Talk:Race and intelligence

Excessive detail of debate in summary section?

The summary of 'Environmental influences on group differences in IQ' strikes me as overly detailed--it has a blow-by-blow description of an academic debate. I propose shortening, as follows:

The following environmental factors are some of those suggested as explaining a portion of the differences in average IQ between races. These factors are not mutually exclusive with one another, and some may, in fact, contribute directly to others. Furthermore, the relationship between genetics and environmental factors may be complicated. For example, the differences in socioeconomic environment for a child may be due to differences in genetic IQ for the parents, and the differences in average brain size between races could be the result of nutritional factors.[75] All recent reviews agree that some environmental factors that are unequally distributed between racial groups have been shown to affect intelligence in ways that could contribute to the test score gap. However, currently, the question is whether these factors can account for the entire gap between white and black test scores, or only part of it. One group of scholars, including Richard E. Nisbett, James R. Flynn, Joshua Aronson, Diane Halpern, William Dickens, Eric Turkheimer (2012) have argued that the environmental factors so far demonstrated are sufficient to account for the entire gap. Nicholas Mackintosh (2011) considers this a reasonable argument, but argues that probably it is impossible to ever know for sure; another group including Earl B. Hunt (2010), Arthur Jensen,[19] J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn have argued that this is impossible. Jensen and Rushton consider that it may account for as little as 20% of the gap. Meanwhile, while Hunt considers this a vast overstatement, he nonetheless considers it likely that some portion of the gap will eventually be shown to be caused by genetic factors. JDowning (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The last sentence before the strike-out probably needs to go, as well. It is providing a false balance between the mainstream view (that race is an entirely social construct and thus any statement about race and IQ is meaningless) and contributes nothing but confusion to the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree on the additional strikeout. That would leave this sentence as the end of the paragraph: "All recent reviews agree that some environmental factors that are unequally distributed between racial groups have been shown to affect intelligence in ways that could contribute to the test score gap." [emphases added]. This is uncontroversially phrased and a good summary, so the next sentence ("However, currently, the question is...") is repetitive. JDowning (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please provide some citations re. "race is an entirely social construct and thus any statement about race and IQ is meaningless". To me, this looks like an attempt to remove coverage of significant researcher opinion by some other route than what WP:DUE prescribes. Deleet (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thed'd be about 90% of the sources at Race (human categorization). Damn, you fancy yourself a "researcher" yet you are unaware of basic facts about the state of current research? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

1. No "damns" please. Be civil.

2. Quote:

...have been shown to affect intelligence in ways that could contribute...

contains 5 weasels in a row. Ditto for the other passages here. Zezen (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Damn hardly seems uncivil in this context. You are responding to two people who are blocked from editing. If you have a specific proposal, I suggest making it in a new section. Grayfell (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So you're defending the uncivil behavior of an editor who was indefinitely banned for his incivility. Noted. Jwray (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, neither of them were blocked for uncivil behavior, but that hardly matters, does it? How is this snide comment productive to improving the article? Grayfell (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It contributes to keeping the discussion civil, by (correctly, IMO) pointing out that your attempt to dismiss his behavior is hypocritical. --Toomim (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

Under the section entitled “Research into the possible genetic influences on test score differences” there is the following quote: ”Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, are more important in explaining the racial IQ gap“ attributed to Essentials of Psychology: Concepts and Applications by Jeffrey Nevid. I own this text and can not find anything close to what is quoted above (on page 71 or anywhere else). Why is this quote being sourced to this text? 2600:1012:B060:F6B5:890C:5905:A65C:6A91 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The citation lists page 271, not page 71. Per Google Books, this page directly and unambiguously supports this statement. Grayfell (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a critical distinction that needs to be made. Our article has the following text: "Growing evidence indicates that environmental factors, not genetic ones, are more important in explaining the racial IQ gap." However if you look at page 271 it actually says "increasing evidence points to the importance of environmental factors in explaining racial differences in IQ". You can see for yourrself. This is a contentious article, and it suffers from contributions that are taken out of context, misquoted or plain biased. As a result, it's important to be very careful when making changes to the article. The text does not say (paraphrasing) "growing evidence indicates environmental factors are more important than genetic factors in explaining the racial IQ gap". It says (again paraphrasing) "growing evidence indicates the importance of environmental factors in explaining the racial IQ gap ". There is a significant difference between the two quotes. Even one or two words can have an impact on a quote and change its meaning considerably. 99.48.35.129 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"...indicates the importance of environmental factors..." is so pointless it's almost tautological. "Importance" is relative and requires context. The source says "...increasing evidence points to the importance of environmental factors in explaining racial differences in IQ". Both directly and indirectly, both in isolation and in context, this source supports the current wording. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes and I am fine with that phrasing. The only part I have contention with is the unsourced portion - the part of the quote that says "..environmental factors not genetic ones are more important in explaining the racial IQ gap. " In other words, get rid of the "more important" and the "not genetic ones". These are completely unsupported - it's simply not an accurate representation of the text. The rest of the quote is fine though. 99.48.35.129 (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No. This is fully supported by the cited source. The quote is in answer to a question posed by the preceding paragraph: Are these racial differences in IQ genetic or environmental in origin?"

The following paragraph further contextualizes this: "Another factor arguing against genetic explanations..."

As I said, both directly and indirectly, both in isolation and in context, this source supports the current wording. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else could give us their opinion, since it appears we both (in good faith) interpret the text differently. user:aquillion, as a veteran Wikipedian who has contributed significantly to this article, what do you think about the passage in question? 2600:1012:B023:455C:5CFA:B52F:4775:F684 (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell is clearly misinterpreting the text. Imagine that A is 1 and B is 10. Now add 1 to A so that it is 2. Yes, that means that A "increased." That increase does not mean that A is greater than B. Just because something is "increasing in importance" does not mean that it is more important or significant than other things. The source does not say what this article claims that it says. 2601:600:877F:B570:1D70:FD9B:22CF:959C (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

In the above it is clear that you know this a contentious article with a contentious past. As such, you are welcome to contribute as a shifting IP but in an article like this other editors know that an infinite amount of time could be spent debating shifting IPs. However my view is that a reliable source would not comment on the importance of some factors if their effect were ten times smaller than other factors. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "shifting IP". I was the on who made the original comment and all the follow ups with the exception of the comment using the analogy of A and B (which I agree with by the way). In any event, there is no policy prohibiting an unregistered user from contributing. I even asked for feedback from other users. If we stick to the subject at hand, it is apparent the source is being misrepresented. Not sure why no one is willing to discuss this. 2602:301:772D:62D0:A585:D95F:8304:25BB (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I concur with the criticism, this is plain wrong and needs to be changed. The source text expresses that one factor turned out to be more important than previously thought, it did not conclude that this one factor is more important than the other. Let's set the bar higher than this, please. Flyingtart (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Flyingtart. The phrases "more important" and "not genetic ones" are clearly unsupported. I am removing them. --Toomim (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Contentious non-mainstream sources

Is there any good reason why works by Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray or Arthur Jensen should be used as citations here? In any instance that their claims are notable rather than their works, that can be supported by objective sources describing them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

There are two possible ways of structuring this type of article. One is to cite only sources that provide impartial summaries of the debate, such as Hunt, Neisser and Loehlin. And the other is to structure it as a back-and-forth between two camps: between individuals such as Jensen, Murray, Rindermann and Gottfredson on one hand, and individuals such as Nisbett, Flynn and Turkheimer on the other. This article takes the latter approach. I am not sure whether this is the best approach to use, but as far as I can tell, the article has taken this approach for pretty much as long as it has existed.

On a topic as controversial as this one, I suspect that it sometimes isn't possible to have as high-quality an article as could exist on an uncontroversial topic. Even if an article taking the former approach could theoretically be of higher quality, such an article could never be stable, because proponents of each camp will always try to make sure that that the article mentions all of their camp's major arguments. This article has been relatively stable lately, and I would be opposed to restructuring it in a way that's likely to destabilize it. 2600:1004:B150:F8E1:9CD7:73C5:DA61:4A7D (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that researchers such as Nisbett, Flynn and Turkheimer are very much mainstream scientists, whereas the individuals I mentioned are decidedly not. It is completely unencyclopaedic to present information as though there are two valid sides here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Nisbett is not mainstream either. (His social psychology research is relatively well-regarded, but not his writings about human intelligence.) Have you read the academic reviews of his book Intelligence and How to Get It? It was criticized for misrepresenting that field by nearly every psychology journal that reviewed it, yet it is extensively cited in this article. If the citations to Jensen, Murray, etc. are to be removed, then the non-mainstream sources on the opposite side would have to be removed as well. (However, I am opposed to doing this.) 2600:1004:B150:F8E1:9CD7:73C5:DA61:4A7D (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please read the first sentence of my last response again. There is no debate here, as people like Arthur Jensen and Charles Murray are completely disregarded. Intelligence and How to Get It is a mainstream source but we should use the best possible sources, not simply a combination of opinions. This is not the right article to evaluate any controversy. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the academic reviews of the book? I asked you that question, but you didn't answer it. The book received four reviews in major psychology journals, and all four of them are mostly negative. [1] [2] [3] [4] Perhaps you'll disregard the first review because it was written by Rushton and Jensen, but there is no reason to disregard the other three. Much like The Bell Curve, Nisbett's book received lots of media attention, but was critically panned by professionals. (And I am assuming you don't consider The Bell Curve to be mainstream.) 2600:1004:B150:F8E1:9CD7:73C5:DA61:4A7D (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not relevant at all to whether that work is mainstream or not, which in turn is not relevant to what this section is about. Publications being reviewed is a very regular part of academia. However, the only thing negative from what you have linked is from the second review. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're holding Jensen, Rushton et al. to a higher standard than you would other scientists, without any real justification why. These are all professional psychologists with works published in reputable journals. There views are no less "mainstream" than that of Nisbett, who has rather extreme views himself. Ultimately, this issue is a matter of scientific dispute, so we include all reliable sources in the debate. This is in contrast with something like global warming, which is not at all in dispute, and so for that reason we do not take the climate denial position seriously. CompactSpacez (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Jensen, Rushton et al are treated as non-mainstream not because they are doing bad science, but because their arguments do fit at all well with contemporary conventional wisdom. We should have the courage to treat their views with respect, even if what they say is uncomfortable. ---Asteuartw (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

There are countless scientists who have looked at Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, etc. and methodically pulled-apart their out-dated, biased, and pseudoscientific work. They have documented precisely why it is, in fact, "bad science". Scientists in many fields have been doing this for decades right up until today. The reason this is necessary is because it is "comfortable" to ignore the deep flaws inherent in their work, and this has lasting and detrimental consequences. If they are held to a higher standard (which I dispute) it is for a good reason. They are not merely treated as non-mainstream, they have been increasingly pushed to the fringes by more modern research. Euphemistically brushing this off as "uncomfortable" ignores the mountains of data that has been collected, and research that has been done with that data. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It is quite ironic that you'd refer to "modern research" and "mountains of data" in this context. Here is an actual example of the research that's currently being done on this article's topic: [5] A discussion of this study's limitation can be found in this thread at Twitter: [6] For the reasons explained there, this study can't be regarded as the final word on race, ancestry and cognitive ability (and nobody is claiming that it should be). However, it's an important new piece of data that other research will likely build upon in the future.

Here is why I'm bringing this up: you say that the newest research is increasingly pointing towards the conclusion that's the opposite of the one taken by this study. If that's indeed the case, what actual recent research have anti-racist academics produced to support the opposite perspective about the cause of racial IQ gaps? For that matter, when is the last time anti-racist academics have engaged directly with the new data being produced in this field at all? As far as I'm aware, the last academic book or paper that has made a serious attempt to engage with this type of data was "Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments", which is now more than seven years old. There certainly is a constant supply of new political arguments trying to prove that someone is a white supremacist or a eugenicist or whatnot, but on a scientific level, the arguments being presented by anti-racist academics in the present are the exact same arguments that were presented in response to The Bell Curve 25 years ago. These contemporary, but very old arguments invariably rely on claims such as that IQ tests do not measure a real ability, which are not taken seriously by the vast majority of psychologists. (See Gavin Evans' book Skin Deep for a typical example of this type of argument.) This actually is a regression, because a decade ago academics such as Nisbett and Turkheimer were making a serious attempt to engage with the new data being collected about race and IQ, but for the most part that is no longer happening.

People who follow research about genetics and intelligence are beginning to take notice of this shift, and you're seeing the effects of that on talk pages such as this one. More importantly, academics are taking notice as well. For example, Russell Warne is currently working on a new book about human intelligence, to be published by Cambridge University Press, in which he plans to discuss the MDPI study I've cited above. If the academic literature contained any rigorous critiques of this study's methods, Warne would discuss those as well, but thus far anti-racist academics have remained silent on this study, as they have about most of the other recent data collected in this field. This is an example of how shifts in the nature of an academic debate eventually come to be reflected in secondary sources, such as Warne's upcoming book.

The way sourcing is supposed to work at Wikipedia is that when a shift occurs in an academic debate, and that shift is reflected in secondary sources about the topic, this change in the perspective taken by secondary sources should come to be reflected in Wikipedia articles as well. When the shift in this particular debate eventually comes to be reflected in current secondary sources that discuss race and IQ, I hope you will allow Wikipedia policy to be followed in that regard. 2600:1004:B12B:E713:9053:2CEF:444F:5063 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You make it far too obvious when you refer to "anti-racist academics" pejoratively. Your opinions on certain researchers are irrelevant, as are the opinions of every other editor. If mainstream academics do not want to engage with some particular study, this means nothing to what the mainstream and scientifically accepted views on the issues are, and on how we display them. Currently this article implies that people like Arthur Jensen and Philippe Rushton have been on one side of a scientific debate, rather than the fringe people who were largely discredited by mainstream science that they actually are. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please re-read the Wikipedia principles on Reliable sources. It does not matter whether a particular academic is seen as credible, or non-credible; mainstream, or non-mainstream; contentious, or consensus -- Wikipedia's policy is to include all majority and minority views that appear in "reliable, published sources". It is the publication's reputation that matters -- not the authors'. The views published by Rushton, Lynn, Murray, and Jensen clearly appear in reliable published sources, like the American Psychological Association, and furthermore they cite numerous studies that have been published for over 100 years. Thus, their views should be included in this Wikipedia article. The fact that they are minority views means that it is even more important to include them.Toomim (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected article request

This subject is pretty sensitive so i'd like to censor Wikipedia if possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.110.215 (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Why was my edit undone??

Why was my edit of today undone??Tesint (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you are talking about diff which added "There is also no evidence that these differences are purely environmental in origin" to the lead. First, the way Wikipedia works is that an editor has to justify why text should be included rather than the reverse. Second, the WP:LEAD has to be a summary of the body of the article—is that text in the article? Third, text must be supported with reliable sources, otherwise it is original research. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

But it appears to me that the preceding statement, that there is no non-circumstantial evidence of a genetic component, also violates each one of those rules. Would it be OK if I deleted that?Tesint (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Remarking a little further, it seems to me that the statement that there is "no evidence" for a genetic component does not appear anywhere else in the article, and is moreover, only true if one uses the strictest definition of what is "evidence" and the loosest definition of what is "no evidence". Legally, evidence is anything that makes a reasonable person more or less likely to believe a legal conclusion. So, eyewitness testimony is not proof, as an eyewitness may be mistaken, but it is evidence. Testimony may be false, but it is still evidence. In the scientific realm, when we are discussing phenomena spread out over populations in the millions, it is a little hard to see the difference between circumstantial and non-circumstantial evidence. It makes a lot of sense in a murder trial, but not here, where by the very nature of the issue evidence will tend to be statistical.

To my way of thinking, if you interpret the term "evidence" in such a manner that it is true to say that there is no evidence for a genetic component, than it is also true that there is no evidence of the other conclusion, that the difference in test scores is entirely environmental in origin.Tesint (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tesint: It does not seem to me to violate the (aforementioned) rules, as the lede explains, there is uncertainty and currently no non-circumstantial evidence (i.e some argue that there is evidence but it is not non-circumstantial, meaning there is as yet no direct evidence.). But, as the lede also goes on to relevantly explain (mentioning existing "circumstantial evidence" in reference to the preceding sentence): "some researchers believe that the existing circumstantial evidence makes it at least plausible that hard evidence for a genetic component will eventually be found." (Thus there are those that posit or suggest a genetic component but there is as yet no proof or direct evidence of a genetic component. Some researchers suspect that such a component is plausible while some other researchers disagree.) :So it seems to me that this accurately sums up the state of the research per the sources and the uncertaintly around the issue, and there appears to be no need currently to delete anything. Also, I am (bellow) notifying the user Johnuniq to whom you responded of your replies (in case they did not see them). Skllagyook (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: The user Tesint seems to have been responding to you in their messages above) but did not ping you. So I am pinging you here to notify you of their responses.Skllagyook (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I saw the comments, thanks. It all boils down to WP:RS and WP:DUE which depend on the precise proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The correlation between Race and Intelligence should occur in the Summary

This is an article on Race and IQ. The first thing someone should want to learn about is the correlation between Race and IQ, however some editors are trying to bury that evidence, hiding the science from the public, and only show criticism and debate of the evidence, without showing the evidence itself. This is science denialism and not a neutral POV.

I understand that some people don't want this evidence to exist, but it should be presented in the summary of the article. It is fine to also describe the criticism of the evidence, and to say that there is debate. But it is not ok to hide this evidence, and bury it under the debate. Note that there is no credible evidence saying that this evidence is wrong. There are simply people who do not like it. But Wikipedia needs to hold a neutral POV.

I fixed this by prefixing the intro with just 11 words: "Although a large body of evidence shows a correlation between race and IQ scores, the connection..." and then continued with the prose describing the debate, and the criticism of the connection between Race and Intelligence. My original edit was here. User Skllagyook reverted it here. I removed the word "large" and revised the edit here.

The Rushton article is an extremely thorough peer-reviewed, survey of 30 years of research by a U.C. Berkeley professor and University of Western Ontario professor, published in the American Psychological Association. It cites well over 100 studies, themselves having been peer-reviewed, over many decades of research. The American Psychological Association has blessed this work. It is reliable and reputable, and exactly what this article is talking about. However, Skllagyook removed this evidence from the page with the argument that "Rushton and Jenson are a contentious source who represent only one side of the debate". (See here.) That is bad behavior. You do not remove an article on the basis of it representing one side of the debate—you present both sides, so that the reader has access to the entire debate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomim (talk • contribs) 19:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know that you consider Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen to be reliable sources. They have been completely discredited by mainstream science. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not our job to decide who has been "discredited," and erase them from wikipedia articles. If that were the case, then Wikipedia would only show one side of every debate, rather than presenting a Neutral Point-of-View. Furthermore, it's simply not true that "they have been discredited" -- they wrote a survey paper, that cites and summarizes a wide array of research on the topic, including both sides. If that work were to proven wrong, one would have to go and disprove mountains of data with other data. Can you please show me the data that disproves the data that they cite? Finally, note that the context of this discussion is simply to present to wikipedia viewers that there is data. There are no claims made here other that that there is data showing a correlation between Race and IQ. There is a bevy of hard data that indicates this. If you disagree, please show the data. Otherwise, you are simply denying the science on the issue, in order to filter this article to one side of the debate. That goes against Wikipedia's 5th principle, and has no place in this encyclopedia.--Toomim (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Toomim: There was no attempt on my part to "bury" the evidence or correlation you mention, nor did my edit bury it. As I exained in the exit note, the existence of group test score differences was/is already (and srill is) mentioned and acnowledged in the lede/introduction (and is discussed througout the article) - the lede should be concise and mentioning it again is somewhat redudant and adds unnecessary emphasis. The lede read/reads: "There remains some debate as to whether and to what extent differences in intelligence test scores reflect environmental factors as opposed to genetic ones..." Said evidence is not being buried, hidden or denied here (not by my edit anyway). Skllagyook (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's be clear-- the summary has censored all mention of the data showing a correlation between IQ and Race. You have removed the data. You have only left discussion of debate, and only one side of the debate. You are censoring the data. That is anti-science, non-neutral, and censorship.--Toomim (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed not our job to discredit anything, as that has already been done. Wikipedia can show these discredited views in their proper context, but we cannot show them as valid positions of a debate when they simply aren't. The correlations between race and intelligence are explained throughout the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

You are responding to the wrong point. I didn't say "it's not our job to discredit things" -- I said it's not our job to decide what has been discredited. As stated in the Wikipedia principles, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." This data has been published in numerous reliable, authoritative venues, including the APA, by top academics at credible institutions like U.C. Berkeley. The fact that these are minority opinions means that they should be included. If you want to show the debate, you need to show both sides of the debate. Otherwise you are violating the principle of Neutral point-of-view. --Toomim (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

We don't decide what is discredited either. We just have to recognise what is discredited and what isn't. Views which are discredited by mainstream science can be included, but they have to be explained in that context. Infamous figures like Philippe Rushton were not part of a genuine scientific debate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, let's please stick to the Wikipedia principles. Can you cite any principle that says "We have to recognize what is discredited"? Or any principle that would help us determine what has been discredited, or what is genuine? I don't believe these arguments have a place in Wikipedia, and it sounds like you are using them as rationale for censoring minority viewpoints, which are explicitly encouraged in Wikipedia's Neutral-Point-of-View principle. Since this is a contentious issue, we need to come to an agreement here, or I will have to raise this to dispute resolution and have a third-party judge our arguments on the application of Wikipedia principles. Thank you. Toomim (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems odd that you are saying "hi" at this particular moment. Can you cite any principle that says "We have to recognize what is discredited"? Or any principle that would help us determine what has been discredited, or what is genuine? Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Certain source are reliable, while other sources are not. For example, Philippe Rushton was not a reliable source. His work was largely discredited by mainstream science. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so you are focused just on Rushton himself. However, this is not sufficient. The claim that "data exists showing a correlation between Race and IQ" is backed up by a great number of reliable sources. Rushton's article is only a survey paper, which summarizes them. So you would need to argue that all of these sources are unreliable. Furthermore, Rushton's article itself is reliable, in three ways. According to Wikipedia's Verifiability definition, there are three types of sources be analyzed when judging reliability: (1) the work itself, (2) the writer, and (3) the publisher. Rushton's article appeared in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal, of the APA. This is a reliable source in the highest sense, as stated in Wikipedia's definition: "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Furthermore, the authors are tenured professors at U.C. Berkeley and the University of Western Ontario, and their article cites numerous other reliable sources. Finally, your argument that Rushton is not a reliable source simply because people have tried to discredit him falls flat on its face -- that is an argument that he speaks a minority viewpoint. In order for you to claim that he is unreliable, you would need to provide actual evidence of things he has done or said that make him unreliable, not simply state that people disagree with him. Minority viewpoints are protected by Wikipedia's Neutrality principle -- one of the highest values that this encyclopedia holds. --Toomim (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not that people like Philippe Rushton were in a minority view. They were simply not part of any accepted mainstream view of psychology. Anything published by him may very well be reliable in reporting his views, but they certainly aren't when describing scientific fact. It is not that some people disagree with him, it is that the scientific community disagrees with him. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Toomim: How can my edit be removing or censoring the correlation when it explicitly (e.g. in the part I quoted) mentions the intelligence test score differences (between groups) in an article whose subject and title is "Race and intelligence"? The correlation is clearly mentioned and referenced in the introduction (which goes on to describe the fact that its causes are uncertain/debated and that researchers' opinions on that vary). And the article discusses the test score differences (i.e. the observed correlation between IQ scores and "racial" groups) repeatedly (it is the subject of the article). Given that, I do not understand what you think I was censoring. Skllagyook (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: No, the word "correlation" no longer exists in the text. You removed it. The intro has now censored all discussion of a correlation. The text you are referencing — which was there before your edits — actually casts doubt as to whether there is even a difference in test scores. A "difference" is not a correlation. It's a lot less than a correlation. The point of this topic is the correlation, and you have censored all speech about the correlation itself. Toomim (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Toomim: I am aware that I did not add the part mentioning group differences, but my edit retained it. An IQ score difference between groups (which is explicitly mentioned) is a correlation between group and IQ score - one clearly indicates the other. If there are general differences in test scores between groups/"races", then there is/would be a correlation between group/race and test scores. And I do not see any where in the introduction that casts doubt on whether there are score diferrences between groups; it states that those differences exist (the disagreement/debate described concerns the causes of said differences). Skllagyook (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Thank you for this discussion. It is not my desire to attack you, personally, but only to come to an agreement on the text of the article. It sounds like you do actually acknowledge that there is a correlation. Can you agree to re-introducing the claim that "data shows a correlation between IQ and race" in the introduction? If so, then we can move on, and I would be happy to rescind any claims of you censoring the data. Toomim (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You should propose what changes you want to make, and we can agree or disagree with them. It's completely inappropriate to use withdrawing attacks on anybody as a condition for getting an outcome you want. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The change is to state "A body of data shows a correlation between IQ and race" in the introduction. Toomim (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It's up to you to tell us why this should be in the introduction. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

References

This article presents one side of a debate -- it is not neutral

Reader beware -- this article is biased, and denies known scientific data.

There is a debate about Race and IQ, that goes something like this:

1. Some scientists find data that Race and IQ are correlated (in 100s of studies), and present it.
2. Others argue against those claims, saying:
   • Race is hard to define
   • IQ tests are not meaningful
   • Any effects observed are due to environmental factors

However, this article only presents part 2. It does not present part 1. This is only one side of the debate. This goes against wikipedia's policy of Neutral point of view.

This can be fixed by simply including the phrase "Data shows a correlation between IQ and Race" in the introduction. Toomim (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that some fringe scientists claim that these correlations are based on genetic differences, which is thoroughly discredited by mainstream science. We certainly should not be pretending that discredited views are as valid as views which are scientifically accepted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Calling an academic "fringe" is just your subjective opinion, man. That is not neutral, and the word "accurate" does not apply because there is no data that can indicate who is fringe and who is not -- it is just your opinion. It is not our job to decide who is fringe. It is not our job to distinguish which ideas are "mainstream" and which are not. It is our job to include all majority and minority opinions that appear in reliable, published sources. Toomim (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not my opinion that Philippe Rushton was fringe. These views are simply pseudoscience, and can only be included in that context. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As a scientist, I disagree strongly. This science has data behind it, replicated and validated in hundreds of studies, and has withstood peer-reviewed scrutiny of the highest degree, in the most prestigious journals. You cannot simply claim it is pseudoscience. Furthermore, this is not the criteria that matters for Wikipedia. There is no Wikipedia principle that defines "pseudoscience." Only the reliability of sources. Toomim (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The important criteria is whether the statement "data shows a correlation between Race and IQ" comes from a reliable source. This data has been published in 100s of peer-reviewed studies (neatly summarized and referenced in the Jensen article), and even published in mainstream news outles such as Time, Newsweek, Life, U.S. News & World Report, and New York Times Magazine. These are reliable, authoritative sources of the highest degree, and the statement "data shows a correlation between Race and IQ" has ample backing and should be included in the introduction to this topic. Toomim (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

My argument is that this data should be presented in the beginning of the article, since its existence is what started the debate. I added it to the article, but User Onetwothreeip deleted it. He is now arguing that it needs to be included with the appropriate context. If he can agree to including it, then we might be able to agree. Can you agree to including it in the first paragraph of the article? If you can only agree to including it with some context, please provide citations to back up the claims you make in the context. Toomim (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It is the reliable sources that consider work by people like Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen to be pseudoscience. The fact that there are differences in IQ test scores among racial groups is described throughout the article. The first sentence of the article should simply describe the topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Our coverage of disputes is weighted according to the representation of different arguments in reliable, mainstream sources; we don't just weigh both sides equally for the sake of weighing them equally. That would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. If you think that this article is doing that weighting inappropriately, find secondary sources to cover it. --Aquillion (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I have two responses. First, the principle of false balance does not apply here, because it is for cases where two sides disagree on a fact or theory. But in this case, the opposition (in point #2) is not disputing that the data shows a correlation (in point #1), it is simply disputing how to interpret the the correlation. Points 1 and 2 are actually entirely compatible. Point 1 says a correlation exists in the data, and point 2 discusses how to interpret it. And in fact, there are no reliable scientific studies that have disproven the correlation itself (point #1). If you disagree, please provide a citation that refutes the evidence of a correlation, rather than arguing about how to interpret the correlation. Thus removing the claim in point 1 is simple censorship -- it is removing the first half of the debate, and preserving only the second. Second, the article in question by Jensen is a secondary source -- it is a survey paper that analyzes a large number of studies, and was itself cited by a number of mainstream secondary sources -- like the news outlets cited above. Toomim (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

False balance completely applies here, as the positions of people like Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen were thoroughly pseudoscientific. We don't portray them like we do with mainstream accepted science. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You are distracting the issue by attacking Rushton and Jenson -- we are simply discussing whether to include the claim "the data shows a correlation between Race and IQ." But if you are actually attacking this data correlation as pseudoscientific, then this is a very bold claim, indeed -- you are insinuating that this established peer-reviewed research by U.C. Berkeley faculty, published as recently as 2005, by the very mainstream American Psychological Association, citing about 100 peer-reviewed studies, actually fits the description of "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history" as defined in False Balance. Such a strong claim requires strong evidence. Please provide your evidence for discounting over 100 years of data, and the judgement of these prestigious academic journals. The Flat Earth Theory, for instance, was disproven via extensive research by Kepler in Tycho Brahe's laboratory, and took years before it as accepted, and even then, it never discounted the data -- it simply explained it better, with an alternative theory. Yet, in this case, you are arguing to censor the data itself -- to hide the fact that "the data shows a correlation between IQ and Race." That is not pseudoscience -- that is the actual raw data. You are actually arguing to hide data from this article. Not any particular viewpoint -- but the data itself. Please be careful. Toomim (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that the detractors are misconstruing the claim under contention. The claim is simply "the data shows a correlation between IQ and Race." It does not say anything about genetics or heritability. It does not say anything about the viewpoints of Rushton or Jenson. It does not say anything about the interpretability of the data. It simply states the data showing a correlation exists. The detractors have no evidence that disproves the data, but continue to argue against presenting this data in the Wikipedia article, and revert any edit that includes the data. This data should not be hidden, nor buried. It is at the core of the topic of Race and Intelligence. It should be mentioned in the introduction, before describing the multitude of ways to interpret it. Toomim (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not distracting the issue at all. The issue I am raising is that people like Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen are being raised as part of some valid side of a debate. According to reliable sources, they are pseudoscientific. There are many instances throughout the article where the correlation between IQ test scores and racial groups are explained, so what exactly do you want in the introduction? I have never stated here that any particular correlations are pseudoscientific or otherwise wrong. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not about Rushton and Jensen. This is about the correlation. Please stop distracting the issue.

I appreciate that you said "I have never stated here that any particular correlations are pseudoscientific or otherwise wrong." If you agree with the correlation, then let's include it in the intro. I've made the edit here. Toomim (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

No consensus for that. Reverted. Do not WP:Edit war over this either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about not making large changes to the article without consensus, where is the consensus for this change? I don't believe you can all be completely oblivious to the hypocrisy that's on display here. One the one hand you're reverting edits with the argument that there's no consensus for the change, or with edit summaries such as "restoring stable version". And at the same time you're removing more than three kilobytes of of text, that had been there for years, without waiting for any discussion about the change.

I'm not arguing this article can't be improved, and indeed, its information about the genetic basis of intelligence is several years out of date. (See the discussion here; none of the changes proposed there were actually made.) But the current approach being taken here is completely unacceptable. If editors are going to argue that large changes can't be made to the article without consensus, that applies to all large changes, not only the ones we disagree with. 2600:1004:B14B:CA91:5C12:1458:1841:B3D (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Until there's a consensus for a change, I think we should restore the last stable version, from before any of Toomim's additions and also before any of Onetwothreeip's removals. Can we please do that?AndewNguyen (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the removals are broadly correct. Most of the removals seem to have targeted direct citations to Rushton and Jensen; and Onetwothreeip is correct that we should avoid citing them personally on this, since they are clearly a WP:PRIMARY source for their own opinions, and this is too controversial a subject to rely on primary sources (especially ones that are themselves so controversial.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I addressed this point in my comment here. The article is (or rather, was) structured as a back-and-forth between Rushton / Jensen and Nisbett, both of which are controversial primary sources. (For other psychologists' views on Nisbett, see the reviews listed in the Intelligence and How to Get It article, as well as Hunt's comments on Nisbett in his textbook Human Intelligence, "Nisbett's extreme statement has virtually no chance of being true"). I have never thought this was the best way for the article to be structured, but removing the Rushton / Jensen citations while keeping those to Nisbett is not an improvement. The way the article was before, its structure at least made some amount of sense, but now it includes Nisbett's replies to Rushton and Jensen without including the arguments that he's replying to.

If the article is going to be restructured, what needs to be done is for both the Rushton / Jensen and Nisbett citations to be replaced with summaries from secondary sources. But this needs to not be done in such a haphazard manner, and the changes should be discussed beforehand. I'm not trying to be an obstructionist here. I really would like to see this article be improved, because it's about five years out of date, but blindly removing most of the Rushton / Jensen citations is the wrong way to approach the issue.

Until someone is ready to make a serious attempt at updating the article, rather than just removing the sources they disagree with, I think we should continue upholding the principle that large changes should not be made to the article without consensus. You've agreed with that principle in several other cases, so can you agree to it here? 2600:1004:B14E:4937:5035:F61F:6979:FABA (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that going back to the working version before recent changes is a good idea. Rushton Jensen 2005 is a well regarded review written by eminent researchers, so Aquillion seems fairly wrong on it being primary source material. It's somewhat dated at this point, but there is nothing as extensive that is newer. There are some newer books by prominent researchers that also discuss the race and IQ question, e.g. Hunt's and Haier's. The latter does not cover it at length. Winegard also published a review of sorts but not in an academic journal (think it was in Quillette). Bryan Bpesta22 (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: you just rejected the claim that "Data shows a correlation between Race and IQ", saying "No consensus for that." Please state your objections, so that we can discuss them and find consensus.

I have now made this 7-word edit 3 times, and it has been reverted 3 times, with 3 different reasons for reversion:

• Sklyaggyook objected that "describing a 'large body of evidence' is somewhat non-neutral". I fixed this by removing the word "large".
• Sklyaggyook also claimed my edit was redundant, because "The correlation is clearly mentioned and referenced in the introduction". I disagreed, pointing out that the word "correlation" does not, actually, exist in the introduction, and that this is the key word that is being censored. I asked him if he could agree to including it. He stopped replying.
• Onetwothreeip objected that we cited Rushton and Jensen, whom (for some reason) he thinks aren't reliable sources. I removed the citations.

All raised objections have been addressed. What is your objection?

The data showing a correlation between Race and IQ is at the core of this debate. To remove it from the introduction you need a very good reason.

I do not want my Wikipedia to censor science. I do not want my Wikipedia to be deny science. Free the data.

Toomim (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Toomim: Let me explain something to you about this article. Nearly ever word of it has been argued over at length by multiple people, and getting the article to a state that wasn't being actively edit-warred over was a feat in itself. In principle, I agree with you that it would be beneficial for the existence of group differences to be mentioned in the lead section, but you can't just make a change like that with no prior discussion. Moreover, your attempt to make this change has provoked OnetwothreeIP to remove nearly every citation to Rushton and Jensen throughout the article.

As I said before, what we need to do is restore the version of the article from before any of these large changes, and then we can discuss whether there's a consensus for the changes that you or OnetwothreeIP want to make. AndewNguyen and Bpesta22 appear to agree with this course of action. Can you agree to it also? 2600:1004:B10C:8133:9590:7BC9:2600:E2CC (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It's time we establish some truths about this article and its topic.

1. There have been found certain correlations between racial groups and IQ test scores. There is no particular reason for including this in the lead sentence or lead paragraph above other information that could be placed there.
2. Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn are/were not reliable sources in the field of psychology. Their views are not mainstream, largely discredited as pseudoscience, and are not considered reliable.
3. Publications by those people can only reliable sources in establishing what their views are, and that would be using primary sources.
4. Eric Turkheimer and Richard Nisbett are mainstream researchers in the field of psychology. While their work is open to criticism by other mainstream researchers, they are not discredited as scientists and their work is considered reliable by other sources.
5. This article should not be written in any way resembling an assessment of arguments that certain researchers make against each other. This would be an example of a false balance and is simply not helpful to readers in understanding the topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

OnetwothreeIP, you appear to have misunderstood Wikipedia's policy regarding what sources are reliable. I'll quote the relevant part: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." The Rushton and Jensen source that you've removed was published in the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, which qualifies as a reputable peer-reviewed journal. You've also removed several citations to Earl Hunt's textbook Human Intelligence, which was published by Cambridge University Press. See also this part of the policy: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources

Your removals are based on the assumption that reputably published papers and books unreliable if the author is controversial, but the policy itself contradicts that. A consensus seems to be forming that this action should be undone, at least until we can properly discuss how to update the article. 2600:1004:B10C:8133:9590:7BC9:2600:E2CC (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Not everything I removed was on the basis of the sources being unreliable. When it comes to the reliability of Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen, their work has not been reputably peer reviewed and have most certainly not been "vetted by the scholarly community". They were publishing very fringe views, and should not be given undue weight here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that you think the paper you've removed that was published in Psychology, Public Policy and Law, which is a journal published by the American Psychological Association, was not reputably peer reviewed? 2600:1004:B10C:8133:9590:7BC9:2600:E2CC (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@2600:1004:B10C:8133:9590:7BC9:2600:E2CC: Yes I agree. That's a great plan. Thank you! Let's revert all recent edits and then have an organized discussion. Toomim (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Toomim, are you that IP? Be careful about how you answer that. See the following section: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. IPs cannot be WP:Pinged. Also, my revert of you clearly stated, "Not the way to begin the lead sentence. And debated on the talk page." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that user 2600:1004:B10C:8133:9590:7BC9:2600:E2CC is my sockpuppet? I do my best to Assume Good Faith in Wikipedia, and I would appreciate it if you would return the favor. Toomim (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Would you please explain why this is not the way to begin the lead sentence? And second, what's a better way to do it? Where should we say: "A body of data shows a correlation between Race and IQ"? Toomim (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

So you are not going to state that you are not the IP? It is easy to state that you aren't the IP. Editors are allowed to ask such questions. WP:Assume good faith doesn't mean not asking questions such as that.

You want to add "Although a body of data shows a correlation between race and IQ scores, the interpretation of this data has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century." What Wikipedia articles begin with an "Although" sentence for their lead sentence? It immediately has an editorializing feel. See what WP:Editorializing states. And the "correlation" aspect is debated and has been debated above on this talk page. The lead clearly states, "There remains some debate as to whether and to what extent differences in intelligence test scores reflect environmental factors as opposed to genetic ones, as well as to the definitions of what 'race' and 'intelligence' are, and whether they can be objectively defined." And yet you want to begin with text that gives that much weight to correlation? I'm also not stating that the piece you added should be anywhere else in the lead/article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Please acknowledge the asymmetry here. When Toomim attempted to rewrite the article's opening paragraph, you reverted the change with the explanation "No consensus for that". (I agree that large changes should not be made to this article without consensus.) But thus far you have turned a blind eye to Onetwothreeip making a far larger change to this article without consensus, even though Andewnguyen, Bpesta22, Toomim and myself all have recently expressed the view that this change should be undone until there's a consensus for it. Do you actually think large changes to this article should not be made without consensus, which would apply to both Toomim's changes and Onetwothreeip's changes, or was your argument to that effect disingenuous? 2600:1004:B108:1795:3044:8CE2:9571:D868 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The editors you have listed also think that fringe researchers like Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn are reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Thank you for explaining your objection. I'm hearing two of them.

(1) You think the phrasing is too "editorial" because it uses the word "although". I'd be happy to remove the word "although", so that it simply states "A body of data shows a correlation between Race and IQ." Does that solve problem 1 for you?

(2) You said that the correlation has been "debated". But that is circular—I'm asking you what your objections are, and now you are saying that your objection is that someone on the talk page is objecting? It's almost as if you are implying that there isn't a correlation-- that the data is false. But if you are going to claim that the correlation data is false, then you need to provide some citations. And you won't find them, because the correlation data is extremely robust and reliable, and has been replicated hundreds of times. There is no debate amongst reliable scientific sources about whether the correlation exists. The debate is simply whether the cause of the correlation is nature vs. nurture.

This is the whole problem I'm bringing up. I'm just trying to include the data, but people keep censoring it without giving a clear reason. And it's not valid to censor the data because it's "debated." In debates, it's more important than ever to introduce the data into the discussion. The data is what started the debate (with two sides arguing over what causes the correlation), so the data should be given prominent weight in the introduction -- not censored. If you censor it without a good reason, then you are being biased. Wikipedia needs to be neutral. And no, I am not user 2600. I am toomim. Toomim (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You do not understand what I'm stating and you are misrepresenting my stance. You do not understand how lead sentences, per WP:Lead sentence, should be written and how to apply WP:Due weight. Since this talk page is on my watchlist, I ask that you do not ping me to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree broadly with Aquillion that we generally should not be using primary material by people like Philippe Rushton or Arthur Jensen as sources for this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

As I've said before, this article needs to be updated, but the way to do it isn't by haphazardly removing the citations to Rushton and Jensen the way you've been doing. We should be adding new sources, replacing the older sources with new sources when necessary. Of this article's 201 citations, there are only six that are to sources published in the past four years. There are a lot of recent, high-quality sources about race and IQ that this article completely ignores.

Any large changes also need to be discussed first, and preferably one section of the article at a time. How about you suggest a specific section that you think should be updated, and then we can discuss how to update it, and hopefully reach a consensus? 2600:1004:B11B:F3A0:95BC:63A3:AD18:F38C (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been haphazardly removing anything. I have been completely methodical in determining what should be in this article altogether, in particular weighing notability and due weight. There are not any reliable "new sources" for the claims by those like Philippe Rushton to replace them with. This article should really be merged with History of the race and intelligence controversy, retaining the name of the present article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Here are a few examples of sources published in the past two years that the article could be citing:

• Rindermann, H. (2018). Cognitive capitalism: Human capital and the wellbeing of nations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press - A major secondary source mostly about international differences in test scores, but that also includes a discussion about race differences, including a summary of some of Rushton's theories.
• Flynn, J. R. (2018). "Academic freedom and race: You ought not to believe what you think may be true". Journal of Criminal Justice, 59, 127–131 - A theoretical overview of the race and intelligence debate, including an explanation of why genetic explanations can't be ruled out a priori. The author, James Flynn, is one of the most prominent researchers to have ever written on this topic.
• Cofnas, N. (2019). "Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry". Philosophical Psychology, 33, 125-147 - Another review article summarizing the debate, which includes a good explanation of how within-group heritability relates to between-group heritability. This source could potentially replace some of the Jensen and Flynn sources currently used to explain that concept.
• Lasker, J, et al. (2019) "Global ancestry and cognitive ability." Psych, 1.1, 431-459 - A primary source, but I'm including it because I linked to it in a discussion above, and because it's the largest study yet done about the relation between IQ and biogeographic ancestry as measured with genetic tests. This study will be mentioned in Russell Warne's upcoming book, so instead of citing the study itself, we could wait and cite that secondary source when it's published next year.
• Pesta, Bryan J., et al. (2020) "Racial and ethnic group differences in the heritability of intelligence: A systematic review and meta-analysis." Intelligence, 78, 101408 - As far as I know, the largest meta-analysis ever performed about how the heritability of IQ is generally the same across all ethnic groups (meta-analyses are secondary sources). As explained in the paper, this is an important line of evidence because it's commonly assumed that if the cause of racial IQ gaps is environmental, the heritability of IQ must be lower in groups with lower average scores.
• Rindermann, H, Becker, D, & Coyle, T. R. (2020). "Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts’ background, controversial issues, and the media". Intelligence, 78, 101406 - An update to an earlier survey about expert opinion on intelligence topics, including about the cause of the black-white IQ gap. I'm not sure whether this is considered a primary source or secondary source, but some of the older similar surveys are currently cited in the article, so this should be cited either in addition to those sources or instead of them.

I'll be blunt: if you seriously thought there are not any reliable new sources for views similar to Rushton's, it demonstrates that you know so little about this topic that you shouldn't be editing the article. This is an article about a highly technical psychology topic, and requires at least a basic level of knowledge about the subject matter and its source literature to be able to contribute to it productively. 2600:1004:B11B:F3A0:95BC:63A3:AD18:F38C (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll be blunter, and just quote what I actually said. Reliable new sources for the claims by those like Philippe Rushton. You have copied and pasted sources which are reliable but do not support the claims of Philippe Rushton, or support the claims of Philippe Rushton but are not reliable. I'm taking this to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where it's well established that these are fringe views and not reliable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You are so off-topic. @Onetwothreeip: This is your 21st post, on this talk page alone, trying to discredit Rushton and Jensen. You even created your own thread to do so. Keep it there. Rushton and Jenson are irrelevant to this thread. They wrote a survey paper that's useful as a secondary source, but we certainly don't care about "the claims of Philippe Rushton". Just the data, and there are hundreds of sources for this data. User 2600 just provided 6 published sources and you haven't responded to any of it.

It looks like you are not trying to find consensus. Finding consensus requires listening to other people's arguments, and responding to what they actually say. That's how you come to an agreement. But no matter what anyone says, you respond with an off-topic rant about Rushton and Jensen. It looks like you are just trying to derail our conversations, and censor the scientific data. That is political behavior, anti-science, and deserves no place in Wikipedia. You deserve no respect unless you show you can listen to others. Toomim (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

So you agree that this article should not be relying on people like Philippe Rushton? You can find my response to the six sources in the very comment that you have just responded to. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This is your 22nd off-topic post on Philippe Rushton. You demonstrate no listening. This is extremely disrespectful, and matches your pattern of non-cooperativeness and deception that others are currently reporting you to Wikipedia administrators for. Toomim (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The topic is about the fringe views of researchers such as Philippe Rushton being described here. If you want to discuss something else, you are free to do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

No it's not. I started the topic. Go write your Rushton stuff in your own thread. Toomim (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Toomim: FYI, that thread on the Syrian Civil War article is not a report to Wikipedia's administrators. It's just a discussion where lots of other editors are objecting to his WP:IDHT attitude (here's another). As far as I know, no one has actually reported him yet for this pattern of behavior, although I think that's bound to happen sooner or later. 2600:1004:B147:FB3A:6CC6:688A:162A:2AF3 (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: You've now gotten your answer at the RS noticeboard. The answer you received there is the same thing I've been telling you from the start: reliable sources like Psychology, Public Policy and Law and Cambridge University Press don't stop being reliable when they're publishing papers by someone like Rushton, or books by people like Hunt and Mackintosh who discuss Rushton's ideas. Can you now accept that consensus opposes you, and stop edit warring to remove these sources?

Choose your answer wisely, because it may potentially affect the outcome of the ANI report currently underway about you. 2600:1004:B154:3134:D0A7:837F:DB8D:811 (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but reliable sources establish that the works of those fringe authors are unreliable, even if they were initially published by reliable sources themselves. I don't think this discussion is getting anywhere productive and I certainly do not want to edit war with anybody, so I think this discussion should be opened to more participants. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the discussion here has reached a conclusion. Between this talk page and the RS noticeboard, a total of six editors have opposed the justification for Onetwothreeip's changes, or argued they shouldn't be made without consensus: myself, AndewNguyen, Bpesta22, Toomim, MaximumIdeas, and Loksmythe. Aside from Onetwothreeip himself, the only editor who's presented any arguments in favor of these changes in either place is Aquillion, so the changes are opposed by a clear consensus of six to two. (If you include Grayfell it is six to three, but he is just reverting, as opposed to engaging with any of the arguments on these talk pages.)

I'll be interested to see whether these changes continue getting restored even now that consensus opposes them. It's happened before that some of these articles were edited in a manner that completely disregarded the consensus on the talk page, but this would be the first time I've seen it happen on a fairly prominent article such as this one. 2600:1004:B141:BC42:F5EB:275D:DC3B:97D8 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)