate Global warming controversy article. In a single article like this both the science weight and the public policy weight would need to be discussed and I think probably they need to be separated to some extent rather than trying to achieve a combined weight. Dmcq (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really recognize your summary of the global warming issue - and also there isn't a similarity. This is a small clique of scientists espousing a certain hypothesis whith and also small (but still larger) group of other scientists arguing against them, and most scientists ignoring the issue completely for various reasons, one of them being that it is a "politically incorrect topic" and another probably being that many of them don't think the hereditarian position is sufficiently wellsupported to even merit a response. The weight problem here is that the topic is described from the premise of the minority viewpoint (I am not saying fringe because it is obviously a bigger minority than that). To give you a feeling of the weighting you should understand that there are two core fields involved - psychology has expertise on intelligence anthropology on race. The people who argue the hereditarian explanation are psychologists, within psychology only a small group of people do IQ testing, among IQ testers only a small group do racial differences. One study suggests that there is a slight majority of psychologists that secretly believe the hereditarian position to be true, but are afriad to say so. American Psychological Association has published a statement 15 years ago saying that there is not enough evidence to decide. On the other hand within anthropology the anthropological association is very vocal in denouncing the validity of the concept of race, and are very vocal that social inequality is caused by political and historical processes not by inherent differences, and that the IQ gap is a social phenomenon not a biological one - form an anthropological standpoint it doesn't even make sense to investigate it as a possibly biological phenomenon. This is an entire branch that is rejecting the hereditarian view as baseless. Meanwhile we don't see any policy makers making IQ based policies to mend social inequality, and race based policies are quickly going out of fashion. This clearly suggests that other fields also do not subscribe to the hereditarian view (although admittedly they probably have little expertise on the issue).·Maunus·ƛ· 12:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What anthropologists think about the validity of the term race is not relevant, per se, because they are often talking about a specific understanding of the term (e.g. race qua subsspecies). More germane to the issue would be what anthropologists think about the possibility of socially significant genetically mediated differences between socially defined ethnoracial groups. In this regards, we can juxtapose the no genetic difference view of some anthropologists (and sociologists) with the contrary view now dominant in the medical sciences. The view that there are socially significant genetically mediated differences between ethnoracial groups is in no way a minority view. The question then is what is the status of the view that there are socially significant behavior differences. The fields of investigation are sociology, anthropology, psychology, and related fields such as cultural neuroscience. You seem to maintain that the no-differences view is the dominant one across these fields. I can't speak for

sociology and anthropology, but in psychology there is neither consensus nor mainstream opinion one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The only poll done of IQ experts, which showed that the hereditarian position was the dominant view, is rather old so what researchers in this area think currently is unclear. The debate is not helped by the fact that a Nobel prize winner and discoverer of DNA was essentially fired and forced to make a public apology for stating that one explanation for poverty in Africa is a low average intelligence (not even stating that this was related to genetic causes). Regarding anthropology so is the rejection of the existence of race a US position, in other nations race is accepted as valid in anthropology. Even in the US fields such as anatomy accept that races exist. Regarding the public and politicians, in for example East Asian nations views that races differ are widespread and affect public policy such as immigration policy.Miradre (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

problems with History of the debate section

This section clearly has significant pov problems. The biggest problem is that section is not a proper summary of the main article, and does not follow WP:SUMMARY style. This has lead to an agrandizement of the hereditarian viewpoint, and a minimization of the mainstream viewpoint.

• The dominant viewpoint is smeared by association with political correctness in the second paragraph: "environmental and cultural factors played a dominant role in part due to ... reluctance of psychologists to risk being associated with the Nazi claims".
• Nearly the entire section focuses on showcasing the viewpoints of hereditarian researchers, using descriptions of their research and conclusions like: "poor educational performance was not primarily the result of lacking education, but reflected an underlying genetic cause", "the main causes for poverty in Africa is a low average intelligence".
• Much of the historical criticism is described in opaque phrases like: "sparked controversy", "some critical", "his critque", "controversial interview".
• The presentation of the APA report in that section emphasizes the hereditarian viewpoint that both genetic and environmental causes are equally plausible.
• The role of the Pioneer Fund and it's historic status as a leader in scientific racism is minimized.

Probably the best way to handle this section is to reduce it's size using proper WP:SUMMARY style. As time permits, I will review more sections. aprock (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know what the dominant position is? According to the only poll of IQ experts ever done, the hereditarian position is the dominant one: The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book). Both hereditarians and all-environmentalists are mentioned about equally. How does this favor the hereditarian position: "The Bell Curve also led to a 1995 report from the American Psychological Association, "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns", acknowledging a gap between average IQ scores of whites and blacks as well as the absence of any adequate explanation of it, either environmental or genetic?" The Pioneer Fund is mentioned with views from both sides.Miradre (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the poll the viewpoint is dominant in psychology. clearly and demonstratedly isn't in Anthropology, and the 1950 UNESCO statement on race pretty much establishes it as outside of the mainstream of political sciences, where it has been since then. Here is the 1978 update[1] (notice article 1.4) HEre is the revision to the statement by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists of 1996 [2] (notice article 11)·Maunus·ƛ· 18:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It is only US anthropology which rejects race. In other nations it is seen as valid in anthropology. As it is even in the US in for example anatomy.Miradre (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you present sources for the notion that other anthropological traditions disagree with the UNESCO statement? And as for "anatomy" that is physical anthropology and the American Association of Physical Anthropology clearly rejects the notion of racial differencs in mental faculties. Wikipedia is works by citing sources you know, please present sources that show that other Anthropological and anatomical associations disagree with UNESCO. Or indeed any reliable and authoritative source that would suggest that the UNESCO statement of 1978 does not still represent the mainstream view. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Science is not determined by political decisions.

• "In Poland the race concept was rejected by only 25 percent of anthropologists in 2001, although: "Unlike the U.S. anthropologists, Polish anthropologists tend to regard race as a term without taxonomic value, often as a substitute for population.""

• "Liberman et al. in a 2004 study claimed to "present the currently available information on the status of the concept in the United States, the Spanish language areas, Poland, Europe, Russia, and China. Rejection of race ranges from high to low with the highest rejection occurring among anthropologists in the United States (and Canada). Rejection of race is moderate in Europe, sizeable in Poland and Cuba, and lowest in Russia and China." Methods used in the studies reported included questionnaires and content analysis."

• "Kaszycka et al. (2009) in 2002-2003 surveyed European anthropologists' opinions toward the biological race concept. Three factors, country of academic education, discipline, and age, were found to be significant in differentiating the replies. Those educated in Western Europe, physical anthropologists, and middle-aged persons rejected race more frequently than those educated in Eastern Europe, people in other branches of science, and those from both younger and older generations."The survey shows that the views of anthropologists on race are sociopolitically (ideologically) influenced and highly dependent on education.""

• "A 2010 examination of 18 widely used English anatomy textbooks found that every one relied on the race concept. The study gives examples of how the textbooks claim that anatomical features vary between races."

I am aware of that study - but this does not mean that eastern european anthropological associations do not accept the UNESCO statement, nor that the UNESCO statement is not the closest thing to a mainstream that we have. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

@Miradre, I believe you are confusing "race" with "race and intelligence" here. Please refer to point 11 on the UNESCO statement that Maunus linked to. aprock (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A political decree does not decide truth in science. Does not matter if it is UNESCO or Stalin.Miradre (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't a question about WP:TRUTH in science. You asked about the dominant view. Regardless, the main problem is that the section does not properly summarize the main article. aprock (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - this is not about truth it is about which view is and has been the mainstream view since 1950.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to read the view of UNESCO decades ago, read that statement. If you want to read the view of the experts on this subject, read this The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book). Why is it not summarized properly? A dispute about how to summarize is not necessarily a NPOV dispute.Miradre (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The AAPA are experts in race. The group surveyed by Snyderman/Rothman are experts in IQ.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The UNESCO statement is more recent than the Snyderman/Rothman survey. For details on the problems with the summary, please see the initial edit in this section. aprock (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The UNESCO decree is from 1950, updated 1978. The Snyderman/Rothman survey is from 1988. I have answered the initial edit.Miradre (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the 1996 AAPA statement. If you want people to take you seriously, it would probably help if you avoided labeling sources that you don't agree with as decrees. I'm not sure what else to say at this point. If you'd like to continue discussing the issues in a constructive manner, I'd be happy to. Until then, I shall once again disengage. When I've got more time I will go over the next section. aprock (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The studies showing what anthropologists think outside the US are more recent than 1996. The AAA does not decree what all the world's anthropologists think. I have replied to your points. Now I wait for you to reply to me. it is your turn. If not, I will remove the tags.Miradre (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you remove the tag after having been represented with such substantial rationales for their continued incluson I will be filing an ArbCom Enforcement request, because that would be plainly disruptive.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)