Talk:Race and intelligence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former good article nomineeRace and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2005Articles for deletionKept
June 24, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
July 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 25, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
December 4, 2006Articles for deletionKept
April 11, 2011Articles for deletionKept
February 24, 2020Deletion reviewOverturned
February 29, 2020Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Former good article nominee

Removal of Quillette quote

BOTH SIDES ARE RIGHT
An individual writing under the name "Shuichi Tezuka", who purports to be a scholar and doesn't love Wikipedia, published an obloquy about this article in Quillette. In this discussion, the Wikipedia community considers whether Tezuka's hatchet job belongs in the {{Press}} template on this article's talk page.
Those in favour argue that {{Press}} just means the article's been mentioned in the press. It doesn't mean the press are talking sense, and indeed the press often don't. Editors taking this view also argue that adding the press template helps people find where Wikipedia is mentioned in outside sources.
Those against argue that to call Quillette, which is an Australian right-wing online magazine, a "press outlet" is quite the stretch. According to this view we shouldn't be drawing attention to this kind of pseudoscientific bulldung from an organization that self-acknowledges as hereditarian. It's also alleged that the person writing as Shuichi Tezuka is a community-banned racist LTA.
Talk pages are unindexed and don't draw attention to sites mentioned on them, so I give that part of the "against" argument somewhat less weight, but still, my assessment is that both sides are right. Quillette's article is relevant and slightly amusing, and there should be a pointer to it from this talk page, but we don't need to dignify Tezuka's little rant about Wikipedia's oppressive woke orthodoxy by putting it alongside pieces by the BBC and CNN. Editors are at liberty to remove it from {{Press}} and pop it in somewhere else near the top of the page, perhaps wrapped in {{small}}, and perhaps adding whatever context is appropriate, at editorial discretion.
I hope this helps, and I hope it fully resolves the dispute. Questions, comments, criticism, and complaints about this close are welcome and should be directed to my talk page.—S Marshall T/C 18:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I reverted the good-faith edit that added a quote from Quillette to the section "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" at the top of the talk-page. Note that Quillette is listed at RSP as generally unreliable. Not surprisingly, part of the quote is untrue -- the part claiming that RS were replaced by newspaper articles. However, it's reasonable to criticize citations of media sources that should be looked at and possibly removed. I removed a citation to a piece in Vox, and other ac editors are of course welcome to remove other inappropriate uses of media sources if you find any. NightHeron (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron, I added it and I disagree with your removal. The {{Press}} template is a talk-page thing, it says nothing more than "This coverage exists." WP:RS does not apply (not that you said it did). That an opinion piece writes what it writes is not a reason to exclude. There is no demand that {{Press}} stuff are "right" or "WP-nice." My view is that Quillette is "press/media organization" and fits the talkpage template hand-in-glove. If it helps as a compromise, we can have the template without a quote. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree to that compromise. The problem with giving the quote is that there is no place there for any commentary or refutation of something that is factually incorrect. But your suggested compromise avoids that problem. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can always start a discussion like "Quillette says there are WP:BLOGS used as sources in this WP-article, are they correct and if so, should we do anything about it?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Quillette piece appears to have been authored by a person who was banned from Wikipedia for his obsessive, relentless promotion of white racial superiority. While his views may make him a median contributor to Quillette, they were a poor fit for Wikipedia. It seems a bit dishonest of him not to disclose this history in the Quillette piece (or maybe he did and I missed it—the article was quite long and unfocused).
This person wasted literally thousands of hours of constructive volunteer time pushing racist nonsense. So I guess the argument against including the piece in our header is that it's a continuation of his obsessive litigation by other means, and we shouldn't play along. In fact, its inclusion directly undermines the "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!" banner at the top of the talk page. And his endorsement of Justapedia is pretty telling. But in the end... whatever. MastCell Talk 18:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we editorialize like this with similar sections in general? I don’t think we should. Zanahary (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I add (or expand) these templates on talkpages, my habit is to add something on-topic from the media in the |quote= parameter, if that's what you meant. Not if none of the previous items had quotes, but that wasn't the case here. Editorializing? Well, I picked the quote from what was available, so if you like.
My general opinion is that this is an interesting template to have on talkpages when content is available, and if it contains stuff I disagree with that is fine (that is the nature of "media") and sometimes it even adds a bit of interest. It has some potential value for editors to know what kind of coverage is out there, and the stuff in them may inspire good edits, warn of something (and explain a recent view-spike) or make someone think "Cool, CNN noticed the article I was working on" or "Wow, that pseudonymous writer really feels neglected about their previous Quillette article."
Fwiw, had I found the BBC, CNN and SP articles first I would have added those here too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, I wouldn't have added the BBC, that article doesn't mention this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with MastCell. And I don't think I'd ever want to use something with an anonymous author taking sides of Wikipedia. Too likely it will be a banned editor or LTA. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quillette is a fervent promoter of race pseudoscience and is, by admission of founding editor Claire Lehmann an hereditarian publication. Nancygerette (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång's position appears to be that we should be including all media coverage of the topic, regardless of quality. Like MastCell and Doug Weller, I find that argument problematic, since we do need to draw the line somewhere. There is after all no shortage of butt-hurt Nazis complaining about this topic online, some of them in the pages of "magazines" like Quillette. Given the likelihood that the author of this piece is one of a handful of banned long-term abusers, providing them with a permanent perch on our talk page header seems counterproductive. Unless someone can provide a policy-based rationale for inclusion, I'm seeing a rough consensus here to remove. Generalrelative (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "policy-based rationale" for the bizarre claim that the {{press}} template is "providing a permanent perch". Perhaps you are mistakenly referring to a different template, {{Permanent perch for media coverage that not only exists but is true and correct about everything and we agree with it and we think the author is not only correct in their claims but also a good person}}? The documentation of the press template is itself pretty clear (not to mention based on an actual consensus that isn't just three people saying they think a website suxxxxx). jp×g🗯️ 04:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s helpful to see that an article has received media attention; the template shouldn’t be treated as an endorsement. Zanahary (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot imagine why it would be helpful. I doubt anyone who comes to this talk page and navigates to a collapsed media mention template would be surprised to learn that such nonsense exists somewhere out there on the Internet. This particular Quillette article doesn't seem special as an example. So who, exactly, is helped by linking to it? Linking to the article does editorially indicate that it is worth someone's attention to actually click on the link and read it. Otherwise, what even would the point be? In that sense, a link is form of endorsement, regardless of whether or not we agree with its specific contents. Grayfell (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense, the sense where cats have fins?
Yes, it's worth someone's attention to see what people are saying about us on another website, regardless of whether we agree with it or we think they are a good person. It's especially relevant if a bunch of people start coming here from the other website, in which case we can see what information they've been given before hand. If you really, genuinely think that acknowledging the existence of something is an endorsement (rather than just making this argument out of personal distaste for the website in question), I will wait here while you go open AfDs for "murder", "indigestion", "tax fraud" and "Ku Klux Klan", or remove all mention of the subjects from their talk pages, et cetera, and we can see how that shakes out. jp×g🗯️ 02:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing with this level of disrespect and incivility is 1) disrespectful and uncivil (wow!), and 2) never going to convince anyone. Zanahary (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If attempts to explain something diplomatically are ignored, there is little alternative but to phrase it directly. The {{press}} template does not require that sources are reliable. There's no basis for the claim that it does. This has been litigated again and again and again; outside of truly egregious situations like harassment sites that dox editors, it has been repeatedly determined that there's no benefit to policing talk page header press mention templates. The documentation for the template, which was determined after an attempt to gain broad consensus over a period of months, confirms this. Our policies confirm this. If you know of a way of explaining this that is less offensive, let me know. jp×g🗯️ 04:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me it's helpful for the same reason that any media alert is helpful. On Wikipedia, we cite all sorts of primary and secondary sources that most editors certainly have no interest in endorsing. That's the nature of the encyclopedia; we get all the information. That spirit extends to the talk page. If an article's reception of media attention is significant (and there is apparent consensus that it is, since this template exists and is in wide use across the project), then this instance of media attention ought to be included. Zanahary (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zanahary, thanks for demonstrating that reasonable minds can disagree respectfully on this matter. Generalrelative (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When making changes like [11] it would be useful to consider not just whether local consensus can support such a change, but also whether it's the type of change that will likely cause a public embarrassment for Wikipedia. In the past year, Wikipedia's coverage of everything related to human intelligence has become a laughingstock among professional psychologists and also on social media. The removal of the link to the Quillette article is exactly the type of change that probably would produce such mockery. In fact, the Quillette article has a section about unjustified removals from Wikipedia articles related to intelligence. When that is part of its subject matter, how could anyone be unaware of how absurd it looks to un-ironically remove the Quillette article itself?
@JPxG and Zanahary: if you've read the two Quillette articles from last December and from July 2022, you'll possibly have some understanding how how things turned out this way, and my comment here described another similar incident. I'm mentioning the background just in case some of the uninvolved editors showing up in this discussion care enough to address the broader issues that cause incidents like this current one. But I won't hold it against you if you'd rather just acknowledge the problem and then move on to other things, which is what ArbCom usually has done when these situations are brought to them. tickle me 12:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The right wing in the U.S. frequently attacks and ridicules Wikipedia, and I don't see why this should cause us to be upset and change the way Wikipedia does things. If the right wing did not attack Wikipedia, we'd have reason to worry. Over the years the U.S. far right has increasingly been promoting fringe POVs, including white supremacist views of intelligence. Treating such views as fringe and sources that promote them as unreliable was not the result of "local" consensus, but rather was the conclusion of two widely-publicized RFCs within the last four years. NightHeron (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ 1 to this. Becoming impervious to PROFRINGE media is precisely how Wikipedia has increased its reputation for reliability among both subject-matter experts and the general public, and how it maintains its status as the Last Good Place on the Internet. Generalrelative (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(reply to Grayfell) I'll quote my view from earlier in this thread: "It has some potential value for editors to know what kind of coverage is out there, and the stuff in them may inspire good edits, warn of something (and explain a recent view-spike) or make someone think "Cool, CNN noticed the article I was working on" or "Wow, that pseudonymous writer really feels neglected about their previous Quillette article."" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have literally no idea what you guys are talking about. What do you think is the point of the {{press}} template? It's not an endorsement of the things that get linked in it. The main purpose is to indicate -- to us editors -- when our editorial processes and discussions have been the subject of attention by the media. It is to indicate, to the editors of the encyclopedia who comment on talk pages, if there is some high-traffic website that mentions the talk page, which is likely to be the origin of many people reading it and coming here to leave comments about it. Why are you acting like it's some kind of trophy that we should take away from people to punish them? It makes no sense. jp×g🗯️ 04:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the press we are getting in recent years is treating Larry Sanger as some kind of topic expert, or treating vandalised bio articles as major topics, regardless of how fast they were corrected. It is not a trophy, nor a badge of honor when the press turns its attention to Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Press on this article exists. Existence ought to be sufficient to list an item with the {{press}} template. But no. WP:NONAZIS! This episode is some amazing meta-level commentary on the ideological corruption rampant in these parts of Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! What we needed all along was some ideologically pure editors to come along and waggle their fingers about how NONAZIS is corrupting the youth.
But seriously, y'all linking {{press}} seem to have missed the paragraph where it explicitly urges us to Use common sense when assessing inclusion. Sure, the normal rules for reliability do not necessarily apply, but this is far from a blanket call for the indiscriminate inclusion of any and all coverage. You may reasonably disagree with where MastCell, Doug Weller and I draw the line –– that linking an article by someone we've almost certainly banned from Wikipedia for disrupting this topic area goes against common sense –– but please don't pretend that our views are somehow beyond the pale, or that our arguments are of the "this suxxx" variety. The arguments we've presented are only compounded by the low editorial standard of Quillette; I see only one (very inexperienced) user arguing for exclusion solely on that basis. Generalrelative (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To this I'll just add WP:PROFRINGE as another decidedly common-sense reason for exclusion that goes well beyond mere reliability. Generalrelative (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a view. Mine is that as Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories goes, it's very weak such (and fwiw, not why I added it). And that guideline, like WP:RS, is about article content. Basically, we are in personal taste territory (and that was an essay I just linked). Removal of "annoying" media/opinion like this from {{press}} appears to me like bowdlerization. Quillette is also media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that we're able to disagree in a civil manner on these points. You and I really do have different ideas about what Use common sense entails in this instance, and that's fine. Frankly the only thing I find "annoying" is the mischaracterizations and uncivil behavior of some of our colleagues here. But that too is no big deal. Perhaps additional voices will care to weigh in and a consensus for inclusion will become clear. Otherwise, WP:ONUS will prevail and the link will go. Either way the encyclopedia will be served if we remain committed to civility, as you've done. Generalrelative (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS and the policy of which it is part is also about mainspace. What we can get here is WP:CONSENSUS, like in a discussion about which of 2 relatively equal pics should be used as leadimage. If the discussion dies down a bit, shall we ask for closure at WP:RFCL? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not going to edit war over it, but WP:ONUS is policy and it makes no special reference to mainspace: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. If you believe strongly in maintaining the link, you'll have to persuade others. I too am persuadable. And yes, I would support requesting closure at WP:RFCL.Generalrelative (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." My emphasis. Also, part of WP:V. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected on the explicit language of ONUS. See below, however, regarding its common-sense applicability to the present dispute. Over and out. Generalrelative (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One final comment on the substance of your argument, Gråbergs Gråa Sång: {{press}} explicitly calls for us to Be mindful of guidelines when assessing inclusion, and even suggests the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as a venue for discussing this. So even if the standards for inclusion in a press header are lower than for inclusion in article space, considering other guidelines like WP:PROFRINGE makes perfect sense.
I'm going to take a step back from this thread now to make room for others. If anyone would like to discuss on my talk page or by email, feel free. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is, in full, what the documentation says:
This template automatically adds articles to Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press. Oftentimes, the purpose of this is to contextualize talk page discussions about ongoing coverage of editorial disputes, and press coverage listed here may come from sources otherwise considered unreliable.
Use common sense, and do not use this template to link to outing of Wikipedia editors (e.g. forum threads where people are trying to dox users). Be mindful of guidelines such as WP:LINKLOVE and WP:ELBLP, as well as the biographies of living persons policy (which applies to all pages, including talk pages). When in doubt, discuss the appropriateness of the template and sources on the article's talk page, or consider seeking input at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
This specific wording is the product of discussion at Template talk:Press following a series of incidents in which people claimed that the template was somehow required to be curated to exclude bad (i.e. bad for mainspace) sources. jp×g🗯️ 22:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, I hear you, and I understand why you might be frustrated after a hard-fought consensus at Template talk. Indeed, I was unaware of that background before this discussion. But I do think that my reading of the consensus text at {{press}} is reasonable –– even if reasonable minds can disagree. And I am very keenly aware of some other background pertinent to this contentious topic area which I feel is equally important to consider. We'll have to leave it to others, and ultimately to the closer, to determine how much weight to give to each of our positions. Generalrelative (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cosigned! Zanahary (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's absurd to accuse editors of "ideological corruption" in response to not wanting to link to a badly-written troll article on a talk page. It would be an WP:AGF violation if it weren't so silly. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "ideological corruption" is... not nice. Or helpful. "badly-written troll article" is not that nice either, but I've read it, and I see how one can arrive on that conclusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I can see very little merit in including the Quillette piece in the 'mentioned' header. It is clearly editorialising and written to further the writer's own personal agenda. It should be noted that Quillette solicits for and accepts submissions from "Interested authors" [12] and that the author appears to have only ever written for the website on the one topic. I see nothing to suggest that their views are even those of Quillette itself - this is essentially no more significant than a blog post from an anonymous individual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does have a whiff of blocked users slooooowly forum-shopping an op-ed. Quillette is a recent minor site with prolific fringe-y opinion pieces, which I wouldn't normally class as "media" in the sense of the template. A pseudonymous piece from it feels disproportionate alongside the BBC and CNN. Even the SPLC summary is borderline, but that's at least a named writer from a 400-person organization with a clear editorial practice and global audience. The Quillette piece is not "a random [annoying] article that got social media attention", it is by a pseudo that exclusively publishes on this topic and on alleged biases of Wikipedia, giving extensive positive attention to the work of the editors sanctioned in the AC case originally affecting this topic. With minimal benefit from inclusion, I'd leave it out. – SJ + 03:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC) TLDR: What Andy said (beat me to it!). – SJ + 03:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I added the item under discussion when I found it on google. Nobody told/asked me to, on or off WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was clear! The "forum shopping" comment referred to the author getting that [pair of] piece[s] published in Quillette. If an actual journalist w/ topical expertise wrote something similar in a piece on the topic in, say, Newsweek (to pick a long-standing media outlet not considered generally reliable anymore), I could see an argument for its relevance. But this seems like the same small community that was edit-warring about this a decade ago continuing to do so in opinion pieces and entire forks of wikipedia; it may be an indicator that flame wars are eternal, but not an indicator that "media organizations" are talking about this. – SJ + 23:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What counts as media-org/press for our purposes in this day and age can be disagreed on by reasonable people. My view is that Quilette fits the description, my December thinking was something like "Quilette? Never heard of it. Ah, it has a non-awful-looking WP-article that doesn't say "blog", then it fits the talk-page." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quillette only publishes opinion; in this case it's the opinion of someone with no relevant expertise, which immediately makes WP:DUE weight a hard sell. On top of that it's a WP:BIASED group whose biases reflect fairly out-there views (they wear their rejection of the academic consensus on the issues they weigh in as a badge of pride, but it's an obvious problem when considering due weight on Wikipedia.) In the right situation, biased sources can be used, and opinion pieces can be included, especially when they come from respected subject-matter experts; but we have to measure all these things together when weighing due weight, and in this case it all adds up to something that is obviously WP:UNDUE as opinion without substantial secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking of mentioning WP:NPOV myself, in my view excluding the item goes a little, maybe, perhaps, against the spirit of NPOV in this context. But like almost every PAG etc that's been linked in this thread, NPOV/DUE is about mainspace. IMO personal taste is much more on point than DUE. Consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the article, or for the auto-collapsed expandable eighth box out of ten in the header on the talk page of the article? jp×g🗯️ 22:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Aquillion and AndyTheGrump, this is not a source that bears mention alongside the likes of BBC and CNN. It is clearly problematic, as articulated above, and the selection of this source for curation is (quite unintentionally) not a neutral action. Curation itself can be POV unless carried out under clear guidelines, and WP:UNDUE is an appropriate guideline here. This one should not have been selected. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for closure of this discussion at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closer: Folks in the "exclude" camp have been cagey about the evidence that the author of the Quillette article is a community-banned LTA. That has been both to avoid WP:OUTING and to avoid giving the LTAs tips for block evasion. Please email me if you have any questions or to request additional background. Generalrelative (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Side discussion on removing non-academic sources from article

If it's closed can we then go back to NightHeron's constructive beginning to this thread before the distraction? The Vox piece was removed and the remaining seems to be confined to "note a" cites to New Statesman, The Guardian, and The Independent. I would just remove the entire note along with the text in the "Test Bias" section. It's a bit of cherry-picking from Reeve and Charles. The most appropriate text in their paper for this article is probably the paragraph at the end of section 4.2 which is weaker and more cautioning. Dump the lot and problem solved. fiveby(zero) 18:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Generalrelative (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article still includes citations to various other non academic sources, which violate the restriction to only cite "peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers." For example, in the "Health and nutrition" section sources 86 through 91 all are to articles published in The Guardian. But I don't know if this is the right time to try to make the article comply with that restriction.
Do you not find it contradictory that you have modified this article based on the Quillette article's criticism of its citations to newspaper sources, yet also you do not want that article linked to in the talk page header? It would be one thing if the Quillette article's criticism were baseless and we were disregarding it. But we are already giving the Quillette article exposure indirectly, by removing some of the newspaper sources that it criticizes this article for citing. When we are already doing that, it is not really giving the article more exposure to link to it in the talk page header, as a way to identify the origin of the criticism that these edits were based on. tickle me 01:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not finding those. I think the ground here is covered by p. 101 and elsewhere of Nisbett and it looks like those Guardian articles, which reference papers and a conference presentation, were probably added in an effort to improve the sourcing. What is this restriction you're referring to? I'm not sure Intelligence and How to Get It would pass the bar? It's from a prominent author but written for a general audience and not academics. Probably some improvement in the citations could be made here but not sure what needs done. I see the ArbCom ruling "Correct use of sources" in the talk headers, but not anything about this other restriction you mentioned. fiveby(zero) 03:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fiveby: there's a header when you edit the article that stipulates Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. That's what's being referred to.
I'm not sure when those Guardian sources were added. I don't think anyone would object if someone wanted to replace them with the actual studies they're reporting on. They are all, as far as I can tell, reporting on peer-reviewed studies that would pass muster. We just have to cite them directly.
As to tickle me's argument: the Quillette article's criticism was indeed baseless because it claimed that editors were "replacing" higher-quality sources with journalistic ones. They were not. Generalrelative (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I went and substituted out all the Guardian refs for relevant peer-reviewed sources: [13]. I also cut the citation of Nisbett's book in that paragraph. It didn't seem necessary in that case. Elsewhere the book is cited where it's being quoted by Mackintosh (IQ and Human Intelligence, Oxford University Press, 2011), a secondary source, so I think that's appropriate. Generalrelative (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[14] [15] [16] Generalrelative, you are not looking carefully enough at the sources you cite. This study is about how early childhood deprivation reduced intelligence in Romanian children, this study is about how green space affected intelligence in Belgium, and this study is about how air quality affected intelligence in China. These sources say nothing about African Americans or about the topic of race and intelligence. Your citing these sources to support the statement "The African American population of the United States is statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors" misrepresents the sources. The support for this sentence from its other citations also is dubious, but those three sources are misrepresented the most egregiously. It also is an action prohibited by another part of the sourcing restriction: "Anyone found to be misrepresenting a source, either in the article or on the talk page, will be subject to escalating topic bans." tickle me 12:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably my fault for trying to get rid of the news sources, and i was not objecting Nisbett at all, just trying to understand the source restriction. The content is i think on very solid ground and Nisbett's work covers all the bases and should address any kind SYNTH concerns. The goal here should be to improve the citations so that editors agree they support the text and to serve the read (if any actually bother to look). In my opinion Nisbett is excellent citation for readers, and it's unproductive for editors to demand shrubbery or play gotcha games with the source restrictions. What exactly would you like to see for citations for this passage? fiveby(zero) 14:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks fiveby, but I'll hand it to tickle me: this is an effective gotcha. I was obviously trying to help by going back to the Guardian articles and substituting in the studies they were reporting on. But given that there are LTAs like the Quillette author who are obsessed with finding fault with editors in this topic area, and if I were to self-revert I would technically be replacing peer-reviewed sources with journalistic ones, I'll go ahead and remove the offending sentence for now. If anyone has time to work collaboratively and ensure that the refs are supporting what they're supposed to (or wants to argue for the Nisbett book being allowable), please feel free to add back in an appropriately referenced sentence. Generalrelative (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happily, the section reads just fine without this sentence: [17]. If anything, it was a bit redundant. Generalrelative (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede's prose on scientific consensus

I think that modern science has concluded that race is a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality, would be better reworded to match the section on race further into the article.

From this article's 'Race' section:

The majority of anthropologists today consider race to be a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one, a view supported by considerable genetics research. The current mainstream view in the social sciences and biology is that race is a social construction based on folk ideologies that construct groups based on social disparities and superficial physical characteristics...

This wording, which present race's social construction as a consensus view among scientists, rather than something which has been shown or concluded by science, is more in line with the wordings and contexts of reliable sources, like the consensus reports by National Academies of Science (here) and the American Association of Biological Anthropologists (here), which present arguments to support their consensus, but not scientifically-derived conclusions that would be appropriately reported with the modern science has concluded... verbiage. Similarly, this SciAm piece presents race's social construction as a consensus view, again presenting arguments to support it, rather than as a scientific finding per se:

Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning.

From Anthropologists' views on race, ancestry, and genetics:

Results demonstrate consensus that there are no human biological races and recognition that race exists as lived social experiences that can have important effects on health.

From Misrepresenting Race — The Role of Medical Schools in Propagating Physician Bias:

Most scholars in the biologic and social sciences converge on the view that racism shapes social experiences and has biologic consequences and that race is not a meaningful scientific construct in the absence of context.

All of these sources report race's social construction as a consensus view held broadly by scientists, and not as a finding that has been shown or concluded by science. None of them report it as a something that science has found, shown, or concluded. Among all of these, the current lede prose stands out—which, given that Wikipedia's role is to follow consensus of reliable secondary sources, it shouldn't.

I propose the following options, or similar:

...modern scientific consensus regards race to be a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality,

...modern scientific consensus considers race to be a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality,

...the consensus in modern science is that race is a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality,

...the prevailing view in contemporary science is that race is a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality,

...scientists generally agree today that race is a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality, Zanahary (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start by pointing out to anyone who may just be stumbling on this thread that Zanahary and I (and MrOllie) have already discussed this sentence. My view is that the sources do indeed present the view that race is a social construct rather than a biological reality as a finding or conclusion reached in the genomics era, rather than a mere convention. Here's how Ewan Birney et al. explain it: [18]

Research in the 20th century found that the crude categorisations used colloquially (black, white, East Asian etc.) were not reflected in actual patterns of genetic variation, meaning that differences and similarities in DNA between people did not perfectly match the traditional racial terms. The conclusion drawn from this observation is that race is therefore a socially constructed system, where we effectively agree on these terms, rather than their existing as essential or objective biological categories. Some people claim that the exquisitely detailed picture of human variation that we can now obtain by sequencing whole genomes contradicts this. Recent studies, they argue, actually show that the old notions of races as biological categories were basically correct in the first place. As evidence for this they often point to the images produced by analyses in studies that seem to show natural clustering of humans into broadly continental groups based on their DNA. But these claims misinterpret and misrepresent the methods and results of this type of research. Populations do show both genetic and physical differences, but the analyses that are cited as evidence for the concept of race as a biological category actually undermine it.

Yes, convention also plays a role because of garbage-in/garbage-out concerns, as is emphasized by the 2023 consensus report I suggested in our previous conversation on this language. But the basic fact that race serves as a "weak proxy for genetic diversity" was a genuine discovery that had to wait for the era of DNA sequencing to become settled science. That's why I stand behind "...modern science has concluded..." as a perfectly accurate way to phrase this.
I do thank you, though, for pointing out that the body needed to comport better with the lead. It really was out of date, so I've made an effort to update it. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the update you've made to the Race section is great! The new verbiage is specific and contextualizes the view as one of consensus. I hope that the lede can follow it, even verbatim or nearly so.
For ease, the new verbiage in the Race section: The consensus view among geneticists, biologists and anthropologists is that race is sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one, a view supported by considerable genetics research.
For anyone stumbling upon this now, I've started this discussion with a more specific aim (matching reliable sources), and with sources to support my proposed verbiage, than my previous started discussion, which I'd initiated with less context and editing experience. Zanahary (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zanahary. I contemplated a more thorough revision (not sure if we really need more than the first two paragraphs of the "Race" section to convey the necessary information to the reader of this article), but for the time being decided not to be so BOLD. I'd be curious to hear what you think of that suggestion though.
Wrt the lead sentence on scientific consensus, it may be that you and I just have slightly different intuitions about how best to summarize the sources. Let's see what others have to say, and if no one else here wants to weigh in there is always the option of posting at WP:NPOVN. The best thing about Wikipedia (in my view) is being able to tap into the wisdom of crowds –– in our case, thankfully, crowds of very well informed editors who have been doing this for a while. Generalrelative (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Race section, in my opinion, is definitely sufficient to convey the necessary context for unfamiliar readers to understand what follows. Zanahary (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I wasn't clear. My idea is to cut all but the first two paragraphs of the section. Those two paragraphs are where we highlight the consensus statements from the major scientific organizations. The rest of the section seems to get into the weeds in a way that I'm not sure is especially helpful. Maybe it's best to just leave it to readers who want to learn more to click through the "Main articles" header to Race (human categorization) or Race and genetics?
I'm not especially committed to this idea. It's just something that occurred to me when reading through the section with fresh eyes. Generalrelative (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. In that case, I think it should stay. The self-report is an important piece of context for the reader to interpret all the statistical references that follow. The clustering part is good too, though I'm going to go ahead and switch its place with the self-report paragraph, since I think it more naturally belongs after paragraphs about scientific conceptions and treatments of race than a paragraph about collection methods. Zanahary (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you did there. You're right: the section does flow much better now.
The one part that still strikes me as muddled is the final bit: everything from Hunt and Carlson disagreed... onward. I'm not sure what an ordinary reader is meant to take away from this. And is it really DUE to mention a disagreement among psychologists about how to read a genetics paper? In any case, if others think it is DUE, it should probably be revised for clarity. Generalrelative (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure why the philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther get some much space, they seemingly argue "both Lewontin and Edwards are right", but the article hasn't yet introduced Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy to the reader (who might wonder who they could be) and probably not the place to do that? fiveby(zero) 17:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, good catch. I've made some edits, and marked a confusing sentence for clarification. Zanahary (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since it looks like the party's all here, would anyone care to give their input on the conclusion/finding/consensus/etc. verbiage question? @Sj @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Generalrelative @NightHeron @Steve Quinn @Fiveby
(Apologies if it's considered ugly to ping) Zanahary (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an informed opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that wording much better, including for the lead - DFlhb (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading the linked sources that are provided above. I'll have to get back to you on this. I will say, however, that saying modern scientific consensus says such and such, is the same as saying modern science has concluded such and such.
A mainstream consensus is the position that science takes on an issue. This position seems to be the same as reaching a conclusion on an issue — especially on an issue such as this, where the scientific consensus is probably overwhelming. I am not sure the wording needs to be changed, but I will get back to you on this - hopefully within a few days, after I explore the material. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, saying "modern science has concluded that race is a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality," appears to be succinct, clear and accurate, There is no need to try to water down the message here or muddy the waters. And as I said, let me get back to you on this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see it as a watering down, if anything it seemed stronger; but I'm interested in your thoughts - DFlhb (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better refs and cross-refs?

Lead references
As of earlier today, there were no refs in the lead. I added a few, but there should be substantively more drawn from the article, particularly in the 2d paragraph, which seems arbitrary.
Older historical references
The idea that one's in-group is superior in intelligence and capacity than one's out-group is very old indeed. While particular notions of race and tested intelligence may be from the last 150 years, this article feels like it should be about the full historical arc.
General pseudoscience about superiority and exceptionalism
There's a broad history of bad statistics and motivated reasoning about race / gender / group superiority, which is hardly mentioned or linked here. I'm not sure how many subtopics have their own articles, but we have a whole category on exceptionalism, which could offer helpful context to ground the article and give it flow, as the arguments and the millennia-long history of narratives of superiority are similar. E.g., one can find many writings using language such as 'why one civilization dominated another', polygenesis (ex: in the US) or racial mixing (ex: in Japan) or 'X and intelligence' (ex: sex, religion]) with similarly polarized claims, methods of inference, circular arguments, &c.

– SJ + 00:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NightHeron that it will be constructive for you to propose substantial additions here, rather than making BOLD edits, given how much this article is already the result of many, many hard-won consensuses (you can see at a glance how much discussion there's been by looking at the number of archive pages). And regarding refs in the lead, see my 2¢ in the section above. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the WP:LEAD content is done right (I haven't checked), WP:LEADREFs aren't necessary. I think no LEADREFs is even considered a mark of quality WP-writing by many editors. OTOH, controversial stuff tends to have LEADREFs, sometimes extensive cite-bundles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For controversial or incomplete topics, explicit cites in the lead can be helpful. The second paragraph makes a number of unexplained editorial decisions, and is not supported by the body the way a lead paragraph in a GA would for instance. Given the controversy and current incomplete state of the article I would cite that. In particular I'd leave out the focus on the US in the 1920s, unless that's sourced for deserving such special attention, or balanced by the rest of the world. Citation stacks get annoying, but you can limit it to one or two high-level sources for the most substantive claims, or compress them at the end of each paragraph (cf. amphetamine). – SJ + 22:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be open to this. Feel free to try out some citation stacks and see what the reaction is. I won't revert again. Generalrelative (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best to leave citations out of the lead paragraphs at this time. I prefer to see proposed citations here on the talk page first. I think the lead does a good job of summarizing the article and I am not seeing how the second paragraph is arbitrary. Also, mentioning the 1920s is important because this was one of the peak periods of rationalizing racism to maintain the status quo, i e., keeping in place the dominant culture.
And we can look at the pre-civil war scientific racism toward Native Americans here on the talk page based on (JSTOR) articles such as has been posted somewhere above - Scientific Racism and the American Indian in the Mid-Nineteenth Century. In any case, I think this Wikipedia article does a really good job providing an overview of this topic. And that is essentially the function of an article on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many parts of the world

In the lead there is this sentence: "Pseudoscientific claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have played a central role in the history of scientific racism in many parts of the world." I think there is no need to for the added phrase "...in many parts the world." The phrase seems to make this lead sentence too wordy and detracts from conciseness. Any agreement on this matter? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even if there are sources that will allow us to expand the scope of this article, the phrase seems unnecessary. Generalrelative (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article scope

I think this article should contain content about the well-covered stereotypes relating to race and intelligence, and social notions relating to race and intelligence. As it stands, the article seems to be ~only about the notions and controversies in science and pseudoscience relating to race and intelligence. Would these proposed additions be out of scope? Zanahary (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I remember seeing another editor raise an idea like this earlier. Sorry if this is redundant; I can't find the earlier discussion. Zanahary (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&oldid=1211414745"