Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

New article draft

I've been suggesting that we create a prototype article where we can try to reach a consensus in realtime, while this article is protected. I've createdUser:Kevin murray IQ draft.

I'm inviting participation; however, I will revert all changes which are made without my determination that consensus is reached. I've trimmed out a lot of text, but certainly we can add back if needed. The goal is to create a simpler more readable trext at the encyclopedic level, which presents balance without propaganda. I would prefer to see summary paragraphs referencing details at other articles.

Please let me know what you think.

--Kevin Murray 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be OK if I added some things from the new intro? futurebird 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The proposed new intro is here: Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07

Please paste the specific additions to the talk page at the prototype; I'd rather move the discussion pertinent to that project from here. Then we can discuss the changes more clearly as your request is a bit ambiguous. --Kevin Murray 22:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, I think the right place for this project is as a subpage of this talk page rather than at your user page-- It gives you a little bit too much responsibility for the process.futurebird 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

FB you are right that I have appointed myself as the moderator of my proposed project; I am comfortable with that responsibility. However, you have clearly demonstrated the fallacy of an un-moderated prototype by making unilateral changes right off the bat. Those who want to participate in my endeavor will have to trust me to be neutral, or alternatively be comfortable with my perceived biases.

My self perceived bias is for the success of Race and intelligence as opposed to its failure through either deletion or confusion. I see abuses from all sides to the end that we have a perpetual debate on minutia and a bloated product.

--Kevin Murray 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to participate with your proposed draft and mediation if WRN is willing to. Without his buy-in, I don't think we're going to get anywhere. --JereKrischel 09:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not going to work, clearly

Okay, I don't think this is going to work-- if you are going to try to take control of this process, by first making changes yourself then reverting any changes you don't like, I don't see how this will be helpful. Adding the curves is a comparatively non-controversial change. If you want to work with a 'prototype,' why not work with the one I've created? Why not make some suggestions about that prototype?

What do you think of the new intro? If you don't think it works, please explain why.

Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07

Frankly, I think that things are moving along rather well here-- It's going to take a long time but we almost have a compromise on one of the bullet points.

I agree with a lot of the things you removed at your draft-- but I don't think this method of working is going to be a good idea-- I don't want people to go off in some hard to find place to edit-- and I want see all of the comments right here on the talk page.

Could you outline what you deleted and why so other users can weigh in on it? futurebird 22:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• FB, I responded to your prior comment above, before this new section was posted.
• I don't think the process here is going anywhere
• I did jump in and makes some changes to strip the article back somewhat arbitrarilly as starting point. We could start with "as is" or with zero, but I chose an alternative in the middle. That's the game I'm offering for those who want to try with me.
• By looking through the history of the edits to the prototype, you can see the steps which I took. I purposely tried to work in one area at a time so that the deletions would be visible and identifiable. I tried to leave some good but brief notes as well.
• For those who don't trust me the process won't work. I hope that I can earn that trust!

--Kevin Murray 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Was I too hasty to say it can't work?

Okay, Maybe I'm being too hasty here-- what do others think? Can this work? Please weigh in... futurebird 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll still say it's not a good thing to do to restart this article from the ground up. I don't think deletions will work if performed by any editor before they have gathered consensus. This is still trying to put the cart in front of the horses. I'd rather Kevin make a summary of all the stuff he proposes to delete and put it here. I especially liked the detailed concerns about the citations Futurebird started to outline. Guys, this article has been kept from major changes for at least 1 to 2 years. I don't think we can expect to work out a refashioning of the article in days or even weeks. Like you, I want to see this article more balanced (towards the other walks of science besides psychology and psychometrics, and towards a better historical context to start with) but I feel we must start at the base, i.e. with the material in this article and NPOVise it. This will give us a clearer idea of how much detail in this article is too much detail (there is currently way too much detail, IMHO), and we can also work on building up the other sections (with the help of some of the article material that we can expand upon). I would suggest keeping the work on the lead or the end, as otherwise we will likely have to rewrite it to some extent. This latest proposal from Kevin has some merit, but changes need to reach consensus in order to be implemented, and not be imposed by one editor, no matter how much we trust them.--Ramdrake 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope it's non controversial that WP:Summary style is the proper way to handle a topic with too much detail for a single readable article. "Deletion" is not a way to reach NPOV. Secondarily, it may be helpful to temporarily reintegrate all of the material from the sub-articles into this main article for the sake of centralized editing. I haven't thought this through well, so let me know if that's an obviously bad idea. --W.R.N. 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the page would take waaaaay to long to load if we did that, it'd be a pain to edit... I agree, let's talk about NPOVing and "moving content out to new subsections" rather than just deleting. futurebird 01:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm suggesting that merging everything in for editing is a bad idea, but "not just deleting" is, of course, a good idea (and it's THE LAW!) futurebird 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

On principle, I agree that summary style would be the way to go, again making sure we attribute all that's being said on both sides. I also like the idea of reintegrating all the subarticles to have a more complete view of the material that is readily available to us already. We can spin stuff off again as needed, and some of the spinoffs are likely to be different this time. Again, there may be good reasons why any or all of these might be bad ideas, but I can't find any right now. And FB, FWIW, yes it would be a pain, but it would be temporary and I suspect we may find it worth the pain. ;) --Ramdrake 01:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that deletion is perfectly reasonable when dealing with WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and that simply injecting counter-points, counter-counter-points, and counter-counter-counter-points is not a way to reach NPOV. Furthermore, deletion of information that is not directly related to race and intelligence seems like a fairly good way to keep us from engaging in too much scope creep. I'm afraid that just because WRN, or anyone else, has managed to put text in the article does not make such text sacrosanct - there are many reasonable grounds for pruning.

That being said, deletion of an entire POV is not reasonable. We should not remove the entire POV that race is an invalid proxy for genetics, just as we shouldn't remove the entire POV that heritability is misused when applied to differences between groups. If there are 20 sources for a certain POV, we are in no way obliged to list every source, or to be uncritical in our selection of sources to find the most reliable. We can find a balance, if we're willing to entertain the idea of change. --JereKrischel 09:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Talk:Race and intelligence/new intro feb 07 Futurebird's proposed intro

• FB I think that you have achieved a generally neutral content and tone; however, some of this is too detailed for an intorduction and might well be the preface for the history section. I still object to the graphic in the intro and question its value elsewhere, although I'm not completely opposed.
• I'd like to see the intro section cut by half or more in summary of what is to come in the article. I do think that a disclaimer of validity is important too.

--Kevin Murray 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I object to the graphic too, but with a good caption it could be just fine. It is one of the most famous images related to this topic. And I think there are quite a few people who would be unhappy if it is left out. (I'm not one of them) I think we should compromise on the graphic and have a caption that adds some context, while still keeping it in. futurebird 02:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC test case: the first sentence

"Race and intelligence is a controversial area of intelligence research studying the nature, origins, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability."

Can we agree to change it to--

"Race and intelligence are broad and variously defined terms used to classify and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of study and speculation for western science, sociology, and philosophy since the 19th century."

Making this change right now would give me a lot more confidence in the process. It is one of the biggest problems I have with the article at present. Please comment. 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• No. First, that the definitions and understandings of "race" and "intelligence" have varied with history is not as important as the contemporary understanding of the terms (see light or gravity for terms that also have had varying definitions and understandings with time and which are not yet fully understood). For example, while exact definitions of race and intelligence are currently debated, much agreement exists. For example, ostensive definitions of race are generally concordant in English speaking audiences -- we understand each other when we use racial labels. As a quantitative trait that varies between individuals, intelligence is very well defined as it relates to g, the understanding of the term that forms the basis for the vast majority of our scientific understanding of human intelligence. Second, the distinction between "western science, sociology, and philosophy" appears to be arbitrary (sociology isn't "western science"? there's a meaningful difference between western science and other science?) and without particular relevance to the topic. Speculation, rather than science, about racial/ethnic difference in intelligence is documented much deeper into human history than the 19th century. The science of intelligence really only began at the beginning of the 20th century. Mixing pre-scientific speculation with scientific findings is particularly inappropriate. --W.R.N. 05:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WRN, unless you propose a counter-proposal that in some way addresses JK and Futurebird's concerns, you are not being productive. Indeed, you risk seeming uncompromising. I understand you won't conpromise on your commitment to accuracy as well as our core policies. I mean compromising as to wording and presentation and organization. JK and Futurebird have forwarded many proposals since the page was protected. How many proposals have you forwarded? How many counterproposals? How many times have you tried to meet them half-way? I am asking because I see no evidence of any of this but may easily have missed something and want to give you a chance to correct me. If mediation fails and this goes to ArbCom, my guess is they will look with favor on anyone who has madde good faith efforts to compromise, and not look with favor on anyone who seems unwilling to collaborate with other editors. This is a serious matter given how long this page has been blocked. You need to contribute to a solution either by proposing compromise edits or at least a process through which you will work with Futurebird and JK. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment. First, there's an implicit suggestion in my "No." The current sentence is better than the proposed one. Second, I've made numerous attempts to explain that you can't possibly change the lead before you change the article in the fashion that FB suggests. He doesn't argue that the changed sentence better matches the existing article but that it better matches an article he imagines we will create. No one is bright enough -- not me at least -- to synthesize the many hundreds of publications that go into this article and would go into a future alternative one and come up with the appropriate 3-4 paragraph summary of that article which balances all topics and all views fairly. Not without the intermediate steps of actually changing the article a piece at a time. My comments explaining the "no" should make it clear how FB has understandably failed at that attempt. Third, I've made repeated attempts to resolve the two edits which actually locked the page. For my troubles I've had only JK not understand my suggested compromises and zero input from other editors. I have agreeded to a high degree in almost all cases with Ramdrake's proposals. Thus, here again is my main suggestion: resolve the edits that locked the page and adopt Ramdrake's proposals for the approach to editing content. But, you can't compromise on policy. Fourth, I don't really need to spell out here the problems with the previous suggestions by JK and FB. --W.R.N. 18:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We're trying to work on a single sentence that many editors find inappropriate. Are you saying you don't have any specific suggestions on how to change that sentence at all? I think that the original lock of the page isn't quite relevant at this point, given the great deal of conversation regarding problems with the entire article. Can you please provide at least one alternative to the current sentence? --JereKrischel 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence is better. The first sentence implies that some intelligence researchers are the only one who ever have discussed this topic. It could be appropriate for an article title "Research on race and intelligence". Even there it would be doubtful, many recent peer-reviewed articles have questioned at least the race concept. However, an article with the current titles means a much wider scope, including history, media portrayal, use by racists, and so on. Also, I see no reason to limit the scope to 19th century or later. Claims that certain races are less intelligent are much older than that.Ultramarine 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, ultra. I am aware that these things are older than the 19th century, but I could not find a good source for the ideas of inferiority of specific races with respect to intelligence that was older than the 19th century. There are bountiful sources on general inferiority, but I felt to infer that this meant intellectual inferiority was too close to being OR. However, you know of a good source-- well, I'd be more than happy to add it. futurebird 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• The second opinion uses the word "classify", which gives a connotation, similar to "discrimination". There are other parts of the sentence that seem biased in similar ways. This is a controversial topic, so why not just use the word "controversial"? Overall, the second sentence just doesn't seem as neutral. In addition, the second sentence is not as informative. The first sentence gives the reader an idea about how cognitive ability is measured, as opposed to the second sentence that suggests that intelligence is hard to define. Intelligence is hard to define, but it is not necessary to state this in the first sentence. Finally, areas of "western science, sociology, and philosophy" aren't the only groups that study the relationship between intelligence and race.

Xpanzion 06:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the modified version below? JK and I have tried to address some of your concerns while still opening up the scope of this article to more than just scientific theories, but also the other ways race is related to intelligence. futurebird 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would probably suggest slightly different wording, but it is moving in a better direction than what currently exists. The existing "Race and intelligence is a controversial area of intelligence research" is terribly limiting. That sounds like the lead to an article called Race and intelligence (Research), not Race and intelligence. I would like to know if WRN or Xpanzion would care to suggest a replacement line in lieu of the current one, or if they object to any change to the current lead line. --JereKrischel 09:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• The words "variously defined terms" are accurate. They point at a central issue that makes evaluation of the intersection of two categories, and discussion about that intersection, extremely problematical. The problem, for me, is that the average reader who has not been sensitized to this issue will glide right over these three words. How can we make it clear to readers that a discussion involving 1 meaning for race and 1 meaning for intelligence gives us one dispute or one agreement, a discussion involving 9 meanings for race and 9 meanings for intelligence gives us 81 separate problems to analyze -- and the people involved in the field may never be looking at the same combination of definitions of the terms they are throwing around. I like the suggested sentence but I would like to make it stronger. P0M 16:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Let's use the 2nd one. JJJamal 02:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A question

I have a question for JK and FB: what is so wrong about not starting with re-writing the intro, and instead trying to work from the existing material? Once we have reorganized the article, we will need to rewrite the intro anyway. I think it's a given, and from what I've read here, WRN agrees the intro will need rewriting at some point. It looks to me like we more or less all agree on what to do, but now we can't find agreement on where to start... I don't know about you, but I'm a bit embarrassed.--Ramdrake 19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that any single controversial sentence would be helpful to work on, be it in the body, or in the intro, or anywhere else. My frustration at this point is that WRN has provided no concrete suggestions for change, either independently, or in response to other editor's concerns. Any concrete suggestion for change and compromise by WRN regarding any of the sentences or sections or organization that other editors have found problematic would be welcome. I don't care where we start, but we should start by agreeing that the current article is not perfect in its current form, and that change is necessary. WRN, would you like to pick one of the problematic sentences mentioned by futurebird or I? Or give a suggestion for changing the organization of the article? --JereKrischel 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest we all go through the exercize of tagging everything that causes a problem in the article? I'm sure we will find a lot of common issues. Or, maybe we can start by the first section after the intro (don't remember offhand which it is) and discuss problems with that? The only' reason I would prefer not to start with the intro is because I am quite certain we would end up having to rewrite it near the end of the process. Or, we can go through the current article section by section and work on redoing the outline at the same time, as I don't see those as mutually contradictory; it may even help us move the sections around as we resolve our issues with them.--Ramdrake 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the process suggested by Ramdrake that I approved of. The complaint from several people about the article was that it didn't include all prominent views. I don't see how we can solve that Lead first. We need to know what verifiable views/topics are not yet included and we need to know the range of views about each topic so we can present a neutral summary of them in he lead. The one thing we absolutely need to do before the article can be unlocked and we can start with tagging or adding or whatever is to find at least a temporary measure to address the two edits that lead to the page being locked. It doesn't need to be a permanent solution, but it can't include the mass deletion of verifiable text and images -- why? Arbcom: It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.. Levels of detail is dealt with by WP:Summary style; also, note the threshold for WP:NOR in images. May I suggest, for example, that we (1) put back what was deleted, (2) tag it however is appropriate, and (3) possibly (discussed in some section above) merge all the material into the main article for processing in one place. Then proceed with the process Ramdrake outlined. --W.R.N. 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the dispute regarding the article has evolved beyond the original reason for the lock, and don't believe that unlocking it at this point would be helpful. Although I'm more than willing to try to come to a consensus on those edits first, and then moving onto another area of contention. WRN, can you specifically make a compromise suggestion for the two edits that first locked the article? Let's work on that first, get consensus, then have an administrator make the edit. We can proceed in a similar fashion for our other concerns. Simply putting the article back to its contested form, as you seem to wish it to remain, doesn't seem like a compromise suggestion. A concrete suggestion from you on how to address the issues that caused the original dispute, on how to change any deleted material to address the concerns of other editors, would be helpful right now. Simply saying we should return the article to the way it was is not helpful at this point.

If you'd like to make a sub-page here, merging material, we can work on that first before opening up the article series for editing. --JereKrischel 20:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer Ramdrake: Nothing is wrong with not starting with the intro.... EXCEPT that it is taking forever... see the section above where it took about 9 paragraphs of comments to NOT reach a consensus on the wording of two sentences and the use of sources there. Without a new intro we'll need to go through this process for almost the entire article.

Frankly, with a new intro, other revisions later in the article will become less critical since we'll have the proper context. futurebird 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Respectully, FB, I care to disagree. And no matter how we put it, WRN is right on this: the article should not be written to fit the intro, it's supposed to be the other way around. However, something that can also be started right away (or actually continued) is the discussion about the outline. Writing the intro now will only result in one of two things: 1)either we'll feel constrained to model the article on the intro (not the way to go), or 2)we'll end up rewriting the intro at the end of the process. I'd rather gather all the info back together, decide on an outline, rearrange all sections according to the outline, port all the sections we feel only add detail (or with little summary value) back to spin-off articles, remove discussions that may be germane to intelligence or race but not to both at the same time (unless a convincing case can be made for an exception and it reaches consensus), and then write a proper lead to the article, to which your proposal looks like a fine draft. However, it's very hard to finalize it if we don't have the finalized corpus of the article to match it before.--Ramdrake 22:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being clear about my intentions with this intro. What I'm trying to say is that the intro at present isn't a good representation of what is in the current article even in it's biased form. I see no deep incongruently between this new intro and the current article-- except for those revisions that we are still negotiating, and the possibility of migrating some of the text of the current article out to a sub article so it is lees research heavy and contains less of the argument and counter argument found in the article now. futurebird 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I believe my objections to the proposed lead are even more on target. There should be about 1 paragraph in the lead for every major section of the article, and it should be an ultra-precisely crafted summmary. Can we accept as a given that the lead will likely be the single most difficult aspect of the article because it must serve as a summary for the whole article and must be short? If so, then the lead is the worst place to start any editing. --W.R.N. 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

And FB, you're absolutely right that the current intro is inappropriate for the content of the article as it is. But I don't think the solution is to write a new intro that will fit this article, if we know we're going to make some major changes to it. I know I keep repeating myself, but we'll just end up rewriting the intro at the end of the process. Could it be that your insistence to write the intro comes from a desire to better delineate the subject? If that's the case, I suggest we rather continue the work on the outline concurrently with reorganizing the corpus of the article.--Ramdrake 23:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

JK wrote If you'd like to make a sub-page here, merging material, we can work on that first before opening up the article series for editing. -- Coincidently, that's what I was coming here to suggest. All of the suggested editing can be done in a talk sub page if that's acceptable to people. It avoids the 'mess' problem of merging, etc. Second, my insistence is that presently deleted material must be considered in such a process, not that its previous form must be preserved in a final edit. The only way I know to do this is to restore what's been deleted as a first step. If the merging and editing is done on a talk sub page, then "restoring" can be as well and no one has to touch the locked articles in the meantime. --W.R.N. 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If that suggestion is adopted I have a few parliamentary-type principles to suggest to keep things productive. --W.R.N. 23:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to your sub-page, with the merges from the other articles. Second, my insistence is that we should be considering a compromise to any deleted material before it is placed back in. Simply placing the deleted material in as before, without any compromise suggestion, isn't going to be productive. What we desperately need from you are specific compromise suggestions, rather than simply arguments against any proposed changes. I think we all understand the rhetoric of policy, procedure, and process, and we need to start delving into real changes and real compromises to move forward. Of course we are going to follow policy and procedure - the problem we have is that we don't agree on the interpretation or implementation of these policies and procedures. We'll only be able to find common ground if we try to find concrete common ground, since it is in the concrete that we have our disagreement. --JereKrischel 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How about we just handle those parts first? Anybody got a problem with that?--Ramdrake 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, maybe you can take a stab at it. The thread is here. I suspect that it will actually be more difficult than the simply start with the merged sub-page suggestion. But maybe thinking outside the box could help. --W.R.N. 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this merger idea, the more I think about it. Jamal and I are working together to revise the sub-articles now-- pulling that material back in seems to me to be an attempt to submerge some of these changes so they will be lost in the process. I'm happy with the article on media and I removed my POV tag from it. We're working on the explanations section next... I think a merger at this stage will be far too confusing. I don't think we should do this-- Let's revise this article and then change the subsections with "main article" links to match the sub-articles whatever state they may be in at present. We can merge and streamline later on anyway. futurebird 23:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand FB's suggestion. In a summary style article, the sub-articles are meant to by in linked (in sync, see the tag by that name) to the main article (analogous to the way the lead is linked to the body of the article). They form a macro/micro WP like macro/micro Britannica. Am I missing something? I'll wait for someone to explain it. --W.R.N. 23:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

I'll make a page when I get a chance. This was the parliamentary-type principle I had in mind: per Ramdrake, we should work on one kind or a few kinds of edits at a time, starting with the easiest edits. For example, with any problem sentence we should add "tags" and then add a suggested replacement sentence inline (perhaps in brackets with a sig). This will allow for direct comparison of the original with the suggested improvements. Other suggestions: add new material where appropriate (with sigs), but don't start out by trying to rearrange sections (lets see what the totality of the material is before trying to find an outline per FB). Think of it a Round 1. --W.R.N. 23:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would probably be easier to let everyone, in order, pick one particular problem line, and agree to work on that line first and foremost. After all of those first choices are done, we move onto another round of picking. Opening up the scope to tagging and arguing the entire article isn't going to be manageable. --JereKrischel 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? The single-line treatment would seem to be a problem because it takes material out of context and could be laboriously slow. If you are concerned about the manageability of my proposal, then we could do just tagging first. We can copy all the material to a sub page and then everyone can go at it by tagging anything they think should be addressed, but no other changes (no additions, moves, etc). By tagging, I mean mostly the sentence or paragraph level tags. --W.R.N. 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if we tag first, we'll be littering all over the place. Best to allow each concerned editor to pick one particular sentence, work through those sentences (maybe 4 or 5 depending on how many editors participate), and then go onto the next batch. This lets everyone have a part in prioritizing what they'd like to see addressed, and puts a moratorium on changes elsewhere until those issues are settled. Sufficient context can always be brought together for a single line edit if necessary.

And yes, it will be laboriously slow, but I think that is the nature of the beast. Opening it up to tagging will essentially mean 90% of the article is tagged. Best to have a short list to work on to begin with. --JereKrischel 00:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean tag in the unlocked article, but in a copy on a subpage. If 90% of the article would be tagged, then there's a bigger problem than taking a few sentences at a time will ever hope to fix. --W.R.N. 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I understood you meant on a subpage. There is a bigger problem than you imagine, I think, but I still have hope that we can fix it together. But even though the end state may be a long way away, taking it a few sentences at a time will at least let us get somewhere. If we end up tagging the whole article, we'll still need to decide where to start - I suggest that giving each editor a vote for which sentence to work in the initial round is equitable - whether or not they want to tag the sentence first, or tag all sentences they disagree with first, really shouldn't matter. --JereKrischel 04:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most people here that - as with any good piece of writing - the intro should be the last thing we work on. I agree with Ramdrake and RIK (I strongly agree) that the only route forward is to work on one divisive isue at a time. I think JK may be on to something if he means that we should peg discussions of specific issues to specific proposals for edits - in other words, lets keep thinking in terms of improving the article rather than just having a general discussion. But like RIK I do not agree that the "line" or "sentence" is the properunitof consideration. Depending on the issue, it may make senseto focus on one sentence - or one paragraph, or two paragraphs. It all depends. So in the spirit of JK I urge people to think concretly in terms of the article as it is and the article as it should be ...meaning, a textand changes to that text - but, like Ramdrake and RIK, the discussion should focus on specific issues, one at a time, whether they take up one sentence or one hundred sentences. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This "move to merge" a working version

Okay. Here are my final thoughts on the move to merge everything. I will be willing to do this and participate, if JK, Jamal, Schwael, Ramdrake and SLR and WD is happy with the process and if the issues that are currently up in the air on this page are resolved. I and a few other users have made a number of concrete proposals, both large and small, can we work these out before we do anything drastic?

The proposals are:

• Change Media section- change to match sub-article
• Change Utility of research- change to match sub-article
• Possible revision of text about race as a proxy-I've proposed two revisions here, if they don't work... why?
• New Intro Sentence

I'd like to see some change happen soon-- I feel as if I'm being ignored at times, and this process has been long and disorganized. In any case I'm trying to be cooprative and listen to the ideas and feedback of others. Could we just do this first and then move on to the major plan for this meerger-- that is if JK, Jamal, Schwael, Ramdrake approve...futurebird 07:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FB, you're out-pacing my time availability right now. Most of the changes are workable (can be worked out), but the suggested changes to the race section are not very good. I don't have time to work on that now, and as it requires the most work, let's set that aside for right now. --W.R.N. 20:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

Suggestion 2

"Race and intelligence is a controversial area of intelligence research studying the nature, origins, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability."

Can we agree to change it to--

"Race and intelligence are broad and variously defined ambiguous terms used to describe and measure human beings. Both the definitions of, and the relationship between race and intelligence have been a topic of considerable study, speculation and debate since the 19th century."

This takes out the "classify" word, eliminates the separation of fields of study, and adds the important caveat that both definitions and relationships have been a matter of study, speculation and debate. Comments? --JereKrischel 09:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• No. All of my objections about variously defined are made worse by "ambiguous". Who says they are ambiguous? Who says they are not? Why don't the race and intelligence subsections in the background sections explain why there is a consensus that the terms are ambiguous? It doesn't. This lead doesn't mirror the body... Objections above maintain here. --W.R.N. 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide an alternative. The background sections can certainly be modified to show that the consensus is that the terms are both ambiguous and variously defined, although either term will do. --JereKrischel 19:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Race and intelligence are broad terms with many meanings that are often used to describe and measure human beings. Both the definitions of, and the relationship between race and intelligence have been a topic of considerable study, speculation and debate since the 19th century.

WRN, would this work? futurebird 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is fine too. It addresses my major concerns. I would support either the revision I proposed above or this one. futurebird 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

FB, I'm really busy right now, but here's a change to consider based on what you left on my talk page. b/c this article is about humans, the first sentence should be fine, but those terms also describe/measure many animals. One sentence about definitions should be sufficient, as the definitions don't figure that prominently in the debate. I'm not sure about the 19th century thing, which you left off of my talk page entry. --W.R.N. 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence are broad terms with many meanings that are often used to describe and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of considerable speculation, study, and debate[, especially since the 19th century]. The contemporary debate focuses on the nature, causes, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic group differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability.

This is great! Progress. can we make one small tweak?

Race and intelligence are broad terms with many meanings that are often used to describe and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of considerable speculation, study, and debate, especially since the 19th century. The contemporary debate focuses on the importance, nature and causes, and practical consequences of racial and ethnic differences in intelligence test scores. and other measures of cognitive ability.

Reasons for changes:

• Only a few people think there are any "practical consequences" -- it's just too Lynn-sounding
• There's still some debate about what the tests really measure.
• "especially since the 19th century", works fine and addresses issues raised above.

futurebird 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your first two comments are a problem. (1) Practical consequences - everyone recognizes the practical consequences, if for nothing else than school achievement, college admissions, etc. Read the relevant section - Race_and_intelligence#Significance_of_group_IQ_differences. IQ tests have equal practical validity for all English-speaking Americans, meaning that all of the practical consequences of within-group variation in IQ port over to the between-group differences in IQ (barring confounding by non-IQ group differences). (2) The debate about what IQ tests measure is at a level of abstraction that it doesn't show up in this article except in a few sentences. (Notably, there are competing models of the sub-g factor structure.) See IQ and intelligence and read the APA report. Unless you mean something else by that comment? --W.R.N. 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think we could keep the cognitive ability, the idea that IQ scores are not measures of cognitive ability (of some kind) isn't really debated much anymore. However, I think we should not have "practical consequences" this sounds too much like "policy implications" and it makes it sounds as if there has been something even remotely approaching a consensus on using this kind of research to make predictions about "consequences"

In other words, it suggests that problems, like gaps and income are a result of the IQ scores rather than the other way around. This is a huge point of debate, and it's not fair to imply from the outset that IQ is rigid and leads to outcomes, many of our sources regard IQ as quite platic, especially in the context of average differences between ambiguously defined races. if I'm misreading what you mean here could you explain so we can reword it?

So, here is a final version (I hope) I guess JK and anyone else ought to speak up if they have any questions, but I think we could make this small change, and in doing so we will have shown that we can work together even when we disagree about many aspects of this topic. That would be awesome.

And of course if after other revisions we need to change it again... we will.

Race and intelligence are broad terms with many meanings that are often used to describe and measure human beings. The relationship between race and intelligence has been a topic of considerable speculation, study, and debate, especially since the 19th century. The contemporary debate focuses on the importance, nature and causes of racial and ethnic differences in intelligence test scores and other measures of cognitive ability.

futurebird 23:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any doubt that differences in say college/grad school admission, income, and job performance are not a product of IQ differences (which are measured prior to these outcomes and are often selection criteria -- e.g. SAT/GRE)? Either way, the material is part of the article -- the consequences section is a pretty big part of the current article, and should be mentioned in that context. The policy section is included in the controversy section, which I think we're agreeing should be separate from the simple description of consequences. --W.R.N. 08:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This addresses the utility of R & I research in a single cultural context. That is, it is focused on success in western nations and economies.futurebird 17:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Developed nations and economies, yes, insomuch as the bulk of the research is done there. I think I see a fix that only requires a word order change, which I'll do now. --W.R.N. 19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: My proposal to work together at User:Kevin murray IQ draft

• JereKrischel and Futurebird are willing to participate if others are as well, specifically WRN, JK and Jamal. I would like to see more people as well.
• To clarify my role, I don’t see myself as a participant or decision maker, but a moderator who helps to focus the discussion and bring about a consensus. I think that a “fair” format will have to be flexible enough to evolve through the process.
• I arbitrarily tried to cut-down the article and remove POV issues to get us to a starting point, but I would be equally agreeable to starting with the article as it stands now, or with a blank page based on the consensus of the participants.

--Kevin Murray 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Media portrayal section

This is the current section:

Main article: Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)

Some researchers argue media coverage of intelligence-related research is often inaccurate and misleading. Snyderman and Rothman conducted a study of this phenomenon in 1988, drawing from their 1987 survey of expert opinion of intelligence-related topics. Media attention given to William Shockley in the mid 1980's often cited his Nobel Laureate status, but frequently omitted that the prize was given for physics, not medicine.[citation needed]

Can we change it to this?

Main article: Race and intelligence (Media portrayal)

Race and intelligence are sometimes portrayed as related in media. People of various races have been portrayed as more or less intelligent in media such as films, books, and newspapers. Likewise, reporting on research into race and intelligence has been criticized: either for giving scientific theories of race too much credit, or for rejecting the theories of some researchers in the name of racial harmony.

I think this section of the main article should be expanded to include some examples, however for now can we at least change it to reflect the revsions made by Jamal and I at Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) ? futurebird 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, futurebird. The sub-article looks very good, and I've made some updates to the Snyderman and Rothman (study), pulling some of the information from the main article down into the sub-article. --JereKrischel 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it's time to make this change. And big thanks to Jere for all of the things he's added to this sub-article too!JJJamal 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine.Ultramarine 17:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK with me. P0M 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Race and Genetics

I wonder if it might be more appropriate to put somewhere in the article a reference to Race and Genetics? I'd also like to see that article worked on a bit by folks in this group, as it seems a little lopsided, perhaps more inappropriately so. Schwael 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Race article already gives a fairly complete presentation of this issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Utility of research section

Can we replace the current text in the utility of research section? There have been a number of updates to Race and intelligence (Utility of research) and the text there should reflect what is in the sub-page. futurebird 23:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As it stands this section is too much like a little debate, if you have ideas to revise this new proposed text... please post away! futurebird 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No current text is going to be replaced unless there is a consensus (i.e. including Ramdrake, JK, and RIK) on this page. As peoplereach consensus on specific issues/sections, I will gladly make the changes one at a time. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just noting that the references could be improved. I cannot find a source for either Lynn or Loehlin here or in the subarticle.Ultramarine 17:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Utility of research (current text)

One criticism of race and intelligence research, regardless of whether racial differences are genetic or not, questions its utility.

Descriptions of research into group differences in intelligence (especially genetic hypotheses) have been treated as self-evidently harmful to society by many writers, including references references to slavery, intolerance, and eugenics. Even supporters of intelligence research have desccribed such research as analogous to "working with dynamite" or "dangerous play" in sports, for which they have been criticized

The Southern Poverty Law Center has stated: "Race science has potentially frightening consequences, as is evident not only from the horrors of Nazi Germany, but also from the troubled racial history of the United States. If white supremacist groups had their way, the United States would return to its dark days. In publication after publication, hate groups are using this 'science' to legitimize racial hatred."

Another cricism is that it "causes major psychological harm to millions of black children and adults (with respect to self-esteem, career expectations, interracial relationships, etc.)". For example, in response to The Bell Curve Ashley Montagu, who famously stated the ideology of race is "man's most dangerous myth," wrote:

It is generally held that anyone who cries "Fire" in a crowded theatre should be held responsible for the consequences of his conduct. The same rule should apply to anyone who, motivated by racism, publishes inflammatory falsehoods concerning others, whether they be individuals, groups, or populations; they should by law be held responsible for their conduct. More than 200 years of racism, libel and slander, are enough, and so it is with use of IQ tests, which in a very real sense represent demeaning falsehoods, whether they maliciously intended or not.

Some scientists, including evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton, argue that suppressing race and intelligence research is actually more harmful than dealing with it honestly. Linda Gottfredson, a prominent professor whose work has been influential in U.S. workplace policy and who's also a Pioneer fund grantee argues:

Lying about race differences in achievement is harmful because it foments mutual recrimination. Because the untruth insists that differences cannot be natural, they must be artificial, manmade, manufactured. Someone must be at fault. Someone must be refusing to do the right thing. It therefore sustains unwarranted, divisive, and ever-escalating mutual accusations of moral culpability, such as Whites are racist and Blacks are lazy.

Utility of research(new text)

Main article: Race and intelligence (Utility of research)

Theories of race and intelligence that conclude the average gaps in IQ scores between Blacks and Whites are significantly due to genetic differences between Blacks and Whites have been challenged on grounds of their utility. Critics want to know what purpose such research could serve and why it has been an intense an area of focus for a few researchers. Some defend the research, saying it has egalitarian aims or that it is pure science, others say that the true motivation for the reserch is the same as that of the eugenics movement and other forms of scientific racism.. Even supporters of intelligence research have desccribed such research as analogous to "working with dynamite" or "dangerous play" in sports.

As to whether research in this area is desirable, John C. Loehlin wrote in 1992, "Research on racial differences in intelligence is desirable if the research is appropriately motivated, honestly done, and adequately communicated." [emphasis original] Defenders of the research suggest that both scientific curiosity and a desire to draw benefits from the research are appropriate motivations. Some of the proponents of the research, such as Chris Brand feel it is important to maintain a perspective of race realism. The term "race realism" describes the theory that racial distinctions areenduringly important because racial groups differ by nature (genetically) with regard to such important behavioral tendencies as intelligence and impulsiveness. Reachers such as Richard Lynn have suggested that conclusions from the research can help make political decisions, such as the type of educational opportunities and expectations of achievement policy makers should have for people of different races. Researchers such as Charles Murray have used their conclusions to criticize social programs based on racial equality that fail in Murray's eyes to recognize the realities of racial differences.

Sociologist and demographer Reanne Frank says that some race and intelligence research has been abused "The most malignant are the "true believers," who subscribe to the typological distinctions that imply hierarchical rankings of worth across different races. Although this group remains small, the members' work is often widely publicized and well known (e.g., Herrnstein and Murray 1994; Rushton 1991)"

This section seems weighted almost entirely on the side of the possible benefits of this research and policy decisions that could be made on the basis of the research (policy decisions that, as outlined above, seem incredibly stupid to me). There is nothing specific about the damage of such research. (First, do no harm.) There is only a criticism of the "malignancy" of "true believers," which comes across as mere name calling.

I have a tape sitting in my VCR right now of a program presented to educators about the effects of testing that measures only outcomes and does not measure learning over a semester or other time period in which a student has been working to improve his/her own competency -- with the aim of giving appropriate feedback in the course of the learning process on what is working and what is not working. One of the speaker's main points was that it is a strong disincentive to future work and progress when an individual is told that s/he is not competent enough.

Has nobody done any research on the impact of telling students (directly or indirectly) that they are not intelligent enough that they ought to be planning for higher level pursuits in life? P0M 21:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A video could be a fine source, what is it called? Can you pull a good quote from it? I think I remember a study that we could add here that relates to the potential negative impacts of the research... let me look around a bit. futurebird 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The program was on our statewide public tv network. The speaker was from the Assessment Training Institute, he had "StarNet" in the background while he was lecturing, so that may be a website, and he mentioned that his organization has a book entitled Student Involved Classroom Assessment. P0M 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.assessmentinst.com/ General information

http://www.assessmentinst.com/forms/TIP-pub.pdf A seven-page summary, which begins:

From their very earliest school experiences, our students

draw life-shaping conclusions about themselves as learners the basis of the information we provide to them as a result their teachers’ classroom assessments. As that evidence accumulates over time, they decide if they are capable succeeding or not. They decide whether the learning is the commitment it will take to attain it. They decide if should have confidence in themselves as learners and in teachers—that is, whether to risk investing in the schooling experience. These decisions are crucial to their academic well-being. Depending on how they decide, their teachers

may or may not be able to influence their learning lives.

P0M 03:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to bring bad news, but I don't think this source will work because, while it shows the impact of testing on future achievement, it's not really about race. If we were doing original research we could easily and legitimacy link these two ideas-- but, on wikipedia we must only summarize pre synthesized information, not create new conclusions by drawing links between research. However, you have inspired me to dig up some sources (I know they are out there, I've seen them, but I can't remember where) who have talked about the impacts of testing itself with respect to race. I'll respond here as soon as I find them. In the mean time, I think we should both keep looking and try to get this text approved, since it is better than what is there at present. We can (and should) revise it in the future. futurebird 03:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I found it!

Stereotype threat is being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group. Studies 1 and 2 varied the stereotype vulnerability of Black participants taking a difficult verbal test by varying whether or not their performance was ostensibly diagnostic of ability, and thus, whether or not they were at risk of fulfilling the racial stereotype about their intellectual ability. Reflecting the pressure of this vulnerability, Blacks underperformed in relation to Whites in the ability-diagnostic condition but not in the nondiagnostic condition (with Scholastic Aptitude Tests controlled). Study 3 validated that ability-diagnosticity cognitively activated the racial stereotype in these participants and motivated them not to conform to it, or to be judged by it. Study 4 showed that mere salience of the stereotype could impair Blacks' performance even when the test was not ability diagnostic. The role of stereotype vulnerability in the standardized test performance of ability-stigmatized groups is discussed.

Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. (Steele CM and Aronson J. 1995)

Steele then talked about his findings in many studies that when a person’s social identity is attached to a negative stereotype, that person will tend to underperform in a manner consistent with the stereotype. [1]

It works on white people too: When White men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat J Aronson, MJ Lustina, C Good, K Keough, CM Steele … - Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1999

I think this will work, it shows how stating there are fixed differences based on race can cause people to fit those profiles. Can you suggest a few sentences to work these ideas in to the body of this text? The best way to do that is to simply edit Race and intelligence (Utility of research) I'm watching that page and I'll duplicate the changes you make here. futurebird 03:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I think this project is somewhat of a waste of time. It would be more efficient to recompile the material in the super-section "Public debate and policy implications" and make that into a single sub-article, rather than having it be a section with many sub-articles. Partitioning material between the sub-articles is a problem. I have several issues with the way its been done now. Rather than raising them individually, however, I think the move to a single sub-article would be much easier. --W.R.N. 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple change we can ALL agree on: templates

This is a small change that has nothing to do with adding new text or revising anything. So I hope we can all agree on this change. The templates:

• {{Race and intelligence vertical navbox}}
• {{Race and intelligence}}

contain a listing for "Public controversy", it redirects to Race and intelligence (explanations). Could we remove this link, since anyone can get to the explanations sub-article by clicking on "Explanations"? It's really confusing... futurebird 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes made

I've made these changes, since the page is now unlocked (I requested that it be unlocked late last night, all of the debate in here was getting silly) Let's all be rational and not get in to edit wars OK? Otherwise it will be locked again... and we know how much fun that is.

Regarding these nav. boxes. I've added Stereotype threat to the box-- I feel it would be a good subsection under "explanations" in the main article... however I'm wary of adding any more content to this article as it is too long. What are your thoughts on this? futurebird 16:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the controversy article? The nav box was originally meant to join together the sub-articles of this article. It has now grown to include tangentially related articles. If we're doing the latter, there are many more articles to include and the box will greatly grow, substituting for the see-also section. I don't think that's a particular good idea. Which is it going to be? --W.R.N. 19:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ultra seems to have merged in in to another article... [2]

I wonder if anything was lost in that process... there are edit summaries for this, but even when I think the text is "wrong" it bugs me when people just delete things... I think that nothing was deleted, though, I trust Ultra's edits, but you'd better check to see if you are okay with this whole process...Me? I need a wiki break, this page just got protected again. futurebird 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Contained mostly duplication of info from other pages. I moved the rest to "Accusations of bias". Title was extremely strange, implying that there is some kind of public controvery and misunderstanding regarding R&I not shared by the wiser researchers. No support for this notion was presented in the text.Ultramarine 21:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Uses to which historically claimed correlations between Race and intelligence have put

A quick read through article shows only one mention (Footnote 86. Aristotle) of the uses to which historically claimed correlations between Race and intelligence have put. Slavery, genocide, aparthied, segregated schooling, non-enfranchisement, and racial streaming spring to mind as prhaps having been justified/excused/explanained/necessitated on these grounds. Is this article the place to mention this aspect of "Race and intelligence"? What confidence can we have that this is not a current use of this topic? SmithBlue 10:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are absolutely right about the article not having enough information about how this research has been used. I have made some changes that I hope will improve it, both to the main article and to this article: Race and intelligence (Utility of research) There is still a lot of work to be done... if you aren't still busy, I'd love to have your help on this project. I've found a few sources and made some suggestions here: [3]

Hope to see you around! futurebird 16:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We can't have confidence is anything except what's been specifically reported. The history of racism != the history of "race and intelligence". to the extent that it is, we are better off with a summary section here and the details elsewhere. --W.R.N. 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The two, however are related. The fact that this isn't clear some of the time is one of the big problems with this article.futurebird 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see that space/size precludes a comprehensive section focussed on the "historical uses on R&I" however to confine this history to a footnote would be amazingly POV. Somewhat similar to writing about nuclear fission and missing out the bit about nuclear weapons. I can see that this article is developing rapidly and am not in a hurry and would like the product of this development to state the historical uses of R&I. SmithBlue 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you suggest some sources to help us meet this goal? I would simply start adding content, if I was you. It's OK that the article is too big, we're in the process of moving bits to subarticles, even now. I'd like to see a few hefty paragraphs on this topic. futurebird 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

lead image caption

only 1 bell curve was featured on the cover of TBC, not two. the relation of TBC to the lead image appears tenuous -- they both talk about IQ, which has a normal distribution of scores. is there a reason to mention it there? also, the claim that comparing IQ scores of different groups is tantamount to scientific racism is not one expressed by, for example, psychologists when writing the APA report. is there any evidence it is a significant opinion among scholars? if so, which groups can it be attributed to? historians??? --W.R.N. 19:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen "The Bell Curve" is what got me all mixed up in this non-sense topic in the first place. That book was all over the news. Most people I know still cringe each time it is mentioned. It's gotta be in this article right at the top. Because that's what the people are going to be looking for here. In fact maybe this page should just go right to the page on The Bell Curve! I don't even like graphing normal curves anymore because of that book.. Jesus!JJJamal 02:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The caption should clearly be "These are idealized normal curves comparing the IQs of Blacks and Whites in the US in 1981". Romper 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

lead image itself

ramdrake suggested a modification to the lead image. here's my attempt at that suggestion. if we aren't going to have four curves, then probably shouldn't single out any particular groups. --W.R.N. 19:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This would work better with the caption and reduce the number of people coming here saying "WHY DO YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE???" ... but I need to think about it. other people... share your thoughts.... futurebird 20:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not gonna stop until we close this stupid gap, Susan. JJJamal 02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is some good in this, but I don't think that the average person will understand it. I think that the meaning will have to be clearer with more understandable captions, if that can be done without identifying the populations all the better. I'm convinced that there are differences in IQ among populations due to adaptations to various environments, but I'm uncomfortable with the buckets of black, white, asian and hispanic. I think that these are overly aggregated. A problem that I perceive is that the graphic is too simple and the discussion too complex, therefore, casual visitors to this article walk away with a black and white view of the issue. --Kevin Murray 06:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The notion that those categories are "overly aggregated" isn't a workable criticism for the lead because research on less aggregated groups is thin on the ground. The other concerns are workable. I'll give it more thought, but I think I'll just come back to the conclusion that a graph with 4 curves is the best way to address those other concerns. --W.R.N. 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think this new lead image will work because it gives too much emphasis to IQ testing as a means of measuring intelligence. The current Image with the black white Gap, and the caption that lends historical context is best. futurebird 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• are there any measures of intelligence other than IQ that any substantial minority of people agree on? psychologists only discuss IQ type tests in the content of group differences. is there some other group with a competing claim to having measured race differences in intelligence? this is a difference between specific and nonspecific criticisms. the nonspecific criticism that X doesn't like the use of race and Y doesn't like the use of intelligence, in general, doesn't give us (editors) reason to not directly discuss race and IQ as so many other sources do. --W.R.N. 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Should we have a sub-article Race and IQ (Research) for the more specific discussion of any observed differences? Perhaps we should narrowly tailor our focus, and keep only a very general discussion of intelligence in the main article... --JereKrischel 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• a priori crafting of article content won't work. you throw what's been said about the topic into the article, organize it, summary it where appropriate, and let the thing reflect the literature as a result of your efforts. we already have a subarticle dedicated to the nature (psychometric, academic, biological, etc.) of the gaps. NPOV doesn't mean giving each topic equal space, but proportional representation. what would you suppose is the IQ to non-IQ ratio in the literature? --W.R.N. 17:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if I were to venture a guess, it's a significant proportion on both sides - the issue really comes out when people use different tests, of which only some purport to measure anything comparable to IQ (brain size and reaction time, for example). In any case, I would suggest that as per summary style, there is enough material on Race and IQ (Research) to merit a sub-article. --JereKrischel 18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I see value in this insofar as it opens up questions e.g. what exactly do IQ tests measure and who is being tested and how are they being identified. I know that there is some research that assumes simple answers to these questions, research that goes to great lengths to answer these questions with an eye towards precision and accuracy, and finally research that challenges answers to these questions. As long as this whol range of research is represented in the articles, as well as any controversies surrounding them, it is fine with me! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the existing image is better, as it is simpler to grasp the nature of the issue from it. The above suggested image is a bit to technical and abstract.Romper 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)