Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence (book)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Synthesis tag

There is no evidence that the publisher was criticized because of this book as the article implies. --Jagz (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at IQ and Global Inequality.Ultramarine (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I re-read the sentence several times. I don't see any implication that the publisher was criticized because of this book. Of course, it would be even more obivous that this implication doesn't exist if you hadn't split the sentence. --Ramdrake (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Academic Publisher

The source presented, that keeps being re-added, does not say if it is or not an academic publisher. Please source correctly. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that references should reflect what is being referenced in the article, but entirely removing the passage was not necessary. A simple tweak would have done the job perfectly. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked it accordingly, thanks for your suggestion, in the same token, instead of re-adding incorrectly sourced material, your yourself could have simply tweaked it. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in tweaking, as I am not involved (nor do I want to be) with this discussion. I have not verified the source so I can't say that I support your claim. The reason I undid your change was to ensure relevant material does not get removed under the pretext of being "incorrectly sourced". — Dorvaq (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevant material which is mentioned elsewhere already in the article. I do not question your motives, however it seems you should have checked the sourcing. We are not here to build a bunch of words, but a concise and detailed encyclopedia, of which I am sure you are aware. The difference is in the sourcing and reliability of what is written, perhaps you should have simply asked why I removed what I did, instead of admittedly, reverting unsourced information. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am neither obligated to ask anything before editing, nor do I need to check the sources that were removed. But if you want to criticize my courtesy, or lack thereof, for undoing without discussion, well by the same token, you could have had the courtesy to allow other editors respond to your issue before making your edit. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed above. I am opening a new discussion that will hopefully be more orderly below. Obligated? no. Much like I am not obligated to help an old women up after I bump into her and knock her down. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. Now if you truly desire to achieve consensus through discussion, then discuss before editing. Don't expect me (or anyone for that matter) to discuss anything with you if you're not willing to allow any opportunity to respond before making changes. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you reply again, I promise you can have the last word, since it seemed to be all you are attempting to accomplish. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Information regarding publisher

Accusations made against the publisher, not in relation to the book itself, should not be in the article, agree or disagree and why. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In scientific studies all form of potential bias should be listed. Having a racist publisher in a study on races counts.Ultramarine (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Having a publisher which doesn't use peer review (i.e. non-academic) is a possible indication that the material would not have passed peer review. This is quite relevant for the book. Furthermore, claims of bias (in this case race-related bias) against the publisher is also an indication that the book may suffer from the same bias. This is all relevant information for the book.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating the book suffers from this bias? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No need for proven bias. Common practice is to list all potential bias in scientific studies.Ultramarine (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia policy, for you to look up information and include what you feel is bias. Please write up a statement, so I can start an RfC, I do not want to attempt to incorrectly summarize your opinion. I will summarize mine and the RfC can begin. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that a racist publisher is not a potential bias in a study on races? Thanks, but I will present my views myself in any RfC. But plesae discus the issue here first. Ultramarine (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am arguing that since you do not know if the publisher had an influence on the books contents itself, that you have no proof of bias, no source, and further as you are admitting, you are attempting to state something about the book itself, which no source has done, therefore admittedly engaging in Original Research. On the issue of the RfC, that is what I am asking you to do, type up your views so when I start the RfC, people can view both opinions and discuss, this way it is fair. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a study on smoking published with the financial support of the tobacco industry. No need to prove that this has caused a bias. Just the potential bias is enough. The financial support must disclosed. If there is a RfC, I will certainly present my case.Ultramarine (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is the potential bias, if the study was not conducted with such funds, only published? Do you know smoking companies provide the funding for Truth.Com? However their studies are not listed as bias because of that. If they were to be called bias, a source would need to be presented. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will list the RfC, once you have written your position on the topic. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting Indent) Ramdrake (and Ultramarine for that matter), I completely agree with you regarding listing "claims of bias", but I'm also staunch on having such claims sourced, and sourced correctly. If the publisher is widely criticized for being non-academic and racist, then it should be easy to find references indicating this, no? — Dorvaq (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not if the publisher is racist, it is if the publishers racism, proven or not, is relevant to the book and should be included in every book article from that publisher. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I agree that it is relevant. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Dorvaq regarding the "non-academic" publisher. This specifically should be supported. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See the Washington Summit Publishers article. Lists several accusations of racism.Ultramarine (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What is their relation to this book? You still have not shown any link, your method of arguing that the book receives money from a racist, is not proof the book is racist/bias. If you could show the WSP funded the study, then you would show bias, but in all cases you need a source to present this, it is not for you to prove, show or make light of. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, then use whatever good references found in that article here. Another Wikipedia article is not a reliable source regardless of whether or not the article is well-sourced, and that's Wikipedia policy. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Just pointing out that there are such sources.Ultramarine (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

{{RFCpol }}

Should a statement regarding a publisher be extended to all articles for books they publish? What is specifically in contention is the statement:

“ The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the WSP as a White Nationalist Hate Group. ”

• Position 1

1. Information critical of the publisher, that does not mention the book, or author should be included in the publishers article.
2. Information critical of the publisher, that mentions the book only in passing, is not inherently criticism of the book, making inclusion off topic. For isntance an article critical of the publisher, that simply says "Race Differences in Intelligence is published under WSP." Is not making criticism of Race Differences in Intelligence.
3. Information that is negative of a publisher, should not be replicated in every article on each book with a Wikipedia article.
4. The publishers bias, does not factually show bias in the book itself, or the author, as the publishers influence is unknown. To draw such a connection, a source needs to be presented which is stating such bias exists.
5. Attempting to show the book is bias, which is not stated in any source, by showing the publisher is accused of racism, is original research.

• Position 2

1. WP:NPOV requires the inclusion of the views of both sides. Take a study on smoking published with the financial support of the tobacco industry. In scientific literature this must be disclosed. No need to prove that this has caused errors in the study. Just the potential influence is enough. The financial support must disclosed because of the potential bias. A racist publisher in a study on races is certainly a potential bias. See the Washington Summit Publishers article.

Comments

1. In relation to point 1, of position 2. Is it the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to show this link? Is it not policy that Wikipedia does not engage in Original Research? Attempting to show bias by linking one source, a source that accuses the publisher of racism, as a method of showing there is potential bias in this book, without a source to specify that. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   Just pointing out that the N4GMiraflores wrote position 1. I position 2.Ultramarine (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   I was hoping to keep it anonymous, so no one would argue favorites, etc. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Points 1, 2 and 3 of position 1 aren't supported by any Wikipedia policy that I'm aware of (if they are, please cite the appropriate policy. Points 4 and 5 of position 1 seem to fail to make a difference between potential bias and actual bias. The book itself isn't being accused of bias; however, an accusation of bias about the publisher over books of a similar means there is a potential for bias for this book as well. Whether or not there is actual bias isn't the point. Potential bias speaks to the reliability of the book.
• Position 2 is the only one which seems to be firmly grounded in WP policy. The criticism leveled at WSP (for what it chooses to publish is real and sourced. The book being discussed here being of the same nature and topic, there is legitimate contention that the criticism may apply. Thus, the sentence should not be taken as a direct accusation, but as a disclosure of potential bias.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If there was something wrong with the book, you would be able to add a citation criticizing the book without having to resort to criticizing the publisher instead. --Jagz (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating potential bias? You have stated you are attempting to show this, that is a violation of WP:OR. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no claim of "potential bias" the way the sentenced was (or currently is) phrased, which means the passage was not in violation of WP:OR. The "potential bias" part is actually up to the reader to interpret from the factual information presented. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The people adding have already stated the intent is to show potential bias. If the information is being added to show something that is not supported by sources, then its in violation of WP:OR. Actually it is probably worse since its being defended with false intent to game the system. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The only issue at first was with the description of WSP being "non-academic", which should be properly sourced if added. With what's currently there, the sources do show what is being referenced, albeit more sources could be provided. If no actual claim is being made in the article, and all the information provided is factual and well-sourced, then no violation of WP:OR is being made regardless of intent. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Off topic information is being added to advance a Wikipedians opinion of the book, or to expose what they believe, unsupported by source, to be possible bias. That is WP:OR. The issue of non-academic is not at hand. The discussion is about the quote at hand. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that the statement about the publisher amounts to anything more than a fringe opinion and says nothing about the book. It's pretty clear that the publisher fills a niche by offering books that are not considered politically correct. Being politically incorrect does not equate to being unreliable. The statement should be removed from this article; it belongs in the article about the publisher. --Jagz (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments by outsiders

The users in the preceding Comments section have repeatedly debated this question in previous sections of this talk page. I suggest that this subsection be reserved for people outside the controversy. It might be interesting and informative to hear from neutral outsiders without being buried by comments from those involved in the controversy. I myself don't yet have a comment but probably will have one after studying some more. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe original synthesis is pretty clear on this. What you basically have is a case of: John says A. Bob says John is always wrong. Therefore, Bob says not-A. This statement is what is prohibited, by advancing a position not explicitly supported by either source (assuming the case that Bob never actually mentioned the one book). Now the problem here is that forming any juxtaposition of facts that even suggests this forbidden claim is also forbidden when one of your sources is not about the article topic itself (i.e. when it's obviously been include for the purpose of suggesting that fact). Someguy1221 (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• To me, this comes down to a simple question: Have reliable sorces discussed the issue of the publisher's bias in the context of discussing this particular book? If not, then mentioning the bias of the publisher is indeed Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• As something else to note, I'd like anyone who wants to include the criticism to consider a much more obvious case, whether Criticism of Christianity (especially criticisms of christians as a people) should be mentioned on every article about a christian. The answer is an obvious no, and we select only those articles that were specifically targeted by the criticism to have mention of it. It's already stated in the article that the book was published by Washington Summit Publishers, so readers interested in the publisher can then follow the handy blue link. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• As editors our job is to report what the book says. The book itself is the primary source for what the book says. Reviews of the book are secondary sources for what the book says. I presume that the book itself does not include the statement in question. Do any of the reviewers include that statement? If not, then the statement must go. Even if some reviewers mention it, is it a significant minority who mention it or is it just a fringe opinion? Bottom line: stick to the sources - i.e. sources about what the book says. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A website critical of the publisher, accuses the publisher of racism. There is no mention of the book in one source presented, the other source mentioned only states this book is published by them, without stating anything about the book itself. None of them are reviews of the book. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Then such criticims belong in the article on Washington Summit Publishers, and not in this article. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

I see that Wikipedia articles exist for all of Richard Lynn's books. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge articles?

Might it make more sense to merge together the two or three separate articles on books by Richard Lynn on very similar subjects of cross-national comparisons of IQ? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have found a reliable source that says explicitly that this book can be cited as relying on the same literature review as IQ and Global Inequality, so I propose a soon merger of the three articles into one. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hispanics?

Why would Hispanics be treated as a race? They are not a race, and they include diverse nationalities and diverse races within those nationalities. So I fail to see why "Hispanic" gets its own section. Hispanic (including Latino) is an "ethnicity" created by the US government to identify individuals from Spanish speaking countries (which would include Spain, and I'm sure Lynn included Brazil as Hispanic despite the fact that they speak Portuguese; and perhaps all American nations south of the US were included as Hispanic), Hispanic or Latino is in no way a single group of its own. This is totally unscientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.1.20 (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

More broadly, the United States Census says that none of the "race" or "ethnicity" categories used in federal reporting are scientific.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68176.htm

"The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups."

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_RHI725209.htm

"Hispanics or Latinos are those people who classified themselves in one of the specific Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino categories listed on the Census 2000 questionnaire -"Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano," "Puerto Rican", or "Cuban"-as well as those who indicate that they are "other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino." Persons who indicated that they are "other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" include those whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, the Dominican Republic or people identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, Hispanic, Hispano, Latino, and so on.

"Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person's parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States.

"People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino may be of any race. Thus, the percent Hispanic should not be added to percentages for racial categories."

Simply put, the United States government acknowledges that the categories are arbitrary and approximate. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

removing OR/SYNTH image

The image is pure synthesis. There is nothing like it in the source. I shall remove it again. aprock (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See also the discussion on the image talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:AverageIQ-Map-World.png#Disputed}. aprock (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You can find a similar image in a peer-reviewed paper: [1] Miradre (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing reference: Kamin 1995

The reference for Kamin 1995 is missing. It was previously linked to Race and Intelligence, which does not have a citation for Kamin 1995 (at least that I could find). Could somone who is familiar with this field find the reference? Thanks. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted graphic removed... Um, actually "Revealing Graphic removed due to Unfortunate truth was too easy to see"

Graphic lifted directly from World distribution of the intelligence of indigenous peoples by Lynn (2006) with no indication permission was granted. p. vi This a direct copyright violation. The person who uploaded it has no right to do so or to grant distribution rights. Skywriter (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No copyright violation here. The image is not taken directly from the book; it's based on data from the book. Liztanp (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It used to be in the main header "race and IQ", then just in this listing, Now, of course, gone altogether. - It's all about PC: Filthy, Dishonest, Leftist, Editors. - Many years ago the 'Race and IQ' section used to chock full of graphs/numbers etc. Now it's mostly Apologetics. - Wiki is now so biased/cleansed it's useLess. They'll be NO contributions by me any more. You must be kidding. iilii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.255.135.68 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What's your suggestion of a reliable secondary source appropriate for this article (which itself is about a book, and thus presumably would be about the book and its critical reception and impact)? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Stupidity

The map is very stupid.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/AverageIQ-Map-World.png

So it claims that there is IQ difference between the two sides of Turkey? Istanbul is located Europe and Asia. So, it claims that European Istanbul people are more clever?

how ignorant... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.139.1 (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You have hit the nail pretty much on the head. the authors' treatment of data is "creative" but not something that should be considered particularly accurate nor in any way scientific. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A review of the book

Another Wikipedian over at the AfD discussion about this article has mentioned a review of this book that looks like a possible additional source for the article, if the article survives AfD. I like that same Wikipedian's proposal that the article content could simply be merged into the biographical article about the book's lead author. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the whole article!

No one seem to actually debate the changes they want to make. Furthermore some are trying to delete half of the article without even arguing for their point. Seem to be their bias against the research, that make them do it. So make some arguments for your position instead of deleting the article randomly. thank you :) DavidJac123 (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to make a request for comment about how detailed the summary should be. I recommend that you and the other people not revert anymore until the RFC concludes, and then accept its results whatever they are. 101.0.71.36 (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added the graph from the book

I have added the graph from the book, as is it central to the book.. Hope you agree :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.111.213.210 (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad SineBot signed your post for you. I disagree, and will revert accordingly as undue weight from a source of very dubious reliability. The kind of content that ought to be added to this article, in my opinion, is more critical reviews of the book by scholars who have examined how the book was compiled and its rather poor research base. I encourage other editors to join the discussion here with their rationales for what should or should not be in the article in the voice of the encyclopedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I find the graph relevant because it is the relevant evidence the book have. Even if you dont like it, it is still relevant. And how is this a bad book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.111.213.210 (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.35.210 (talk)

This is an article ABOUT the book. That's the only thing it's about. How can an article give undue weight to its own subject? 101.0.94.154 (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You write, "This is an article ABOUT the book." That suggests including mostly reviews of the book, which have mostly been negative when they haven't come from the keyboards of the people who enjoy the same funding source. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. In an article about a book, most of the article usually describes the actual book. A Game of Thrones, Dreams from My Father, or God is Not Great are examples of articles about well-known books in three different genres. In all three articles, more space is given to the book's content than to its reviews. This is the standard thing to do in an article about a book, no matter whether the book's reception is positive or negative. Why does this book having a negative reception (assuming it does, I haven't checked) make you think for this book the standard practice doesn't apply? 101.0.71.43 (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

How would you establish the notability of this book? Wikipedia:NBOOK -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't change the subject. We weren't discussing whether the book is notable or not. We were discussing whether it's "undue weight" for an article about a book to include a detailed summary of the book. Do you have nothing more to say to support your claim about that? 101.0.94.176 (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

an encyclopedia article does not present crap in a manner which an unwary reader might take to be fact. it is clearly UNDUE to promote the bad science of the book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please try, for just a minute, to make an argument that's based on policy and not based on your personal opinion about the book. The article on The Myth of the Twentieth Century, an infamous Nazi publication, has a detailed outline of the book's contents. If your argument were supported by policy, the summary of that book would have to be blanked also. Fortunately, authors of most Wikipedia articles about most books understand that whether a book is right or wrong, it's useful for readers to know what the books says. They also understand that (as in that article) summarising a book isn't the same as endorsing or promoting it. Is it impossible to get that understanding from you? 101.0.94.172 (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

yes, it is impossible to get "that understnding" from me because it is a false claim.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia notability guideline for articles about books has changed in its wording and in its application over time, and I wonder if this article (created in 2006, by a Wikipedian with a rather single-purpose contribution history) would survive AfD review under current application of the guideline. Bringing up other examples of books that have slipped into Wikipedia without proper editorial vigilance doesn't do anything to convince me that this article belongs here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that whether the book is notable or not is completely irrelevant here. Notability is what determines whether to have an article about the book at all. But if we do have an article about it, notability is NOT what determines whether the article should summarise the book. If you actually believed this book isn't notable according to the policy you linked to, you would nominate it for deletion and get input from the rest of the community. But as long as "notability" is your reason for removing the summary of the book from its article, it shows you can't actually support what you're doing with policy, so you have to bring up these red herrings.

I know I'll never convince you to stop, and that you'll keep repeating your mantra "it isn't notable" no matter how many times I point out that's irrelevant to what you're doing. But at least now, when readers wonder why this article isn't informative, if they look at the talk page they'll know who's responsible. 101.0.71.52 (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think what WeijiBaikeBianji might be trying to express is not actually Wikipedia policy Notable, but Wikipedia policy WP:UNDUE. No third party reliable sources have given any credence to the data or conclusions from the book and for us to do so when they havent is not proper. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. WP:UNDUE was his original argument, and in response I pointed out that it's standard for any article about a book to summarise the book, no matter whether the book's reception was positive or negative. He apparently had nothing to say to address that directly, so after that he brought up the red herring instead. This discussion isn't even very long. I can't believe you've already forgotten what his original argument was, and how he later dropped it and took up a different (and irrelevant) one. 101.0.71.29 (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, policy tends to be enforced more vigorously for controversial topics. That there are articles about books elsewhere on wikipedia where policy is not applied in the same way is neither surprising, nor informative with respect to how to handle this article. aprock (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have readded the graph from the book, stop deleting it. It is relevant for the book.. Plz debate it with me before deleting it. thank you :)... Further more some idiots keeps deleting half of this page, plz debate before deleting half of the material on book plz. We need a debate about this thx. DavidJac123 (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have readded everything to the article as someone tried to delete without actually debating the topic. Let's have a discussion before we delete half the page. Thank you. Any further mass deleting of the page is simply just weird to do, and i will correct it. Just because you dont like the topic about race or the book, it doesn't give you the right to destroy this article about book. So stop deleting the page, and lets talk about the content.DavidJac123 (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

the content of the book is completely appropriately covered without that. We say that he makes outlandish claims derived from specious reasoning based on jiggered evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No we havent debated it. What of this is bad evidence. the brains size difference is true and so are the IQ scores. Non of it is wrong. stop deleting the page please. What you are trying to delete is the content of the book, and it is relevant for the reader to know what the book says. your own personal bias against research on race, dont give you the right to delete the content of the book cause you dont like it. DavidJac123 (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Haven't you violated WP:3RR now? You are acting against editor consensus (and the best reliable sources on the article topic, besides) in this edit war. I will ask an uninvolved administrator to apply the discretionary sanctions that are already applicable to this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Again.. I am not acting against consensus. I dont think i get what you mean with i am on the wrong side. I am PREVENTING YOU, from deleting an article on wikipedia! We havent debated anything. Stop deleting the article, and come with any proof that what book says is wrong and we can talk. By the way who added that unsources comment on the top of the page, that says "it gives IQ test a bad name", is WITHOUT SOURCE, and belongs in the reviews, not there.. here by removed, no reason to put a so biased thing right there, without even adding a source!!. So I have reversed the article to its previous state, everything to its original state. Can we atleast agree on that?

http://radishmag.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/world-map-of-brain-volume.gif Brain size map of smith and beals. So can anyone plz explain what is wrong with the book, nothing appears to be wrong here regarding brains in humans.

DavidJac123 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that word "consensus" means what you think it means if you think that you are not acting against consensus when you have been reverted by no less than 3 editors and supported by no other editors on this page. (belated sign -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC))

I don't think there's a consensus in either direction. I and DavidJac123 support including the more detailed summary (though I haven't been reverting), while you and WeijiBaikeBianji are against including it. Vanamonde93 and BZTMPS haven't participated in the talk page, and their reverts might be only because they disapprove of DavidJac123's edit warring, not because they have an opinion about the content itself. 101.0.94.173 (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I say it, but i really dont get why are people are so angry that I am preventing a bunch of people from deleting a wikipedia page. I havent added anything to the article, but the graph from the book. My point is I plan on reversing any mass deleting of this article, based on you guys own bias against it. I plan on reversing them, because you havent proved that the book is wrong, and what you are trying to delete is the summary of the book. Seems kinda weird to me. Anyway, i will revers any deleting of the article that havent been discussed, that is my point.. continue good day for you all. And hope we can debate all edits from now on :)DavidJac123 (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Length of summary

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.

---

NOTE: This RfC was initiated by a sock of a blocked user. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#An_RfC_initiated_by_a_sock_of_a_blocked_user. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Is it a violation of the neutrality or notability policy for this article to include a detailed summary of the book, or to include tables/maps from the book? Here are the two versions being fought over:

• [2] Original version from before the dispute

• [3] New version with reduced summary

There is also a deletion discussion for the article, but this RFC is about what content the article should include, not whether to delete the article. 101.0.71.36 (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not a violation to say what the book says. The summary, or content is what book contain and there is nothing wrong with including it. That is my opinion. The content should include the content of the book, and therefore i see no reason for any change. Besides the only reason they want to delete it, is because they dont like the book and dont like the issue. This guys do the same stuff on everything about race, they simply just dont like the issue, and the simply spend their time destroying all articles about topic, cause they are some sort of "anti-racist", that think all talk of race is wrong. That dont give them the right to violate wikipedia rules and delete whole articles. That is my opion at least. They are even so biased they try to add unsources negative reviews at the very top of the article.DavidJac123 (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You, me, WeijiBaikeBianji, TheRedPenOfDoom, and Aprock all have made our opinions known above. The point of a request for comment is to get comments from uninvolved editors, so let's leave this for them to comment (I'll make a new section for that below). 101.0.71.28 (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You have only one edit to the project. Are you suggesting that you've been editing from multiple different IP addresses? If that's the case I suggest you register an account. These articles have an extensive history of disruptive editing from IP sock puppets. aprock (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have only one edit. I commented earlier in favor of including more detail: [4] 101.0.94.173 (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you the same editor as 101.0.71.28? If so, that's probably a big part of the confusion here. I suggest you register so that people know that you are one editor. aprock (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It is absolutely weird, not to include the most important graph from the book, that is what the book sites as its proof of its point. I simply dont get why you dont want it there. I have a fealing you have a negative biased view against the book. DavidJac123 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I said earlier that I'm in favor of keeping the graph. I'd just prefer that you, WeijiBaikeBianji and TheRedPenOfDoom not have an edit war. 101.0.94.158 (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

So do i, but it is them who insist, on deleting all of the article without making any arguments for it, besides they dont like the book.DavidJac123 (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

ALL of the article? your hyperbole is admirable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

What would win me over to the minority view A useful exercise for someone thinking about a controversial topic is self-examination with the question, "What would it take to convince me to change my mind?" After reviewing the relevant Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV, and some of the guidelines that implement those policies such as WP:RS and WP:NBOOK, I would happily include the summary table from the book this article is about as part of the article text if, and only if, it can be shown that "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" endorse the factual statements included in the table as well supported factual statements about the distribution of human intelligence levels around the world.

Note that the issue of several reviews of the book truly being "independent" of the book itself is in doubt here. That's because several of the reviews come from persons who are funded by the same advocacy organization that funds Richard Lynn's books. Below I will include a block quotation from a book (which, oddly, does not appear on Wikipedia with its own stand-alone article, even though it has many independent favorable reviews) to document the coordination of favorable reviews from authors for other authors funded by the Pioneer Fund.

In keeping with the Satterfield plan's desire for maximum publicity, the different projects supported by Pioneer often functioned in a nicely coordinated fashion, the fund's journals providing multiple sources of promotion for work done by the fund's scientists. Jensen's book, Straight Talk about Mental Tests, for example, received effusive praise in reviews in both the Mankind Quarterly and the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies. (However, true to Pearson's obsession with racial purity, in the former he complained that Jensen's discussion of racial differences in IQ considered the correlation between the test scores of blacks and their 'estimated degree of Caucasoid admixture' but neglected the effects 'of black genes amongst segments of the population classified as white'; the true racial difference was reduced not only by blacks whose 'white genes' raised their IQs but by whites whose unrecognized 'black genes' lowered theirs.) The reviews thus completed a convenient cycle in which Jensen, a scientist whose work was supported by Pioneer, wrote a book, which was then highly recommended in two journals whose publication was funded by Pioneer and finally sent gratis to college and university officials throughout the country by FHU, whose purchase and distribution of the books was also paid for by Pioneer.

American Renaissance also joined with Pearson's journals in highlighting the work of Pioneer grantees. In 1997, for example, Richard Lynn published Dysgenics, arguing that the eugenicists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had been correct in predicting the deterioration of Western civilization as a result of modern medical techniques and charitable assistance to the poor, which had combined to allow the transmission of 'defective' genes and the reproduction of an underclass that was genetically less intelligent and less moral. Between AR and Pearson's two journals, the book was discussed at length four times, all these reviews agreeing that the West, burdened with its black population, was heading for a 'genetic dead end' and certain that, as one reviewer put it, 'some sort of compensatory meddling will be required if human evolution is ever to return to its once healthy course.' The most obscure works supported by Pioneer, unlikely to be noticed elsewhere, received much attention in these interlocking outlets.

— William H. Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002, 2007 reprint [5] )

In my observation from extensive research in the reliable secondary sources on the topic discussed in Lynn's book, there is substantial disagreement with Lynn's book, and much criticism of its methodology, and on that basis (honoring WP:RS, a core Wikipedia policy), I don't think the article text should excerpt the book, even as a "the book says this" kind of statement, but rather the voice of the encyclopedia in this article should put due weight on the severe criticism the book has received--and the degree to which it has been considered unworthy of notice by subsequent scholarly publications. I could be convinced otherwise if someone will kindly point me to multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself that all agree in endorsing the book's conclusions summarized in the table. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by outsiders

• the article should summarize the contents of the book, and our article gives that summary (the book makes outlandish claims, via specious reasoning, based on jiggered data) without going into excessive details. The inclusion of the full table is likely verging on copyright violation as it is a created fiction which forms the crux of the work. In summary: Do not include the table, keep the summary a summary.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

TRPOD, you're one of the original main parties to this dispute. I'm not going to move your comment again, but it's misleading for you to put it in the "comments by outsiders" section. 101.0.94.153 (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

its misguided of you to attempt to screen out the comments of people that you dont want to be involved. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "screen it out". I put it in the "comments" section directly above. The purpose of this division, in every one of the dozens of RFCs that have used it, is so that other editors looking at the page can see which editors are commenting due to the RFC, and which had already been involved in the article previously. We both know you're in the second category, so why is it important for you to classify yourself as an "outsider"? 101.0.71.42 (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is whether the comments are based on policy or not, not who makes them. Why are you so determined to make some pigs more equal than others? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, what matters is consensus. If were to you recruit other people who agree with you to come support you, even if their arguments were completely based on policy, you'd still be distorting consensus to try to get your way. In this case, every controversial topic has a few entrenched users who always argue for the same perspective, and the purpose of an RFC is to get views from people who have less emotional stake in the topic. By pretending you're an uninvolved editor who came across the this article because of the RFC, you're giving (or trying to give) other editors a misleading impression that your opinion is an impartial one. 101.0.71.42 (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I made 1 comment on this page back in April and then made a comments in discussions 3 days before you opened this RfC - to paint someone as "an entrenched editor" on that is pretty appalling WP:AGF violation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't take me for a fool. I know that you've been editing articles about Richard Lynn and his books for years. See here, here, here and here for your involvement in these articles going back to 2008. 101.0.71.42 (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

so now your criteria for division are "anyone who has edited on R&I" and "anyone who has not edited on R&I"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we're finished here. I know that someone who's been around for as long as you understands the difference between involved and uninvolved editors for the purpose of an RFC, regardless of your attempt to wikilawyer the distinction. And anyone else looking at your history in this topic will be able to very easily tell which you are. 101.0.71.42 (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Include - the map makes the summary clearer. I think the neutrality and notability is not affected by whether you make the summary harder to understand so if it stays at all, would seem better to make it clear. Markbassett (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Markbassett: can you expand on what the map makes clear that is not clearly stated in the text? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think what he means is the map/graph would give the reader the actual data that the book gives, to prove it's point. I can to be honest really dont understand why you dont want it to be seen, unless you got some political bias that go against such research. I am too be honest done with race and intelligence on wikipedia, as it apparently is okay to have a political bias and subjectivity just as long as it is the correct kind that the left likes ;) So guess I am back to only adding pages about tax systems, just added taxation in portugal. But I guess I support the idea of including the map and graph as it is the content of the book and seem pretty straight forward thing to include, unless you of course dont like such research and is biased against it as that currently seem to be the standard here. :) DavidJac123 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

-Sigh- you know that you aren't an "outsider" either, don't you? I opened this RFC to try to resolve the argument between you, TRPOD and WeijiBaikeBianji. If the RFC becomes a continuation of that same argument, then opening it hasn't accomplished anything. 101.0.71.38 (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Support [original version] The original version summarized the book, which done in a neutral, non-partial way, is the purpose of Wikipedia. Several controversial books delve into the content of the book without endorsing it, even if it is something that we personally disagree with. Aside from WP:NOTCENSORED, putting the content out there enables education to allow people to see why you may feel a certain way, for the same reason I !voted to keep this in the AFD, this whole debate (and that AFD) strike me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Over the past few days I have been brought to this article from various erroneous and unrelated incidents (the AfD, erroneous 3RR report, etc), and I wanted to point out the lack of civility by all parties here is completely contrary to what we all hold in value as editors. Intelligent debate and discussion is what makes articles better, not edit warring and incivility. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• • we are not here to present Lynn's hokum in a neutral manner, this is not the article scientific racism. We are here to present the subject of the article, the book, in a neutral manner, which means we present the book as it is perceived/received by the mainstream academic community: outlandish claims, reached by specious reasoning based on jiggered data. Presenting unadulterated the claims made in the book wholesale in manners where readers skimming the "eye candy" of graphs and charts may be completely mislead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I know I am not alone in my view, I might actually be in the majority. Seem to be 3 againts 3 now huh? Anyway, my point is this guys dont have a neutral view, and therefore they want to delete all what they think is controversial, even though variation in both brain size and IQ is totatally well known and well documentet. Fx here: (smith and beals) http://radishmag.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/world-map-of-brain-volume.gif

But I am to be honest done with this guys, they dont want to debate. But good luck getting this guys to change their political correct minds and their will to silence everyone who says something they dont like. DavidJac123 (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

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.

Notice of ANI

Since the IP is dynamic, I have notified your most recent page, but you might not see it there. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#An_RfC_initiated_by_a_sock_of_a_blocked_user. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I added tabel from book... Deleted if you disagree... MicroMacroMania (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)