Talk:Race and intelligence

Edits to subsection on Heritability within and between groups

In addition to copy-editing, I shortened the subsection as follows: (1) I deleted the 5th and 6th paragraphs (starting with In regards to the IQ gap), which give undue attention to Jensen (with no clear explanation of what his "x-factor" is supposed to be or whether it exists) and largely repeat content that's covered with clearer explanations elsewhere in the article, such as the sections on the Flynn effect and the Spearman hypthesis. (2) The 7th paragraph relates to heritability within a group, and is off-topic. (3) The 8th paragraph is not clearly written, and it largely repeats content that's explained in detail in the previous section on "Environmental influences." (4) I deleted the 9th paragraph, which is devoted to three sources all written by advocates of genetic explanations of group differences in intelligence. The first sentence refers to studies that survey scientific estimates on the heritability of the IQ gap [between races]. Since there is no scientific evidence of this, what's being surveyed is not "scientific estimates" but rather speculation and prejudices. Of the three sources, one is the statement written by Linda Gottfredson (who's been supported financially by the Pioneer Fund) that was published in The Wall Street Journal in support of The Bell Curve; this statement was discussed earlier in the subsection on "The Pioneer Fund and The Bell Curve." The other two sources are surveys. The first was conducted in 1984 by Snyderman-Rothman and published in 1988 in their book The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy, claiming to document liberal bias in media coverage of scientific findings regarding intelligence quotient (from the book's Wikipedia page). The second one was a 2013 follow-up by Rindermann-Coyle-Becker, of which the senior author Rindermann is a leading advocate of fringe theories on race and intelligence. The latter source was debated at great length in the course of the RfC at WP:FTN (and also at WP:RSN), since it was the main source cited by those who claimed that belief in genetic racial differences in intelligence is not fringe. Since the organizers of the survey controlled the methodology (who received the survey, how the questions were worded, etc.), it's not surprising that the results were aligned with Rindermann's POV. NightHeron (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Given that this is a massive change (-6,059) I ask that we hold an RFC, or at least an informal poll, on this deletion. I would note that views considered fringe can still be mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources . As for whether editors here consider the current wording gives undue discussion of such views, I think we should hear from them before deleting such massive sections. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• There's already been an RfC at WP:FTN, which was appealed to WP:AN. You participated in both, and neither went your way. It's time for you to accept consensus. NightHeron (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly what SMcCandlish had been saying all along. He mentioned several times that the RFC actually was about whether NightHeron could purge the article of all sources that are in some was supportive of the hereditarian view, although not everyone who supported the RFC understood this was the intention. Now that NightHeron is doing exactly that, and arguing above that the RFC supports this action, we can see that SMcCandlish's interpretation was correct. --AndewNguyen (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

AndewNguyen: You claim I'm "purg[ing] the article of all sources that are in some way supportive of the hereditarian view." This is nonsense. After my edits there still are (and still will be when I'm done) many references to the most notable advocates of genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines -- to Jensen, Rushton, Hunt, Herrnstein & Murray. Of course, the article won't be saturated with dozens of references to them as it was before. According to WP:FRINGE, the work of notable fringe authors should be cited and described, while being careful to avoid a WP:FALSEBALANCE between their views and mainstream views.

You've already lost two appeals of the RfC, one to WP:AN and the other (initiated by you) to the Arbitration Committee. It's time for you to drop the stick and respect consensus. NightHeron (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You already have two editors objecting to what you are doing and calling for yet another RfC, so clearly your interpretation of consensus is faulty. It's time to stop and discuss further (yeah, with another damned RfC if need it). There also an OR assumption going on here, that everything that points to anything genetic relating to any testable cognitive function is part of some "hereditarian view of intelligence", with a further implication that anyone presenting any data that relates to this is a racist. But this simply isn't actually the case. Some particular cognitive task isn't "intelligence", and a genetic factor is a "race". Races are, genetically speaking, an illusion (see WP:R&E for a summary). The reality is more technical: specific genes, chromosomes, and haplogroups, which do not correspond to "races", but permeate between them freely. Whether any of the science purporting to show a genetic influence on the results of particular narrow tests of specific cognitive tasks is any good or not is one thing, but that's determined (e.g. by systematic reviews) on a case-by-case basis; we do not just blindly assume that it's all "racist" and "fringe", even if some of it (especially in the early-to-mid-20th century) clearly was.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Nah, NightHeron is fine here. The people opposing him have been shown to be coordinating off-wiki among pro-eugenicist groups. I have e-mailed some evidence to some admins about this, but I won't say more about it. Don't stop, NightHeron. Ignore the haters. You can join us, SMcCandlish, if you want, but try not to stick up for the problematic users still active here, if you would. jps (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: "you can join us" – See WP:OWN and WP:VESTED. This is not your private club, and you don't control who may participate here or in what capacity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

ජපස who are you implicating here in "people opposing him..."? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I prefer to keep that information to myself because of the way this stuff gets nasty. I'm just putting it out there that I do know about the coordinated campaign, and it is not indicative of anything like "consensus building" that is supposedly happening or not happening. jps (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's statement to NightHeron that You already have two editors objecting to what you are doing and calling for yet another RfC, so clearly your interpretation of consensus is faulty. might or might not be true. Let's explore it. Given that the close of the RfC was subject to community review, and the community endorsed that close, Jweiss11 and Maximumideas what changes would you support in light of the consensus found by the community if not the ones that NightHeron already did? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC) fixing ping of Maximumideas. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

More precisely, I mean that NH's assumption of exact consensus for what he wants to do is self-evidently incorrect, because there are multiple objections and they are outweighing him at present (there isn't a upswell of views in support of his goals/tactics dwarfing the objections). I'm not predicting what the ultimate consensus outcome might be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm upswelling. Should we hold a !vote to see what the upswell is? jps (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

ජපස, you should be aware that various observers (not just participants) in this long drama have considered NH to be among "the problematic users still active here" in this topic area. Being on the opposite side of Disruptive Editor A doesn't make Disruptive Editor B right or non-disruptive. Editwarring to get what you want in the face of multiple editors objecting is by definition disruptive editing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I would warn you that some "observers" with whom you may be in contact may not be on the up-and-up here. I know that I'm on a few lists of "problem editors" too, for example. NH is doing very fine work. jps (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what conspiracy you're imagining, but it is certainly imaginary. My having a disagreement with you and NH about the extent of this deletionism spree doesn't require that I be "in contact" with anyone about whom you have whatever suspicious you have. I'm quite capable of reading and participating without someone leading me around.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 I've noted a specific issue with the lead. See a few sections down at "Still have serious POV issue with the lead". Jweiss11 (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jweiss11, for highlighting that. Maybe I'm missing something but those concerns don't seem responsive to the RfC but are certainly important in their own right. My question is based on the consensus the community has expressed in the RfC, and in endorsing the RfC, which changes would you suggest based on that? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, we are talking about Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 70#RfC on race and intelligence, yes? I commented on the RFC, but did not follow it closely afterwards. Skimming the rest now. I'm in agreement with SMcCandlish's comment of "Fallacious proposition..." I certainly disagree with TonyBallioni's close of the RFC. Strikes me a bit of a supervote on a discussion that's lacked a clear consensus. Based on the RFC, any source that suggests the possibility of a non-zero genetic component to the drivers behind racial/ethnic group mean differences in measured intelligence is be considered fringe? I think that's going to make constructing a fair and balanced article on the subject near impossible. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni's close of the RfC was reviewed at WP:AN, where the overwhelming majority of admins supported the close. Why do you think your personal opinion trumps consensus? NightHeron (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not just my personal opinion. There are others who agree me with. Can you point me to that review at WP:AN? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem here (or, technically it's more of a symptom) is that the RfC close is very specific and very limited, and all it does is tell us what we already knew (that the scientific consensus is that a connection between "race" and "intelligence" is essentially pseudoscientific). But this is a vacuous truth, and doesn't lead to the conclusion that NH would like it to lead to, nor does it support NH's renewed rush to delete thousands of bytes of material. Some of that material probably should be removed, but some should not, and it's not NH's sole purview to determine what is kept.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I strongly object to the repeated insinuations by User:SMcCandlish that I'm guilty of misconduct. Four days ago McCandlish said that I was "one of those whose behavior I already thought should be examined with an eye to a T-ban." This statement was made at WP:ARCA, which was discussing AndewNguyen's appeal of the consensus close of the RfC at WP:FTN and the confirmation of the close at WP:AN. McCandlish's suggestion to ArbCom that I should be T-banned was made in connection with a series of baseless accusations against me made by AndewNguyen and an IP editor 2600.xxx (who was subsequently T-banned from this page). Of the various editors who opposed the RfC and are furious about the close going against them, none have pursued their misconduct accusations against me through the usual channels. But they keep repeating them anyway, in obvious violation of WP:AGF.

Predictably, McCandlish misstates what I have said about consensus. I have never claimed exact consensus for my edits. What there's consensus for is treating the viewpoint that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines as fringe (this was exactly what the RfC decided) and removing false balance (per WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV). That's all. In my editing I also removed material that I thought was repetitive, poorly explained, and/or off-topic, and I made grammar/typo/style corrections as well. But other editors have hugely more experience than I have had (just about 1500 edits in my 2 years), so obviously I expect there'll be further improvements of the article, including corrections of any bad edits I've made.

I count 4 editors besides McCandlish who have objected to my removal of false balance, all of whom opposed the RfC and seem unwilling to accept consensus. As I recall, roughly 50 editors participated in the RfC over a period of 35 days. Contrary to what McCandlish says, extensive editing of Race and intelligence to remove false balance is not disruptive; repeatedly refusing to accept consensus is. NightHeron (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You're confusing the consensus that was reached with a consensus for what you wish had been reached, but in point of fact the RfC closer flat-out ignored the censorious goal of it, and addressed only the verging-on-tautological question of whether a claim that intelligence is a racially inherited trait is pseudoscientific (which everyone already knew was the case). I.e., the RfC changed absolutely nothing at all, which is why ArbCom was asked to re-address this issue. We are right exactly back where we started before the RfC and before the noticeboarding that preceded it and before the attempt to delete the article. This entire several months of attempted dispute resolution has been a waste of time and unproductive, because it's the same two entrenched camps at war with each other, while those of us with a more reasoned approach to this topic can't get anything done here. It's clear that you feel put-upon, but you'll get over it. My position in this entire extended debate is that the extreme battlegrounders on both sides should be T-banned, not just you in particular. One (the 2600:... anon) on the other side already has been, but there are more verging-on-SPA actors on both sides who just need to be excluded at length from this topic area.

In response to your over-reaction to imaginary criticism in a thread below, I'll add that it wouldn't hurt to stop taking actual criticism of your behavior as a personal attack that you need to howl about, too. If you're being criticized, consider that there are good reasons for it, especially when it's coming from a centrist on the issue, not one of your entrenched ideological opponents. I'm strongly reminded of Jytdog and QuackGuru and their difficulties in working on Electronic cigarette and other MEDRS topics without getting topic-banned, despite being convinced they were fighting the good policy fight. Being more in the right on a scientific, moral, or guideline-compliance matter isn't an excuse for being so uncollaborative that you piss off every other editor around you.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What you say about the RfC close at WP:FTN (see [1]) is just flat-out ridiculous. The close stated: "Having read the positions of this RfC twice, I find the following points: There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory above." This answered the question I asked in the RfC (Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint?) in the affirmative. That's why opponents of the RfC desperately tried to get the close overturned, even going to the extreme of asking for a review at ArbCom.

I suppose I should be relieved that I'm not the only one you think should be T-banned. Everyone on both sides should be. Perhaps the best thing would be to get everyone except you T-banned, don't you think? NightHeron (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish and NightHeron, a reminder this a content not conduct forum. If you have conduct issues I'd suggest you go to WP:AE or the currently open WP:ARCA. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

True enough, and I'm unlikely to respond to NH further here. He seems more interested in fighting than anything else, and I have little patience for it. I anticipate this "slow-editwar" mess ending in yet another string of RfCs and noticeboardings and AE filings and whatnot, until ArbCom takes a WP:ARBR&I2 case. However, part of this sub-thread actually matters (though the last part of what NH just posted is too silly to respond to). As for the first part, NH is just repeating what I said in slightly different wording (yet calling it "ridiculous"), then leaping to a false and unsupportable conclusion. The actual reason the RfC closure was challenged (which is very easy to discern by simply reading the AN thread) is because the closer did not address the second half of the RfC, which was entirely about suppression of source material and of WP coverage of it in any depth. That's the part we cared about and which we commented on in detail. Yet here NH is selectively quoting only the first part of the RfC, and trying to suppress the material the second part was about, as if the RfC had concluded in favor of that suppression, which it expressly did not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

How absurd! Nothing in the RfC asked for "suppression." The opponents of the RfC sometimes claimed that deciding that a theory is fringe is tantamount to censorship, and then they argued against that straw man. Since censorship or suppression was not the issue, the closer didn't talk about suppression or censorship. Yes, please read the whole WP:AN discussion, in which almost all the admins (at one point I counted something like 8 to 1) approved of TonyBallioni's closing. Once again, your own idiosyncratic opinion rather than consensus at WP:FTN and WP:AN is what Wikipedia should follow. Oh, and editors you dislike should be T-banned. NightHeron (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was written to provide a pretext for suppression (by deprecation as "fringe") of material by any author who agreed, somewhere, in some publication, at some time, "to some degree" with the idea of a correlation between racial ancestry and intelligence. Since this includes pretty much all authors of summaries of the evidence for the hereditarian position, and anti-hereditarian authors are rather selective of what evidence they choose to rebut, it amounts to a motte-and-bailey request to censor most such information from the article under the pretense of DUE and FRINGE and so forth. You sold the RfC as merely asking about the narrow question (what SMcCandlish calls "tautological" above) of, e.g., articles containing claims of a proven, causal, genetic link between R and I being fringe, and made mighty BLUDGEON efforts to misdirect from the extremely broad scope of the RfC when this was challenged, by insisting that this was all only about some patently clear issue of the narrow stuff being fringe. The real issue, as people pointed out at the time, was the attempt to cover the much broader and non-fringe aspects of the hereditarian theory (in particular, the state of the evidence for and against it) under the same umbrella simply because some author "to some degree" expressed agreement with the idea, a vague standard that could mean anything. It does not help to engage in revisionist history about this, and as others are telling you, there is no evidence of a consensus for the super-broad interpretation of the RfC, which you have in any case been exceeding by excluding definitively non-fringe sources such as Earl Hunt based on personal opinion and synthesis. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You again misrepresent the RfC and the consensus decision, which was upheld overwhelmingly by admins. You falsely state that the RfC broadly declared as fringe "the idea of a CORRELATION between racial ancestry and intelligence" (emphasis added). No, no one is disputing that there is a correlation. Correlation is not the same thing as causality. The issue stated clearly in the RfC is that Scientific racism maintains that the correlation is CAUSED in part by a genetic difference between races, with some races being genetically better endowed with intelligence than others.

The views of Jensen and his followers are covered in the article; I count 9 citations of Jensen (or Jensen/Rushton). The fact that a viewpoint is fringe does not imply censorship. Intelligent design and Homeopathy are also fringe -- in each case with millions of believers, including some in the academic world -- but they are not "censored."

You should stop making accusations against me, and learn to accept consensus, which is the way Wikipedia works. NightHeron (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't misrepresented anything, and you haven't answered any substantive point from myself or McCandlish other than to harp irrelevantly on minor word choices. To help you address the actual points rather than the wording, here it is again with one word added that seems to overcome your quibbles. (And indentation moved back to previous level) :

The RfC was written to provide a pretext for suppression (by deprecation as "fringe") of material by any author who agreed, somewhere, in some publication, at some time, "to some degree" with the idea of a correlation between racial ancestry and genotypic intelligence. Since this includes pretty much all authors of summaries of the evidence for the hereditarian position, and anti-hereditarian authors are rather selective of what evidence they choose to rebut, it amounts to a motte-and-bailey request to censor most such information from the article under the pretense of DUE and FRINGE and so forth. You sold the RfC as merely asking about the narrow question (what SMcCandlish calls "tautological" above) of, e.g., articles containing claims of a proven, causal, genetic link between R and I being fringe, and made mighty BLUDGEON efforts to misdirect from the extremely broad scope of the RfC when this was challenged, by insisting that this was all only about some patently clear issue of the narrow stuff being fringe. The real issue, as people pointed out at the time, was the attempt to cover the much broader and non-fringe aspects of the hereditarian theory (in particular, the state of the evidence for and against it) under the same umbrella simply because some author "to some degree" expressed agreement with the idea, a vague standard that could mean anything. It does not help to engage in revisionist history about this, and as others are telling you, there is no evidence of a consensus for the super-broad interpretation of the RfC, which you have in any case been exceeding by excluding definitively non-fringe sources such as Earl Hunt based on personal opinion and synthesis. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

We've already seen this comment, and this minor word addition changes nothing at all. "Racial ancestry" is just "race" with lipstick, and "genotypic intelligence" is nothing. It's a buzzword used by Woodley, Lynn, Davide Piffer of OpenPsych... and almost nobody else. This also proposes the same tired, ultra-simplistic false equivalence between "hereditarian" and "anti-hereditarian", as if people opposed to racialist pseudoscience were merely opposed to heredity. Again, nothing new here. Coming back a couple weeks later to repeat a comment almost verbatim while accusing others of "harping" on word choice is ironic, also. Grayfell (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

this minor word addition changes nothing at all. Well, it changes the phrase from an accurate and sufficient representation of the RfC to an indisputably accurate representation, removing one attempted line of misdirection from the discussion. Certainly the earlier phrasing was meant to change nothing (in the RfC), i.e., to correctly state what the RfC was about. In that respect "racial ancestry" is better than "race" at describing the intended scope of the RfC (say in relation to IQ studies of biracial children).

"Anti-hereditarian" (as I use it) literally means authors or papers that explicitly hold up the hereditarian interpretation for dispute. Nisbett, Flynn and Turkheimer are anti-hereditarian. For example, Steele and Aaronson's studies of stereotype threat are environmentalist, and I presume they are environmentalists in disposition, but Aaronson's coauthorship on a paper with Nisbett and Turkheimer making their usual case, is anti-hereditarian. If you have any further problem with this vocabulary please specify. The ultimate disposition of the hereditarian-vs-environmentalist issue really is binary, can only be binary pretty much by definition, so when people argue which outcome will prevail (and there are no specific environmental hypotheses on offer) the positions are hereditarian, anti-hereditarian and nothing else.

"genotypic IQ" isn't a buzzword, it is a completely standard usage (genotypic value) from quantitative genetics employed regularly by anti-hereditarian sources such as James Flynn and Richard Nisbett, and not only them. Flynn's 1980 book has "genotypic" some 50 times, a majority of those being "genotypic IQ" or "genotypic intelligence", one or both of which are also listed in the index. Nisbett uses genotypic IQ and phenotypic IQ in the main text of his 2009 book (an extreme environmentalist account of intelligence), and much more frequently in Appendix A where he attempts to refute hereditarian arguments about black-white IQ differences. In fact more frequently per page than Flynn; they both seem to like these terms, because there isn't a better one for conveying that distinction in discussions of intelligence-and-heredity. I'll take your word for it that Lynn and his friends use the term, maybe even as frequently as Nisbett and Flynn do when discussing the same stuff. They could hardly do otherwise as there is no good substitute for genotypic/genotype that is equally succint and carries the same information.

It's pretty odd to display a word-and-phrase level of hermeneutic familiarity with obscure hereditarian literature, while being unaware of bedrock terms in the broader (not race-and-IQ related) context like "genotypic value". RationalWiki, which seems to be where you and some others here are getting their information, is not a competent source, and on this cluster of subjects much of it was literally written by loons who were eventually banned there. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Good lord, first you intentionally add redundant content to the talk page, and now this? If you have a point about improving the article, make it. Your eagerness to debate minutia suggests that your goal is to turn this into a forum. That's not going to turn out well.

Funny you mention "loons" writing for Rationalwiki. Wikipedia is not RationalWiki, but here on Wikipedia this topic also has a well-known history of disruptive editors, sock puppets, and off-site canvassing. I'm guessing you already know that.

"Genotypic" is a term in genetics. "Genotypic IQ" is, in the 21st century, mostly used by the same small group of people, several of whom have been banned from Wikipedia for disruptive editing, sock puppetry, and pushing fringe perspectives. If you think I'm wrong about that... okay? When combined with biological racialism it's still pseudoscience no matter who says it. Grayfell (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Before you showed up, the topic of discussion was whether the RfC of 6 weeks ago is being misrepresented and misapplied in the subsequent edits on the article. My initial comment to Nightheron addressed that, she misdirected based on irrelevant linguistic issues, and when those were pinned down you chimed in with even more pedantic linguistics. If you have something to say about the RfC matter, I'm all ears. Revisionist history about a fabricated consensus for one editor to personal take over the article and define whoever she (dis)likes as "fringe" doesn't cut it. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge the content-fork, and re-focus on what the sources are telling us instead of editorial activism

I think it would be most productive to merge History of the race and intelligence controversy to this shorter article title, and use that as bulk of the combined article. Most of this article is really the tail-end of that history, and the pages being separate is basically a WP:POVFORK, in which this article gets pushed and skewed because particular editors want to focus on "proving" or "disproving" a link between so-called intelligence and so-called race. But that's not our job. The history article is not subject to this kind of bullshit (at least not much), because its goal is to lay out what the sources tell us about this issue and its background, instead of misusing WP as place to try to bend sources to push a personal viewpoint.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This might be an okay way forward, but I would prefer to wholesale copy the content from History of the race and intelligence controversy over here rather than attempt any mergefrom. There really is nothing worth keeping here that isn't better addressed over there, I would argue. jps (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

WP doesn't work that way. When dealing with major chunks of content, there has to be a clearly recorded merge "trail" in the edit history, or even a history merge, because edit-history attribution has to be preserved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I agree. There is, in the end, only one subject, and most of the drama has been down to us failing to tackle that fact. The two articles function as WP:POVFORKs of each other at this point. Guy (help!) 10:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll ignore McCandlish's strong POV (using foul language to refer to the removal of false balance), and just comment that both Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy are long articles with a lot of well-sourced material and not much overlap, and that seems to argue against merging. Although personally I find the early history of this controversy (the main content of the second article) to be very interesting, clearly most Wikipedia readers don't agree with me. The average pageview count for the second article stands at 163, while for Race and intelligence it's 1143. NightHeron (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course the other article has a lower view-count, since it's at a non-obvious name. PS: Not everything is about you. The bullshit I refer to is months of totally unproductive bi-directional PoV pushing. This is not "your" article, so please stop taking every criticism about this article as if it's a criticism of you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Phew! I'm relieved that your words editorial activism in the title of this thread were not referring to my recent edits. NightHeron (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't exclude them. I'll repeat that my concerns are about two entrenched camps treating this page as a battleground.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose this RtM. These are two long articles, each sufficient to stand on its own. Unless the desire is to reintegrate mistaken historical views into the modern appreciation of the topic, I fail to see the point. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• oppose a merge, for the reasons I gave above. NightHeron (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, but more discussion is needed. The bit about "editorial activism" is far too simplistic and unpersuasive, especially for a fringe topic, and this only makes discussion more difficult. Grayfell (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the merge. There's probably too much content for one article. This article ought to be mostly about the stuff that isn't the controversy, although a number editors appear to have the opinion that this subject is nothing but controversy surrounding racist pseudoscience. I proposed a name change to this article earlier this year and I'll throw it out again: "Race, ethnicity, and intelligence". That name change might facilitate a better handling of the studies on the subject and better dovetail with related articles like Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Orangejuicedude indef blocked as a probable sock. I know, I'm shocked too. Guy (help!) 11:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support The theories in the history article are important to a modern understanding of the subject. The other article reads like a fork and the jump to a different article reduces the reader's ability to fully understand the background as it relates to modern definitions. If the history article needs to be kept for readability purposes (merging would be super long), then both articles need to compliment each other. I'm not feeling like they currently do, leaving us with what is basically two independent competing essays (yikes). I think we could go as far as making the history article the primary while relegating this to "Modern rebuttals to the race and intelligence controversy". That is obviously a little extreme but anything is better than the mess we have with both these articles.Orangejuicedude (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Orangejuicedude, given that you have only 55 edits and fewer than 10 days meaningful contribution to Wikipedia, I'm not convinced you understand the policy position well enough. Guy (help!) 10:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Your position would be better served to comment on the content of the argument instead of gatekeeping. You should know better as an administrator and admonish yourself. The Research into the possible genetic influences on test score differences section, especially "Heritability within and between groups", gets so much attention that it boarders on undue weight. Additionally, it would better the readers' understanding if they knew more of the background. At this point, the article reads like a series of rebuttals to argument, regardless if they have been debunked, in the other history article. Maybe you should stop poisoning the well and work on improving the article with a renewed focus on NPOV and not leading the reader. I would argue that this article smacks of original research due to the emphasis given to some studies over others. It reads like wikipedia is trying to make a point einstead of being encyclopedic in tone.Orangejuicedude (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Regarding your "content of the argument," please read WP:ESSAYS. The two extensively sourced articles Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy, which come out of years of discussions and edits by many dozen experienced editors, are not "the mess we have" and are not "competing essays (yikes)." If you want to be taken seriously, you should learn a little about editing before expressing extreme opinions. Please also read WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE, which explain how to cover topics such as Scientific racism. NightHeron (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Orangejuicedude, let me be more direct. Very inexperienced editors who weigh in on subjects like this, tend to cause drama and not last long. Guy (help!) 22:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Let me be just as blunt: This is not my first rodeo and, yes, this article reads like an essay combating the controversial, and often rightfully discredited, history. The history is not simply disregarded, but actually openly argued against instead of simply acknowledging that science has evolved over time. To be very blunt: It is shit. You should be using novel approaches to including the information without giving it equal weight and should spend more time on that instead of arguing and drama.Orangejuicedude (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Part of what you're seeing is that article is now personal property of one editor who has turned it into a science fiction blog. Banning this or that user is not a solution, since for every edit warrior there are ten to replace them. There need to be some constraints formulated at a higher level on how AfD's, RfC's, and other consensus inquiries are conducted, at least on controversy-ridden pages. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• While I agree with every word from SMcCandlish on censorship, NPOV etc;; the complexity of the already too long article should be reduced, not increased through a merge. Pre-1969 history should be almost entirely a link to history of the race and intelligence controversy. Essentially all of this article is about psychometric differences rather than nebulous "intelligence", so if (as several people have suggested) the article were renamed to "race and IQ", discussion of IQ versus intelligence can also be delegated to other articles. Likewise with validity-of-race and test bias issues that for the most part can be done elsewhere. Prune and focus as much as possible instead of creating a battleground for a dozen side issues. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not just an old history, but a currently active subject/controversy. Is it a scientific or only a political controversy does not really matter. But it does have very long history. Hence having a separate history sub-page was well justified. My very best wishes (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support in principle as a step in the right direction. There have been numerous discussions recently involving fringe and false balance with some valid arguments made, but i see little of those arguments reflected in article content, or when present are buried under the dueling "proving" or "disproving". Where in the article can I find someone such as Saini adding social context, Turkheimer with an overview of the scientific merit? Focusing on back and forth of "current" research of related topics is precisely the false balance complained of, what the fringe guideline and NPOV should tell us not to, and prominent critics warn against. There is "some" validity to IQ testing, "some" validity to inheritability of intelligence, "some" validity to genetics and race and therefore logically there must be some validity to these arguments about race and intelligence. This is not a scientific proposition but the current content plays right into that argument. A "blunt instrument of pseudoscience", and used to advance a "white supremacist agenda" are what those wiser than us are saying, but WP has this weaselly "race is a social construct" and "intelligence has no agreed-upon definition". To those who spent so much time arguing in the FTN discussion i would say roll up your sleeves, get rid of the false balance and tell the reader why it is fringe. Don't try and make the argument yourselves by engaging in debate or trying to label a particular researcher as "racist"; there are plenty of qualified people publishing in reliable sources that can be relied upon. SMcCandlish has one way forward and just because it is "well-referenced" does not mean the article content is appropriate. fiveby(zero) 14:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

One trait of racist pseudoscience is the tendency to ignore the big picture. Therefore, noting that race is a social construct doesn't seem weaselly if our goal is to explain the larger topic. It's accurate and relevant to the rest of the article. Likewise with the definition of intelligence. The correct approach may seem obvious to you, but that if it were that simple, we wouldn't be having these discussions. Dismissing approaches contrary to your own as "dueling" says nothing about the actual content of the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Few errors

In the adoption study sections it's claimed that:

"Three other adoption studies found contrary evidence to the Minnesota study, lending support to environmental explanations of group IQ differences:

Eyferth (1961) studied the out-of-wedlock children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany after World War II who were then raised by white German mothers in what has become known as the Eyferth study. He found no significant differences in average IQ between groups."

This is not an adoption study.

Also, none of the two other studies follow up participants to adolescence, which is when shared environments effect declines. Minnesota study is the only one that has a follow-up to adolescence, which is worth mentioning.

In the twin study section it's stated that:

"Twin studies of intelligence have reported high heritability values. However, these studies are based on questionable assumptions."

It should be something along the lines of "Some claim that these studies are based on questionable assumptions". They are one of the gold standard tools of behavioural genetics, used in all behavioural genetics textbooks. Because some people have criticised the assumptions doesn't mean they are based on "questionable assumptions".

"When used in the context of human behavior genetics, the term "heritability" is misleading"

Misleading for whom? Not for me. This is a subjective opinion.

"as it does not convey any information about the relative importance of genetic or environmental factors on the development of a given trait, nor does it convey the extent to which that trait is genetically determined."

It should be "as it does not *necessarily* convey information".

To say it does not convey any information is silly. If it's shown that identical twins are more likely to have the same eye-colour than non-identical twins, or that adoptees eye-colour is more likely to be that of their biological rather than adoptive parents, it obviously conveys information about genetic and environmental factors that influence eye-colour. Indeed behavioural genetics uses heritability to estimate how large share of the variation is explained by genetics, even if that is always not perfect. To say something is imperfect way of measuring something, that can lead to error, is not to say that it "does not convey any information." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:6104:C0AA:DE3D:FEF4 (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your comments on eye color indicate that you have indeed been mislead by the term "heritability". Heredity is not the same as heritability, which is one of the reasons this term is misleading. As the first sentences of the abstract for the relevant cited source explains, The term ‘heritability,’ as it is used today in human behavioral genetics, is one of the most misleading in the history of science. Contrary to popular belief, the measurable heritability of a trait does not tell us how ‘genetically inheritable’ that trait is.[2] Grayfell (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

In response to the IP-editor: You're correct about the Eyferth study not being an adoption study, and so I've deleted the word "adoption" from three other adoption studies.

Your claim that the methodology of the Minnesota twin study is more reliable than the methodology of the other three studies is not plausible. The Minnesota study has been widely criticized for bias, which is not surprising in view of its funding sources (the white supremacist Pioneer Fund and the right-wing Koch Foundation, which also funds climate change denialism).

The most obvious questionable assumption of the twin studies (going back to Cyril Burt) is that the adoptive family's socioeconomic status and its cultural environment are independent of those of the birth family.

Eye-color is not a behavioral trait, so it's not relevant to a discussion of genetic vs environmental influences on behavioral traits. One of the reasons why the term heritability is misleading in the context of behavioral traits is that it commonly refers to correlation between children and parents, which can arise from socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental influences as well as genetic ones. It is also misleading to use the same term heritability both in talking about individual variation and in speculating about differences between groups. NightHeron (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, eye colour was not a good example, let's take dyslexia. You are saying that behavioural geneticists think that say, if twin and adoption studies show that dyslexia or schizophrenia is heritable, it "does not convey any information about the relative importance of genetic or environmental factors"? I'm pretty sure that I can find sources that say otherwise if that is really what you claim. If it's not what you claim, that is how it then comes across.

"Your claim that the methodology of the Minnesota twin study is more reliable than the methodology of the other three studies is not plausible."

I'm saying there is a problem with comparing the other studies, as they do not compare IQs of adolescents. The effect of shared environment fades away by adolescence. Also, I'm not talking about Minnesota Twin Study. I'm talking about Minnesota Adoption study.

"The most obvious questionable assumption of the twin studies (going back to Cyril Burt) is that the adoptive family's socioeconomic status and its cultural environment are independent of those of the birth family."

I do not understand what you mean. Robert Plomin looked at the test scores of all twins in England and Wales of certain age group. He compared identical and non-identical twins. What do adoptive families have to do with that? Almost none of the twins were adopted?

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:6104:C0AA:DE3D:FEF4 (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about confusing the two Minnesota studies. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (MTAS) was not funded by the Pioneer Fund. I see that I failed to remove the false balance in this section, which contrasts the MTAS with other studies that support environmental causes of test differences. In fact, there is no contrast; the MTAS was interpreted by mainstream commentators as inconclusive, in part because of design flaws and in part because of the complexity of the issues. Richard Lynn and Michael Levin, both of whom are way outside the mainstream (Levin is classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an "unabashed white supremacist") interpreted the MTAS as showing a genetic cause of racial differences in test scores. I'll remove the wording that suggests that the MTAS gave opposite results to the other three tests.

I also apologize for lumping together studies of identical-vs-nonidentical twins with the studies of identical twins reared together and reared apart. My comment on the obvious problematic assumption relates to the latter (for example, the original studies of Cyril Burt), not the former. I'll also edit that sentence.

Thanks for pointing out erroneous or unclear statements. NightHeron (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Somoeone wrote "When used in the context of human behavior genetics, the term "heritability" is misleading, as it does not convey any information about the relative importance of genetic or environmental factors on the development of a given trait"

This is not true. Behavioural genetics uses twin and adoption studies to see how much variation is explained by genetics. It does not do so perfectly, but to say it does not "convey any information about the relative importance of genetic or environmental factors" is not true. It should say "it does not necessarily convey information". To say it never conveys any information is just misleading, and a fringe view in behavioural genetics.

For example, are you claiming that if children adopted to high SES have better educational attainment than those adopted to low SES families, that "does not convey any information" about whether family SES influences educational attainment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c7:ee82:7701:386b:701d:db7d:2cc (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Flynn effect does not occur on g & why were surveys on the estimates of how much the gap is due to hereditary factors by intelligence researchers removed?

The flynn effect does NOT occur on g: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289613000226

Why does this keep getting removed? The study is valid. If it isn't then post a citation to a paper critiquing it.

Furthermore why were two surveys that asked IQ researchers to estimate how much of the black-white intelligence gap is attributable to genetic factors removed?

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-17587-001

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265167014

The MAJORITY of intelligence researchers agree that the IQ gap between blacks and whites is partially due to genetic factors. To claim that this is a "fringe" view is laughable.

This article does not adhere to the neutral standards set out by this site. It's disingenuous and incredibly biased.Abatementyogin (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The first issue is a claim presented as fact, based on a selective, disputed interpretation of a single primary source of unestablished weight. Regardless of how you strongly you feel about the source, there is little point pretending this is not controversial. We do not present fringe claims as mundane truths based on technicalities. If you know of WP:SECONDARY sources discussing this study, present them here for discussion instead of edit warring to repeatedly restore this content.

The second question digs deep into the paper-mines, and cites some weak and fringe material. The Psycnnet paper is from 1987 which fails Wikipedia:RS AGE, especially for WP:FRINGE topics. The second link is to a poster from a 2013 presentation by Heiner Rindermann, Coyle, and Becker, who would go on to co-author Intelligence of Nation with Richard Lynn in 2019. Again, this poster is not sufficient for any specific details without more context then would be justified by the weight of these sources, and there is no point in pretending these researchers are not controversial. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

In what way is it "fringe" beyond you stating it is? You have yet to substantiate this claim at all. The study is a meta-analysis that examines numerous studies on this topic. Do you have a criticism of this study? Could you cite it and point out the methodological flaws? You cannot, so please step off and stop a removing pertinent and peer-reviewed study because it doesn't align with your views.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rcws-T0AAAAJ

Look at that! The paper I'm citing has been cited 105 times! Yeah dude, sure sounds like a fringe researcher who holds no credibility at all! /s

The journal this paper was published in has one of the strongest impact factors in the field of psychology! Your and Nightheron's claims are completely unsubstantiated at best, and maliciously false at worst.

The Snyderman surveys have been cited hundreds of times and the consensus of most researchers is that it's valid survey. You cannot cite a single paper that proves these papers are methodologically flawed without resorting to ad hominems. Richard Lewontin is cited all the time by the left, yet he openly admitted to involving himself on Marxist associations. Does that mean we can stop citing him too? Stephen Gould was exposed as a liar and charlatan when he made downright false claims about Morton's research. Can he stop being cited too?

This article isn't in the least bit neutral nor does it accurately sum up the research on this subject. It's incredibly biased.Abatementyogin (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

After lengthy discussions, a consensus of editors (see [3]) determined that the views of Nijenhuis, Rindermann and others who claim racial genetic differences in intelligence are fringe views. That decision was reviewed at [WP:AN] and overwhelmingly approved by admins. Your own personal opinion does not take precedence over consensus. NightHeron (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It's quite telling that after all this time you've yet to cite a single paper that critiques the papers I'm citing. [redacted per WP:NPA --JBL (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)] Abatementyogin (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

A fringe primary source -- such as an article supporting creationism, homeopathy, or racial pseudoscience -- does not become RS just because no mainstream scholar has bothered to write an article directly refuting it. NightHeron (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The bit about being cited 105 times is misleading, to put it mildly. At least one of those citations is from 2010, three years before the paper itself was published, and is by J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen. Other citations include many from Nijenhuis himself, as well as unreliable sources such as Kierkegaard's OpenPsych, and Noah Carl writing for its successor at MDPI. The walled-garden problem here has often been mentioned already. Likewise, there is a disproportionate tendency for these few, focused academics to cite their own and each other's work. Clearly, the number of citations is not telling the whole story, even if that number is accurate. This is why we need context from reliable sources for things like this.

The bit about Gould being "exposed" as charlatan (which is not accurate) is non-productive to improving this article. Since this detail is an oft-repeated talking point which has nothing to do with this specific edit, this suggests this proposal is coming from within the same echo-chamber as Mankind Quarterly, Openpsych, and "HBD" blogs. Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Define "mainstream scholar". Nijenhuis' papers have been cited numerous times with regards to this debate. See for yourself: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=16072142069713139112 in addition both surveys conducted on this find that the majority of intelligence researchers agree that the IQ gap between blacks and whites is partially due to genetic factors. Again said surveys have been cited hundreds of times just check google scholar. You've yet to cite a single methodological flaw with these studies other than ad hominems directed at these researchers. You don't get to define "mainstream" yourself. This article isn't neutral and is disingenuousAbatementyogin (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Abatementyogin, Reliable. Independent. Secondary. Show sources that meet all three. I realise that you are extremely inexperienced, and this is your first foray outside the sphere of advocating gun rights on Wikipedia. Perhaps read some of the talk archives for this page? Guy (help!) 08:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

All of those papers I've cited have been peer-reviewed and published in journals with high impact factors for psychology. There is no reason not to include them as they are pertinent. If there are criticisms regarding the methodology of said papers then they should also be cited in the article but as it stands they've been completely excluded. The surveys regarding the views of intelligence researchers for instance have been cited without issue in this article for a long time until nightheron decided to remove them.Abatementyogin (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Abatementyogin, the existence of outliers claiming a link between race and intelligence has never been in doubt. The significance of those outliers is, and remains so despite your obviously fervent belief to the contrary.

Now is not really a good time to promote racist pseudoscience on Wikipedia I think. Guy (help!) 14:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"Outliers" ok, so you should be able to cite papers that critique the methodologies of the ones I'm citing, right? Yet you won't even let them be posted on the article. All you do is bring up racism. Again, the two surveys conducted on this find that the majority of intelligence researchers agree the the gap is partially genetic, and we have a paper that shows the Flynn effect not occur on g. Do you have criticisms of the methodology used in these papers?Abatementyogin (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

All of this has been discussed before in great detail, and the omission of fringe primary sources is supported by consensus. However, since you seem disinclined to read the earlier discussions, I'll briefly explain why the one relatively recent survey is unreliable. Its lead author is Heiner Rindermann, who's well known for promoting racial pseudoscience. Like Nijenhuis, he has recently (2017) published in the white-supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly. If you read the Wikipedia article on that journal, you'll understand why no mainstream scholar would write for such a journal. Someone with an extreme POV can easily create a strong bias in a survey. It's Rindermann who decides who the "experts" are who get surveyed, it's Rindermann who decides how the questions are worded, and it's Rindermann who interprets the results. In addition, like most surveys, there was a fairly low response rate. Given Rindermann's reputation on race, likeminded "experts" would tend to return the survey, while people who disagree with Rindermann and mistrust his motives would throw it in the trash. It is no surprise that there are quite a few likeminded people associated with Mankind Quarterly, the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), and the official ISIR journal Intelligence. That's all that the survey shows. It is an unreliable source written so as to promote a fringe viewpoint. NightHeron (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

guilt by association, and furthermore the survey by rindermann wasn't the only one cited.Abatementyogin (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The other survey is 1/3 century old. The authors' stated purpose was to prove that the US media had a "liberal bias" (much as Trump and his people claim today), so the authors are hardly neutral surveyors.

It's not "guilt by association" to point out that Rindermann and Nijenhuis have published in a notorious white-supremacist journal. It's their choice to publish there. A mainstream researcher would not publish their research in a journal that's widely known as an outlet for racist pseudoscience. NightHeron (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again completely irrelevant. This Do you have links to peer-reviewed papers critiquing the surveys or Nijenhuis' paper? I'd be interested in giving them a look.Abatementyogin (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of content

User:Spy-cicle twice has removed a passage about test scores of Africans in the UK relative to whites. Spy-cicle's edit summary claims that it's "cherry-picking" and complains that it relates only to black/white comparison and not to other racial groups. Neither reason is valid. The material provides balance (the opposite of "cherry-picking") because the article refers extensively to cases where blacks test lower than whites, while this passage shows that the reverse sometimes occurs. The fact that the material relates to black/white comparison is not a logical reason to remove it. So I've restored it again.

Spy-cicle's second edit summary also falsely states that I was the editor who put the material in the article. I was not. NightHeron (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, it does seem relevant, on the face of it. I'm not sure how a systematic analysis of a national dataset counts as "cherry-picking". Guy (help!) 10:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Firstly please self-undo you revert. The ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content not me. Secondly, I am sorry for not realising it was another editor who orignally added the text, though you reverted me the first time. On the matter at hand, on such a controversial topic the sourcing and text need to be well kept. One of the reasons I removed the text was because it only compared Black Africans to White Britons despite the fact there were a number of other ethnicities listed. The topic is called "Race and intelligence" meaning that the text should be beyond that narrow scope. It also did not incorporate ther RSs like these [4] [5]. There was also referencing and formatting issues. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The onus is not on NightHeron who did not add it in the first place. Second, it is highly relevant and properly sourced material, I guess you don't like it because it spoils your narrative. The big problem with this article is that it is heavily US-biased and the data are consequently biased. But just for your information, the same analysis of academic attainment in UK schools has kids of far-east origin coming out top, then African and Indian origin, then Pakistan-origin and White British, then Bangladesh and finally Afro-Caribbean-origin boys. The inference is tempting: in the US and UK, the disadvantaged kids come from populations that were subject to unnatural selection by plantation owners. The material is entirely valid and should remaim. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)