Talk:Race and intelligence

Replacing systematically disadvantaged with supposedly disadvantaged

I propose changing the wording in the paragraph on "cast-like minorities" from "systematically disadvantaged" to supposedly disadvantaged. The reason is that "systematically disadvantaged" violates two of the three non-negotiable pillars of Wikipedia articles:

1) It is not neutral, it is clearly a political point of view to claim that a minority is systematically disadvantaged. It clearly implies that a majority is advantaged and that this majority is suppressing the minority (because the word systematic is used) in order to keep advantages. This is highly contentious and highly partisan, it cannot possibly be called neutral.

2) It is not verifiable. Affirmative action in the United States, as an example, gives clear advantages to some of the minorities which this article claims are disadvantaged. That is a fact. What is not a fact is that any minority in the US is systematically disadvantaged, or disadvantaged at all. This cannot be a fact because no law exists in the United States that systematically disadvantages certain minorities. The only exception would be affirmative action laws that give an advantage to such minorities. No law in the US currently exists that disadvantages any minority. No law in 1996 (source 51) existed that disadvantaged any minority. Systematic disadvantage requires institutionalization, i.e. laws, actual policies; casual racism or preference (which of course may come from either of many parties) would not be sufficient for "systematic disadvantage" and may not even be sufficient for "disadvantage". If a business for example decides not to serve people of a certain group, then it may in fact be the business which is disadvantaged, not the group that can easily take its business elsewhere. It should also be noted that it is not required for the an advantaged or disadvantaged group to be either minority or majority. In some middle Eastern countries for example majorities may be at a disadvantage due to official policies pursued by a minority in power.

The wording "supposedly disadvantaged" would hence be more fitting. It acknowledges that the possibility of disadvantage exists, but it does not claim that it does. This should satisfy the neutrality and verifiability pillars required of a Wikipedia article.

Furthermore the article also claims that other minorities are less disadvantaged. Also not neutral and not verifiable.

Current version:

A large number of studies have shown that systemically disadvantaged minorities, such as the African American minority of the United States generally perform worse in the educational system and in intelligence tests than the majority groups or less disadvantaged minorities such as immigrant or "voluntary" minorities.[51] The explanation of these findings may be that children of caste-like minorities, due to the systemic limitations of their prospects of social advancement, do not have "effort optimism", i.e. they do not have the confidence that acquiring the skills valued by majority society, such as those skills measured by IQ tests, is worthwhile. They may even deliberately reject certain behaviors seen as "acting white".[51][101][102][103]

Proposed version

A large number of studies have shown that supposedly disadvantaged minorities, such as the African American minority of the United States generally perform worse in the educational system and in intelligence tests than the majority groups or supposedly less disadvantaged minorities such as immigrant or "voluntary" minorities.[51] The explanation of these findings may be that children of caste-like minorities, due to the supposed limitations of their prospects of social advancement, do not have "effort optimism", i.e. they do not have the confidence that acquiring the skills valued by majority society, such as those skills measured by IQ tests, is worthwhile. They may even deliberately reject certain behaviors seen as "acting white".[51][101][102][103]

Eracekat (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that other editors here have pointed out that you haven't even read the word that you object to correctly, I wonder if we could also examine whether or not there are any reliable sources for editing Wikipedia that support the proposed rewording of the article text. There is a lot to update and revise in this article, but I think the way to go to do that is to ensure first of all that we are using the best available sources, and then to read those sources closely so that Wikipedia article text is in accord with what those best reliable secondary sources actually say. That kind of procedure would best uphold the Wikipedia policies you mention in your comment. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

At issue is this edit with the change: "A large number of studies have shown that systemicallysupposedly disadvantaged minorities" (with two other "supposedly"). While the above comments are stirring, our opinions on "systemically" vs. "supposedly" are not relevant—the only consideration is whether "systemically" is supported by the provided references. It would also help to read the refs to see what wording they felt was justified. Another issue is that the word "supposedly" is a standard editorial comment to suggest that a claim is false. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely - when I read "supposedly disadvantaged" or "supposed limitations of their prospects of social advancement" I have to wonder if it is code for "not really" - I've certainly seen it clearly meaning that off-Wiki. I am not saying that this is Eracekat's intention, I am saying that that is the way many will interpret it when they read it. This wording would bring the article in line with those who say it is really 'whites' who are disadvantaged and that African-Americans are not disadvantaged - a position which is of course nonsense. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be pointed out that the word the OP wants to replace is "systemically", not "systematically" as is written in the opening post above. They are quite different words. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The only question here is whether the article abides by Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and verifiability. By claiming that African Americans are systemically (or systematically) disadvantaged, the article in effect claims institutionalized racism in the US because the word systemically clearly implies that disadvantage is somehow embedded in the system of the country. The segment also very strongly implies that it is white people who are responsible for this. This is neither neutral nor is it verifiable, I just cannot see how it could be either. The article also makes broad claims as to the relative disadvantage of some groups (e.g. what they article calls voluntary immigrants) vs other groups. Neither neutral, probably unverifiable. Even if the source claims that there is systemic discrimination against certain groups in the US, this is still not a reason to parrot this on Wikipedia, the author of the study may be politically biased or may have simply done poor analysis. Systemic disadvantage is actually easy to show, e.g. Apartheit SA had explicit policies and laws that disadvantaged the black population in that country (it does not have these anymore). Malaysia has explicit policies disadvantaging their Indian and Chinese populations. Nazi Germany had a policy to exterminate the European Jews. The US had explicit laws against the Chinese and Japanese at some time. Mentioned can be verified very easily. However, the US since many decades simply does not have any laws, regulations or policies that are of disadvantage to African Americans or other groups. It does however have explicit policies actually giving an advantage to this group, e.g. preference for African Americans in education and in government contracts: neutral (it is simply the truth) and verifiable. The claim that it is the opposite way round is not, stating that it is would be based on opinion and possible bias, both have no place on Wikipedia. Systemically disadvantaged should be removed and replaced with supposedly, because it is the hypothesis that supposed disadvantage causes lower IQ, it cannot be verified in the absence of systemic disadvantage. It is also not neutral because it claims without evidence that the majority group (whites) somehow systemically suppress the African American minority. A better solution still may be to cancel the segment involving the US and instead leave the following two paragraphs which are much more balanced, clearly stating that the authors argue or the authors note... May still be opinionated and hard to verify but at least it states clearly that it is an opinion. The first paragraph states things as if they are fact, which they are not! Plain and simple. It should be rewritten as suggested, or it should go.Eracekat (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• There is nothing "political" in pointing out the well documented systemic disadvantage that most minorities face. Wikipedia reflects the sources and there are no reliable sources that refer to "supposed disadvantages". The suggestion is a non-starter.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• It is irrelevant whether it is political or not, what is relevant is whether it is based in fact. It is not, repeating that certain minorities face systemic disadvantage does not make it true, neither does claiming that it is well documented, which it is not. Either the evidence is shown or the paragraph should be changed or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eracekat (talk • contribs) 21:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

A fact in a wikipedia context is what reliable sources describe as a fact. The systemic disadvantage of African Americans and other minorities in American socity is one of the best documented facts of sociology. Putting that in doubt amounts to the same kind of science denialism as climate change denial.HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Systematic disadvantage isn't nearly as quantifiable a fact, if it is one at all, as rising global temperatures. Moreover, even if it was, it wouldn't be an objective, uncontestable fact that this is the only cause, the main cause, a major cause, or even a significant cause at all of lower IQ scores among blacks. Tezero (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• With respect to WeijiBaikeBianji's comment: I am not sure if I even have to cite any sources. If a paragraph on wikipedia makes an unsubstantiated and unverified claim, why does there have to be evidence to the contrary to have it changed or removed?Eracekat (talk)

21:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have doubts about citing sources, what are you doing bringing up Wikipedia policies? What should be said with the voice of the encyclopedia in article text is that which is well supported by reliable secondary sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that you are not sufficienytly aware of the literature to make an evaluation fo what is and isnt substantiated.HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Eracekat - you still seem to think you can freely interchange the words "systemic" and "systematic". Have you actually looked up the meanings to see the difference? Arguing firmly against one does not make a case against the other at all. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My mistake in properly distinguishing systemic from systematic is irrelevant and may be used here in order to distract from the issue. It is irrelevant because there is neither verifiable systemic not verifiable systematic disadvantage of minorities in the US. Verifiable fact is: 1) no law or policy is being pursued in the US that disadvantages minorities. 2) Policies exist that give disadvantages to certain preferred minorities in the areas of education, government contracts, government hiring, such policies are generally referred to as affirmative action. They lead, for example, to acceptance rates as high as 85% for African American applicants to some colleges, when equally qualified Asian Americans or European Americans are accepted at rates as low as 35% or so. As such, the facts of the matter diametrically oppose what is claimed in the paragraph under discussion. There was no need for me to prove this, the burden of proof is with those that want to include such content. The burden of proof is with them because Wikipedia has clear, non-negotiable pillars, one of which being verifiability. I anyone finds anything on Wikipedia that is not verified, he or she does not need to prove the opposite of what is claimed in order to have it removed or changed, simply pointing out that is it not verified is sufficient. He or she also does not have to fulfill arbitrary criteria on reading ability or grasp of the English language. Simply pointing out unverified claims is sufficient. Since I have now gone far further than required, and proven that the opposite of what is claimed in the paragraph is in fact the truth, there should be no more doubt that this paragraph needs to be changed as I suggested, or removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eracekat (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that systemic bias may not involve government policy, and given that Wikipedia does not base articles on original research anyway, none of what you have written above is of any significance to the content of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles have to be neutral and verifiable. If you claim that systemic bias exists without government policy, then show the evidence for it, or take the paragraph down (or at least stop interfering when I change it). I have shown that government policy exists that is diametrically opposed to what the paragraph claims, affirmative action disadvantages European and Asian Americans, while the paragraph claims the exact opposite. This is not my original research, as you seem to claim, these are verifiable facts. The paragraph is wrong, based on non-facts and it is grossly and disgustingly racist against European Americans and other non African American minorities which are claimed to be less disadvantaged, i.e. advantaged. Proof should be given for the claim made, or it should be changed according to my suggestion or taken down. This kind of racist propaganda has no place on Wikipedia. How can it be taken down?Eracekat (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources. They are not based on the opinions of contributors, regardless of how much clueless drivel they post on talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your disgusting and disrespectful language arrogantly assuming your own superiority over others shows me that you are out of arguments and that the point I am making is valid. Paragraph needs to be changed or taken down.Eracekat (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji, it seems you are missing the point. If a paragraph makes the wide ranging claim that there is systemic disadvantage for some groups, without citing proper evidence for it, then when I ask for it to be taken down, I don't have to show my evidence, it is sufficient to note that the claim is not verifiable. Otherwise anybody could put anything on wikipedia without proof, and in order for it to be taken down or changed, others would have to cite sources, while the original authors do not. That's not how it works! Furthermore, despite not being required to do so, as just explained, I have done so, by citing well verifiable affirmative action policies that are aimed at getting African Americans into college and into jobs over better qualified Asian and European candidates. I am not suggesting to change the article into "advantaged minorities have lower IQ", I simply want the claim removed that African Americans are systemically disadvantaged. It is not true, and it is not verified, and the paragraph should hence be changed or removed.Eracekat (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

A reminder what Wikipedia articles are based on: Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. So even if there is apparent consensus that this paragraph portraying European and Asian Americans as perpetrators of injustice against African Americans should remain, Wikipedia policies are clear that it should not, unless it can be verified. Since the paragraph is not verified, it needs to be changed, or it needs to be taken down.Eracekat (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hilo48, your comment indicates bias and your willingness to use it when editing wikipedia articles. Both the supposed disadvantage of African Americans and climate changed are heavily pushed by the left. This kind of political bias may be OK on MSNBC but not on Wikipedia. I have shown irrefutable hard evidence of official government policy disadvantaging European and Asian Americans (affirmative action). Claiming the exact opposite is racist, it is false, it is politically biased, it is non-verifiable, it is not neutral. It needs to be taken down, regardless of how many people on this board object to it, Wikipedia policies are clear.Eracekat (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by the idea that pointing out a mistake in reading a word proves that I am actively biased. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the slightest bit interested in your 'irrefutable evidence'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Finally a definitive source. Reading all the pesky guidelines was getting to be boring. It's now clear, at least to me, that AndyTheGrump is the "go to" man for ascertaining whether Wikipedia is or isn't "interested". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.2.34 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you conscious or do you vegetate in a pickle jar? Affirmative action is well documented and well written about on Wikipedia itself, and since when do you speak for the whole website, your arrogance is only topped by your incredible arrogance.Eracekat (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Please proofread your insults before posting. Also, please bear in mind that no amount of righteous indignation overrules reliable sources that provide due information. Further comments should be restricted to actionable proposals based on sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Jonnuniq, thank you so much for reminding me of how to insult people, while at the same time doing nothing against the people who started the insulting, read above. No argument has yet been made against my point, yet it has simply been about personal attacks with clear political bias being displayed. Below Andy the Grump claims to be the moral authority on common sense. Can you reign him/her in or will you go only after me?Eracekat (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The existence of affirmative action does not preclude the existence of systemic disadvantage, as anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to figure out. As for sources on such systemic disadvantage, I suggest you start by reading the source cited for the relevant passage: "African Americans are subject to outcome bias not only with respect to [IQ] tests but along many dimensions of American life. They have the short end of nearly every stick: average income, representation in high-level occupations, health and health care, death rate, confrontations with the legal system, and so on. With this situation in mind, some critics regard the score differential as just another example of a pervasive outcome bias that characterizes our society as a whole." [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't complicated and doesn't need an editor analysis of laws and interpersonal interactions. Simply, some sources say minorities face systemic oppression, others say they have genetic behavior differences. So we have to write supposed systemic oppression, just as we would have to write supposed genetic behavior differences. Could we write "groups with genetic behavior differences" in Wikipedia's voice? Of course not. BeauPhenomene (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The article says 'disadvantage', not 'oppression' - not that it matters, since you are citing no sources whatsoever which contradict the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You must be aware of sources which state group differences are due to genetic differences. Please don't play games. BeauPhenomene (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

BeauPenomene is correct, we Have to write "supposed" because it is a matter of contention. Evidence against the systemic disadvantage hypothesis: 1) The whole point of the article we currently discuss, studies claiming genetic differences. 2) Affirmative action which gives an advantage, not a disadvantage to African Americans 3) Thomas Sowell is a scholar who regularly refutes various inequality and disadvantage claims (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQq5gKYUoPc ). We cannot let something stand as fact that is clearly in contention. "Supposed disadvantage" is an appropriate phrase, "systemic disadvantage" is not. It would make a mockery of Wikipedia's pillars of neutrality and verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eracekat (talk • contribs) 05:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I notice AndyTheGrump has reverted my edited based on the argument that no sources claim a genetic behavior difference. Does AndyTheGrump really think this or is AndyTheGrump POV pushing and playing silly dishonest games? BeauPhenomene (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Going through the archives it is absolutely obvious that editors reverting me are aware of the relevant sources and are lying. Where can I report this? BeauPhenomene (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, what is 'absolutely obvious' is that you have cited no sources whatsoever which contradict the sourced statement regarding the existence of systemic disadvantage. Still, if you wish to be blocked for violation of Wikipedia policy, feel free to bring the matter up at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG first... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The same happened to me, changes were immediately reverted, I was asked to make a suggestion on the talk page. On the talk page I was viciously attacked for suggesting the change, at times by the same editor who reverted my change. I am not sure if it is possible to report the issue, I may attempt a change later on, but it will likely be reverted by what to me seem like a small group of editors who have a political agenda. I object to the grump threatening BeauPhenome with a ban, this is disgusting thuggery of the worst kind, clearly aimed at muzzling people of different opinions. People who may on the issue agree with the grump should nevertheless speak out against this behavior as this kind of threatening behavior has no place in a free society. I am very disappointed at how some people on this talk page behave, as if they have a moral authority that enables them to simply ignore stated and verifiable facts and with at times thuggish behavior try to beat down opposing view points, which are verifiable, unlike their own. The point is that a change does not require evidence because the original point made, there is systemic disadvantage, is not proven either. You would need to show that a law exists that systemically disadvantages people, which the sources do not. Wikipedia does not have to parrot the political opinions of some individuals in academia. It should state facts, and if it states an opinion, it should clearly state so, instead of misleadingly claim fact where there is only opinion.Eracekat (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So now we are being told that pointing out that an editor has misread a word is a vicious attack. ROTFLMAO! HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The article says nothing whatsoever about systemic disadvantage being the result of law. And you have still to produce a single source which suggests that systemic disadvantage does not exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.2.34 (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump knows the sources exist. Why is he wasting everybody's time? BeauPhenomene (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And is this (argument from ignorance) not the basis for why Wikipedia requires as one of the pillars for an admissible article that it is verifiable? If people could just write down things without evidence, requiring others to disprove it, then it would be hard to keep to the truth because the burden would always be with the person attempting a correction, not the author. Systemic disadvantage would seem to imply that all members of a minority are at a disadvantage and that this disadvantage somehow originates in the system, in society. To be frank, I cannot even see how mere disadvantage (rather than systemic disadvantage) could be proven. 1) We have already established, I think, that now laws or policies exists in US society which discriminate against any minority. 2) We have established that policies exist that actually give an advantage to some minorities (affirmative action). 3) I have given one example of a scholar (Thomas Sowell) whose analysis indicates that similarly educated and experienced African Americans make the same or more income than European Americans, which would seem to be contrary to claimed disadvantage. This is all very strong evidence to the contrary of what the paragraph under discussion claims and because of this it should be changed to reflect this. Leaving it as it is may be unfair to other groups who may implicitly or explicitly be painted as benefiting from the supposed disadvantage of others. I must admit however that I have gotten apprehensive of even trying another change because I would like to continue contributing to Wikipedia, rather than getting banned. How should I proceed? Should I change the article citing sources to the contrary of what is claimed in the paragraph and word it so that the contention of the issue becomes clearer? Should I just remove it?Eracekat (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:No original research (and note that the section in question is referring to a more general case, of which African Americans are but a part). AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of those watching this page, BeauPhenomene has now started a thread at WP:ANI. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And to settle the sock question I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eracekat - it is possible there is no socking here and thus I think this needs to be determined. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Here is some hard data about the supposedly alleged disadvantage of non-white racial groups in the US. Written by the President of the American Sociological Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs)

But that's just another overqualified lefty academic who makes his point with, like, data! The horror! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

:::Yes, 'academics' like Boas, Lewontin, Gould, Mead, Marks, Goodman, Rose, Kamin, Lysenko etc. etc. have been making their 'points' with 'data' for a long time. The point here is not that some academics think discrimination is a major factor, the point is that some don't, so we can't state it as a fact. Why are you lying? 121.67.223.160 (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not the case. There are also "some academics" who argue that anthropogenic climate change is not a fact, but since their view is contradicted by easily observable facts most scientists disagree with that view. In such cases we do state the majority mainstream view as fact, and if the opposing fringe view is sufficiently notable then we mention that it exists, but is considered counterfactual by most experts. Nice touch with adding Lysenko at the end that shows very well where you are coming from. Please give my best to the happy guys over at Metapedia. Btw. Most of people on the right wing of the debate also are aware of the systemic disadvantage - they just claim that it is caused by genetic differences. That is pretty much what the entire IQ debate is about. Please show us some reliable sources that state that African Americans in the US are not disadvantaged as a group or stop wasting our time.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC

Semi-protected, so the next socks will be accounts, not IPs. I'll think about other solutions, maybe a talk page for IPs. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Eracekat's reasoning. The article states elsewhere there is no systematic bias against black Americans. We don't have race discrimination in hiring, nor are there race segregated schools anymore. Affirmative action makes it easier for blacks to get jobs and into college, so it is a systematic advantage. There are cultural problems with black on black bullying for anyone showing intelligence or otherwise "acting white". Wealthy and middle class people of any race do far better than poor people of any race, even when going to the same schools. That has been well documented. Poor people have more children, so more noise in the house, and harder to study, plus worse nutrition, and more stress. Are the books being used as references really reliable sources? Could we not find just as many books that say otherwise? Unless its a government issued statement based on proper scientific study, I see no reason to mention any claims of existing systematic bias against black Americans. Dream Focus 00:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No where does the article say that there is no systematic bias against Black Americans. It says that intelligence tests are not systematically biased against African Americans which is something entirely different. The rest of your musings are irrelevant.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• One of the references doesn't work. [3] I looked around that site and Googled about and I'm not finding it. Dream Focus 00:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

[4]User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Still POV?

I have been working to introduce newer and more reliable references into the article and weigt the coverage of different subtopics according to those sources. It would be valuable with some input from others. Particularly the question of whether POV problems persist and where.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is on my watchlist, and I think you are doing good work. Whenever you think the article has been fixed enough to warrant removing a tag, I certainly will not oppose your judgment on that issue. On this article, I'm mostly in watchlist mode, as I roll up my sleeves to clean up some of the articles more on the IQ side of this article's topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the recent edits are a lot of good work, and big contribution to the encyclopedia project. It will be a lot easier to check the references as the sourcing continues to improve too. Thanks. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we need a separate article about variation in brain sizes between human races? Or maybe just atleast show a picture of the variations in brain sizes.. http://radishmag.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/world-map-of-brain-volume.gifMicroMacroMania (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

For editing any article on Wikipedia, by Wikipedia content guidelines, we need a reliable source, and most of what people surf by as they follow links from blogs will not be a reliable source, alas. A steadily expanding list of reliable sources on this topic can be found in Wikipedia user space, and the actual sources are readily available in larger public libraries or any good academic library. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dude.. I am totally aware where the map is from it is smith and beals in brain size. A better version is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Race_brain_size_cranial_capacity.png

Anyway you did not answer my question. Should we have a seperate article about brain sizes? I am not making one without permission to do so.MicroMacroMania (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Brain size map

May I add this one to the article down at brain size and intelligence https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brain_Size_Map.png

I see nothing on the Commons upload page to indicate that permission to upload the image has been provided by the copyright holder, or that the image is in the public domain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh.. But it is just a remake of this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Race_brain_size_cranial_capacity.png The old colors just seem weird to me. and the size was too small. Anyway, you can remove the map if you want! :)MicroMacroMania (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a different matter - from what the Commons page says, I assumed that the image had been copied from Current Anthropology. I'm not sure that the map is actually all that much use on its own, without further explanation, in the context of this article. Looking at the source, it seems that the authors suggest that much of the variation in cranial capacity is due to biophysical thermoregulatory considerations - something our article doesn't discuss. Including the map without any explanation of where the data comes from and what it is intended to show is unlikely to do anything other than confuse the reader. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have recommended making an article about race differences in brain sizes. So do we keep or delete it?MicroMacroMania (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

IF the copyright status of the maps is cleared I dont have a problem with including it in the article about variation in brain size, but I dont think it belongs here. Hardly any works on R&I include such a map.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Here by deleted. Article about race difference in brain sizes have begun.MicroMacroMania (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest making the article about Biogeographic variation in brain size instead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_differences_in_brain_size I have made the article. I dont think I can change the name of an article.. Og for resten er du dansker? MicroMacroMania (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You can use the move function to change the title. Og ja, det er jeg.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Graves

"Anthropologist C. Loring Brace[39] and geneticist Joseph Graves contradict the notion that cluster analysis and the correlation between self-reported race and genetic ancestry support biological race."

I'm not sure Graves is cited enough to consider him a mainstream source. FrankRamsbottom (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Graves has subject matter expertise, and he is cited a lot in medically reliable sources, including sources listed in the specialized source list on anthropology and human biology. He is well respected among authors who regularly write on this topic in academic publications with strong peer review. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of him being cited please? FrankRamsbottom (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Citations alone does not determine mainstream status, fringe literature is also cited - just in very different contexts. Google scholar however gives 263 citations to Graves book "The Emperor's New CLothes" which is his popularizing account of the R&I debate and its history. In contrast Rushton's Race evolution behavior has almost 600 citations, but that does not alter the fact that that book has zero credibility in academia wheras Graves' is even used as a textbook not infrequently.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"that book has zero credibility in academia" You are lying. FrankRamsbottom (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Good luck trying to publish a paper where you cite it as a source for facts, Mike - in journals other than Mankind Quarterly or the Occidental that is not going to happen.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The book has been praised by Harpending and E.O. Wilson among others so your extreme statement is simply false. FrankRamsbottom (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont know about Harpending, but not by E.O. Wilson. He has stated something to the effect that "phil is a nice guy and his arguments wouldnt be so controversial if they werent about humans".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources for general dysgenic effect

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2730791/Are-STUPID-Britons-people-IQ-decline.html http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/8085-world-iq-over-time/ 74.14.49.15 (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail, a tabloid newspaper with notoriously lax editing standards, is not a reliable source for any such assertion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Bill Gates blog

Is in no way a reliable source for this topic. He has no expertise in any area of research that is relevant for this article. His blog is not peer reviewed. And finally the blog post is not about the topic of race and intelligence, which is of course the first requirement for being used in the article. The fact that African and African American populations are at much higher risk for many environmental conditions that affect cognitive development is already mentioned based on the many reliable sources that make this point. Consensus so far has been to build this article based only on high quality sources. Let's keep doing that, the opposite is a bad spiral to get into.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The information I added is at [5]

One in four children are stunted from malnutrition limiting their brain development, 75% of them live in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. [Gates, Bill (2014-08-01). "Why Does Hunger Still Exist in Africa? | Bill Gates". Gatesnotes.com. Retrieved 2014-08-22.]

That section is about improper nutrition causing lower intelligence. This fact shows just how common of a problem it is in the world. And Bill Gates is an expert on this, since he he runs the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which he has donated 28 billion of his own money to. More opinions please, should we have that edit in there or not? Dream Focus 00:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Running a foundation makes noone an expert, suggesting so is absurd and shows a basic lack of understanding of our sourcing policies. Nor does writing a blog. Neither does having money or donating it. If this fact is relevant to this article it will be included in actually reliable sources that are specifically about this topic. And those are the sources we should use. If we start lowering the standard of sources to including blogs by interested laypeople then this entire article will degenerate into complete nonsense in a very short time.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely with what the blog said, but I also agree that it's not an acceptable source. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)People that are the spokesperson or heads of notable organizations often release official statements that are used as reliable sources. I can word it to say, "According to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, one in four children are stunted from malnutrition limiting their brain development, 75% of them living in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa." How about that? Dream Focus 01:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

But why? This can be sourced to real sources, the last thing we need is green light for a section with celebrity quotes tangentially related to the topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no matter how you word it, a blog is still, by definition here, an unacceptable source. Look around, such a claim or similar is bound to be somewhere else in the foundation's publications, or somewhere similar. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur: Gatesnotes.com -- Bill Gates's blog -- is not an acceptable source. BCorr|Брайен 12:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Should high school graduation rates be mentioned?

I found a source on high school graduation rates, and it's mind boggling how heterogeneous and counter-intuitive they turned out. There are 5 states where black men have higher graduation rates than white men. It's also interesting to note a number that white males who attend schools in Detroit have lower graduation rates than black males. In New York only 57% of white males graduate high school while in Phildelphia it is 39%. Would this deserve mention in this article? It definitely contradicts what is said by many race and intelligence researchers about white superiority. http://blackboysreport.org/national-summary/black-male-graduation-rates Turtire (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Graduation has nothing to do with intelligence. Bullying, crime, poverty, and attitude of the household matter. The largest group of kids that end up dropping out or in jail come from the largest families. Race has nothing to do with it though. Dream Focus 00:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question, information about high school graduation rates would deserve mention in this article insofar as reliable secondary sources mention that issue in connection with the article topic. In any event, Wikipedia content guidelines on reliable sources strongly favor secondary sources for all aspects of editing Wikipedia article text, so we would want to look at those to find out what such sources say about that issue. It is good to think about possibly related issues with good factual sources in mind, so thanks for bringing up this question. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not unless it is mentioned in reliable secondary sources about the topic of this article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This thread seems to be about one country alone. This encyclopaedia and this article are global. Please look at the other 95% of the world's population too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLO about 90% of the literature about this opic is specificalloy about the US and research done in the US on US populations. So there is not way that the US is not going to get disproportinate coverage. I am planning to write a section on the remaining 10% of the resarch which is mostly represented by Lynn and Vanhanens studies of global IQ and the literature that critiques and corrects their findings.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The already massive amount of US research is surely another reason to reject yet another narrowly based study. That disparity showing where people actually think this is an issue is also something that our article should reflect. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No it isnt. Wikipedia needs to reflect the literature and if the literature is US centric then so will the article be. The reason not to include this is that it is a low quality primary source that has not yet become part of the literature that this article needs to review.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the article title should change to Race and intelligence in the United States of America. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Except that generally the scholars simply assume that their US based findings and arguments reflect global truths about the relations between race, biology, IQ and intelligence. That is not uncommon in social sciences.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. If the sources don't really have a global perspective, the article title ought to reflect the sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hunt 2011 and other reliable sources cast considerable doubt on relationship of brain size to article topic.

Once again I see an insertion of synthesis of primary research findings, not representative of the mainstream scientific literature, into an article within the scope of the 2010 ArbCom case discretionary sanctions. I'm going to be more bold here than I have been on past occasions, and ask the editor who just inserted that content kindly to post a detailed rationale for relating brain size at all with the topic of this article. Please refer to reliable, secondary sources. I have suggestions of good sources on the topics of human ntelligence and race for editors who are interested in checking those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

All main secondary sources on this topic treat the tpoic of brain size in relation to R&I differences. The fact that some of them conclude that it is unlikely to be relevant does not mean that we shouldnt have a section on it, but only that we should represent that viewpoint. There are many reliable sources, also MEDRS degree, that include the material and conclude that brain size covaries with IQ between individual. The question is whether it does between groups. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that most of those studies of brain size in relation to the topic of this article conclude that brain size is unlikely to be relevant to this article's topic means we had better be extremely careful about which primary research articles are dropped into the article section (which, if you restored it based on good sources, would find no objection from me). A lot of studies of brain size have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this article, and Hunt 2011 does point out, very clearly, that it is dubious to assert that brain size has much to do with the issues this article is about. Most of the reliable secondary sources that bring up the issue at all are reacting to fringe primary sources. Perhaps we do need to respond to those kinds of writings that are out in the broader world, but probably not as a heavily emphasized section of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

None of the sources included were primary sources. The one you chose to rely more on has only a few lines about brain size whereas other sources have much more than that. I think you should revert to my version again, which will then need to be further elaborated with sources by Deary and a few other reviews of brain size, race and IQ. The article does need to spend time engaging even those claims that are considered debunked, because our job is to inform the reader about the status of research. Many readers will be looking for the brinsize stuff and if it is not there they will put it in and well have to respond again. From my perspective the only way we can achieve a stable article is by neutrally and fairly summarize both/all notable viewpoints. Removing or reducing the brainsize section achieves the opposite of that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)