Talk:Race and intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Race and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:


Recent revert by Volunteer Marek

(Regarding this: [1])

Please don't blanket revert all those edits. There were many good and unbiased edits in there. Fix what you think needs fixing - don't just blanket revert. Sombe19 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Compare the previous version, with the version after you got done with it: [2]. You made a whole bunch of highly POV edits and completely altered the article. For example, you changed "Claims of races having different intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, racism, social Darwinism, and racial eugenics." to the highly POV "The findings [1] that different races possessed different average intelligence scores were used as a justification". In other words you changed the neutral, and source based "claims" to the highly POV, non-sourced based, and frankly, racist "findings". Which you put in Wikipedia voice as if it was true.

You do the same thing in the next sentence, where you changed "Racial thinkers such as Arthur de Gobineau relied crucially on the assumption that black people were innately inferior to Whites" to the POV "relied crucially on the findings that Blacks were innately inferior to Whites". In other words you changed what was stated to be a (racist) assumption into a claim of fact. Sorry, no way.

Also, your edit history shows that you're a single purpose account with a style and interest very similar to a couple of indef banned editors. Wanna tell us which one you're a sockpuppet of? I'm guessing at least this one but there's probably a few others. So.... I'm not going to waste my time on this. Volunteer Marek  05:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, thanks for your reversals. Great investigative work! Cheers, Caballero/Historiador (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Sombe19 - I didn't see any "good and unbiased edits in there". Volunteer Marek  18:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The reverted edits were writtenentirely from a fringe POV, and used outdated unreliable sources. I dont see how any of the proposed changes could be accepted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Sorry to step in out of the blue on an old article, but whoever the original poster was was absolutely correct. The reverts in the histories they linked to showed a butchering attempt at agenda peddling by 'Volunteer Marek' (jesus christ dude, did you just step out of Stalinist Russia with that absurd name?) and it appears that their edit history has a consistent agenda peddling history. Why one user is banned and the other isn't when their agenda is as based on fallacious nonsense and fantasy is beyond me. They even removed sourced material. Idiocy for good intentions is still idiocy. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 15:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Revert by Maunus, 12/31/15

Regarding this: [3] Can you explain what is wrong with those edits? Sombe19 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The first problem is thatthere is ageneral consensus among scientists that Rushton's figures are bogus figures, and your edit treats them as if they were valid. The second problem is that the Beals etal paper specificaly states that the data they present doesnt support a racial correlation with brain size.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Rushton's figures were derived from other people's figures, such as Ho et al. 1980. Can I get a reference for your claim that the scientific consensus is that Rushton's figures are "bogus"? Sombe19 (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
You can see Lieberman 2001 pull his data apart, then then look at the fact that none of his claims have been accepted in the mainstream literature. which has consistently pointed out flaws in both his statistical methods and his data.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
So why not mention Rushton's figures and then mention the criticism? And I'm still not getting your claim that Rushton isn't accepted in the mainstream literature. Sombe19 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
If you don't like the Beals paper I would be happy to provide many other references for race differences in brain size. Sombe19 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, the Beals paper is the single best source on human variability in cranial size (although it is not up to current standards). It does not however support the argument that you are trying to make it support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And how could consensus ever be established on a controversial topic such as this? Sombe19 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Much useful material, recently unearthed

Wikipedia used to have an excellent set of articles on race and intelligence which I have recently stumbled upon. Take a look at this:

Sombe19 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There was also a bunch of very comprehensive graphics compiling heaps of empirical research which kept getting blanket deleted also. It appears that this article has two kinds of agenda peddlers, both absolutely opposed to science and empirical evidence based reasoning, and it appears both think they're somehow doing good for their narrative by spouting nonsense and ultimately vandalizing what was a functional normal non-controversial article. For many years the mere whisper of inbreeding between h. neanderthalensis would get one in strife, but now post human genome project our view is very different. Unfortunately it appears that some people just write off the human genome project entirely because it doesn't suit their narrative. Cultural Marxism may work in an environment where one's opinion is worth a pinch of shit, but in a world where citations and evidence are more important than one's feelings it doesn't really have a place here. PS: Where DID those graphics go this time? Last time I was here a guy named Marek was constantly deleting them, and now there's a guy named 'Volunteer Marek' who seems to be peddling the same agenda as Marek was, same Marek I assume? <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence

Rindermann H, Coyle T R, Becker D. 2013 survey of expert opinion on intelligence.

Presented at the 14th ISIR conference, Melbourne, Australia, December 12-14, 2013

It has surveyed

  1. Authors of papers published in
    • Intelligence
    • Cognitive Psychology
    • Biological Psychology (if article addressed intelligence or a related topic, i a i)
    • Journal of Mathematical Psychology (i a i)
    • Contemporary Educational Psychology (i a i)
    • Journal of School-Psychology (i a i)
    • New Ideas in Psychology (i a i)
    • Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (i a i)
  2. For the subject well known scientists or journalists writing on it.
  3. Scientists emailed by ISIR member list
  4. Scientists informed by ISSID website
  5. Scientists and interested students ( N St ≤3) informed by colleagues.

It was emailed the 1237 persons, 228(18%) completed or partially completed.

Results:

Sources for U.S. black-white differences in IQ (74% of their experts having an opinion)

differences due to genes proportion
0% 17%
0-40% 42%
50% 18%
50-100% 39%
100% 5%
M = 47% SD =31%

--The Master (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Not a reliably published source, and a primary source. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

A reminder about edits by socks of banned users

New editors won't know this, old ones may have forgotten it.

By motion[4] voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:

Banned editors and their sockpuppets have long caused disruption to both the Race and Intelligence topic ("R&I") and editors associated with it.

The Committee notes that the applicable policy provides: banned editors are prohibited from editing pages on Wikipedia; the posts of a banned user may be reverted on sight by any editor; any editor who restores the reverted post/s of a banned editor accepts full responsibility for the restored material.

To reduce disruption, the Committee resolves that no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor: which was posted within the R&I topic or which relates, directly or indirectly, to either the R&I topic or to any editor associated with the R&I topic.

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised to enforce the foregoing in respect of any editor restoring any reverted post.] voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:

The topic area is the articles in Category:Race and intelligence controversy. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks for the reminder. It's very important to properly source this article, which appears to be one of the ten most controversial articles on all of English Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 15:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that most of the vandalization I have seen since my last visit to this article, which I believe was for a mediation, it appears that the problem isn't the nutzi party but the goose stepping equally heinous polar opposite on the spectrum (both literally and figuratively 'on the spectrum' one could argue) who have removed considerable amounts of sourced material and collations of data into graphics. Why aren't these equally batshit insane and equally vandalizing nuseansaces banned from editing too? <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 15:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)