Talk:Fertility and intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Politically motivated entry[edit]

This article is clearly an attempt by an individual to deconstruct continual evidence proving that intelligence is negatively correlated to the will to be a parent. Before this I read an article, one among many, outlining research by Satoshi Kanazawa at the London School of Economics, explicitly showing a consistent correlation between lower intelligence and parenthood among women. One such article is here: With such blatant ignorance of both empiricle data and rational deduction by experts, any previous editor who chooses to focus on this subject at Wikipedia must be politically motivated. I suggest this article should be deleted, or comnpletely rewritten with regard to actual research, most of which does indeed prove a link, however controversial the ethical considerations may be. What utter nonsense this page currently is - so unqualified is the content that I may even return to it in future just for personal amusement. 'IQ correlates to Income' - what utter Toss! 'There is no conclusive evidence of a positive or negative correlation between human intelligence and fertility rate' - again, a quick Google search will succinctly prove otherwise. (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


Weiji removed a paragraph based on the argument that the source was unreliable due to being a research paper. At present the article is sourced predominantly to such sources, so there is no reason to remove just the one and removing them all would gut the article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Every editor can see that I have recommended a large variety of reliable sources in the continually updated source list on intelligence mentioned in the previous section of this talk page. It would be delightful to see more Wikipedians use sources to improve the 5,654,004 articles on Wikipedia as well as possible to uphold the core Wikipedia policy of verifiability.
The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources. (It should go without saying that an article about fertility and intelligence is inherently an article that makes medical claims.) Those guidelines remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

The medical sourcing guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."
So it's clear enough that if we are to do a good job of improving this article through good sourcing, we should be looking for sources such as "literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies," and I am familiar with several of those. I'll recommend some specific sources along those lines for this article, and I invite all other editors here to consider source criteria carefully in deciding how to improve this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Here are some citations to articles on the subject recommended to me in November by a medical geneticist and a professional demography researcher who both participate in a "journal club" I also participate in.
*Gottesman, I. I.; Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L. (1971). "Prologue: A Foundation for Informed Eugenics". Social Biology. 18 (Supplement): S1–S8. PMID 5125947. 
*Reed, Sheldon C. (1979). "A short history of human genetics in the USA". American Journal of Medical Genetics. 3 (3): 282–295. doi:10.1002/ajmg.1320030308. ISSN 0148-7299. PMID 384792. 
*Andersson, Gunnar; Rønsen, Marit; Knudsen, Lisbeth; Lappegård, Trude; Neyer, Gerda; Skrede, Kari; Teschner, Kathrin; Vikat, Andres (3 April 2009). "Cohort Fertility Patterns in the Nordic Countries" (PDF). Demographic Research. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. 20: 313–352. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2009.20.14. ISSN 1435-9871. Retrieved 1 January 2014. 
Both of the review articles point out conceptual errors that are common in studies of fertility and IQ, and the primary research article exemplifies the kind of mediating variables the more careful researchers look for, and the kind of surprising observations one finds when looking at the best ascertained data sets. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This article still needs much improved sourcing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
While I agree that the article should rely on secondary sources more than it does presently and agree that we should use the strongest and most representative sourcing when possible, I have to object to the notion that this article would be covered under WP:MEDRS. No medical claims are made in the article, which is what MEDRS concerns. That such a field has possible implications for medical research is not sufficient to argue for the application of MEDRS. Reputable academic journals focusing on this field are often not medical journals and excluding non-medical journals would be detrimental to a comprehensive treatment of the subject.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of text[edit]

Weji removed the following:

Please reinstate. KVDP (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to the reliable secondary sources already cited here on this talk page, in the section posted just before this talk page section. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fertility and intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)