Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:22, 7 February 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race and intelligence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Race and intelligence, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included: Pillars: Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. Original research: Misplaced Pages defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles. Correct use of sources: Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors. Advocacy: Misplaced Pages strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not. Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Decorum: Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited. Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

	Race and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 14, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept June 24, 2005 Peer review Reviewed July 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed December 4, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept April 11, 2011 Articles for deletion Kept Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race and intelligence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Article Tags

This article has multiple tags - it will probably always have them given the nature of the subject matter - but would it be a plan to systematically work to remove these as far as possible?

• The Section on Brain Size has an undue weight tag
• The Section on Regression towards the mean has an undue weight tag
• The Section on Genetics of Race and Intelligence has an undue weight tag
• The Section on Evolutionary theories has an undue weight tag
• The Section on Genetic Arguments" has a neutrality disputed tag
• The Section on Validity of Race and IQ has an undue weight tag
• The Section on History of Debate has this section should be summary of main article on History of Race and Intelligence Controversy
• The Article is tagged with: does not represent a worldview; undue weight; factual accuracy disputed; neutrality disputed; unbalanced.

Are there any arguments to support, say, that the section on Regression towards the mean has been given undue weight? It consists of two sentences. The first outlines Jensen and Rushton's position. The second refutes it. Is this really undue weight?FiachraByrne (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the current history section gives way too much attention to the modern debate. We have exactly two paragraphs on the widespread eugenics research in the early 20th Century, followed by seven paragraphs about more recent research. I think trimming the latter down would get things closer to where we would want to be on that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. As a start I'd advocate moving the section on the Pioneer Fund into the Ethics of research section. Also I'd like to put in headers for the history section to divide pre- and post-WWII. I'd probably remove/move the third and second last paragraphs as well FiachraByrne (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should keep in mind there's already a separate History of the race and intelligence controversy article. It would be best if we could minimize the amount of content we duplicate that's already in another article. Zeromus1 (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is certainly in a dire state. Most of the undue tags relate to the over weight given to Rushton, Jensen, et al, scientists who have failed to build mainstream consensus for their conclusions despite decades of research. Any move to address these weight problems would be welcomed. aprock (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, they can hardly be excluded, regardless of consensus, due to their importance to the debate. I think you could say - based on many statements in research papers - that the consensus amongst geneticists is that racial difference in IQ is not accounted for by genetics.

In regard to Jensen, although it's a pretty crude measure, we could weight the relative importance of his articles at least based upon how often they've been cited. So, using Scopus (author search for Jensen, Arthur and searched within results for race and intellligence), the following are his top cited articles and therefore the ones which should be given greatest weight:

• Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability (2005) 108 Cites
• Race, Social Class and Ability Patterns on the WISC-R (1982) 35 Cites
• Race and Sex Difference in Head Size and IQ (1994) 26 Cites
• Forward and Backward Digit Span Interaction with Race and IQ: Predictions from Jensen's Theory (1975) 19 Cites
• Occupation and Income Related to Psychometric G (2001) 15 Cites
• The Totality of Available Evidence Shows the Race IQ Still Remains (2006) 13 Cites
• African-White IQ Differences from Zimbabwe on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised are mainly on the G Factor (2003) 11 cites
• Comments on Correlations of IQ with Skin Color and Geographic-Demographic Variables (2006) 9 Cites
• Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy (2005) 9 Cites
• James Watson's Most Inconvenient Truth: Race Realism and the Moralistic Fallacy (2008) 8 Cites
• Adoption Data and Two G Related Hypotheses (1997) 8 Cites
• An Examination of Culture Bias in the Wonderlic Test (1977) 6 Cites
• Personality and Scholastic Achievement in Three Ethnic Groups (1973) 6 Cites
• The Rise and Fall of the Flynn Effect as a Reason to Expect a Narrowing of Black-White IQ (2010) 5 Cites
• Galton's Legacy to Research on Intelligence (2002) 5 Cites
• Interaction of Level I and Level II Abilities with Race and Socioeconomic Status (1974) 5 Cites
• The Theory of Intelligence and its Measurement (2011) 4 Cites
• Do Age-Group Differences on Mental Tests Imitate Racial Differences (2003) 3 Cites

According to Scopus, the remainder of his articles receive 0 cites. Obviously, there are some historical articles that are not returned which should probably be included. Also, one should weigh these results in terms of the recency of publication as 2011 article has had less time to accumulate citations than an article from 1974. FiachraByrne (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Those citation numbers are not even remotely plausible. Check out Google Scholar, each of those has been cited many more times. "How Much Can We Boost..." probably has more citations than any other article in the history of IQ research. His books, especially Bias in Mental Testing and The g Factor, are also some of the most frequently cited monographs in the history of the discipline. The latter, in particular, is the sine qua non of contemporary research on cognitive abilities, and is cited numerous times in each issue of various specialist journals.

There is zero evidence for the claim that "the consensus amongst geneticists is that racial difference in IQ is not accounted for by genetics." Moreover, the question is not strictly in the purview of geneticists per se, but rather psychometricians and behavior geneticists (who may not be geneticists by training). It's difficult to establish what the mainstream view on the causes of racial differences is because it's such a taboo subject. The best evidence we have is from the anonymous 1980s survey of hundreds of behavioral scientists by Snyderman and Rothman. It showed that the modal view of experts on just about all questions was the same as Jensen's. For example, only 15% said that the black-white IQ gap was entirely due to non-genetic factors, whereas 45% said that both genetic and non-genetic factors are involved. The 1994 Mainstream Science on Intelligence statement, signed by 52 experts, is also completely in line with Jensen's views. There is no reason to believe that the views of experts on this topic have radically changed since the 1980s and 1990s.

The best answer we have is that currently there is no consensus on the causes of racial disparities in IQ (cf. Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns). In this article, we should present all prominent viewpoints and arguments that have been published in reliable sources. Those include the views of hereditarians like Jensen and Rushton as well as those of their opponents.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Google Scholar is not an appropriate source to track citations. No plausible published study would use it as a metric. I'm looking specifically at articles not at books as these would require a different measurement instrument. I've also explicitly stated that this may not be only database from which to draw citations - although I'd struggle to think of a better one for this field. The statement that there is a consensus amongst geneticists that the IQ gap is not attributable to genetic differences between races is derived from review articles/op ed. pieces that make that contention such as the Ceci and Williams article - there are more and you could argue that there doing that to insulate the field from critique. Obviously, such a statement would need more support and would not necessarily apply to different disciplines. The 1980 survey you refer is too old to hold any contemporary relevance and likewise with the statement on 'mainstream science' from the early 1990s. They are historically relevant but that's it. It would be better to cite a recent review article giving an overview of the field and positions within it. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the Scopus database (and there may be more relevant databases), a search for race and intelligence in all fields returns 14,130 articles. Limiting these results to review articles with key words for race and intelligence returned 203 articles. Based on a reading of article abstracts, not all of these were directly relevant (articles on anti-social behaviour, etc). So based on citations, the most relevant articles are:

• Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment (2003) 188 Citations

• Neurobiology of intelligence: Science and ethics (2004) 134 Citations

• Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race (2005) 108 Cites

• Cognitive Skills and Noncognitive Traits and Behaviors in Stratification Processes (2003) 105 cites

• Genetics of brain structure and intelligence (2005) 93 Cites (not sure how relevant race is for this article)

• Human Abilities (1998) 81 Cites (not sure how relevant race is for this article)

• Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among 'racial' and 'ethnic' groups (2004) 68 cites

• Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research (2007) 62 cites (not sure of relevance for race)

• The Bell Curve: On race, social class, and epidemiologic research (1996) 52 Cites

• Four-Year Review of the Use of Race and Ethnicity in Epidemiologic and Public Health Research (2004) 43 Cites (not sure of relevance for intelligence)

• Cross-cultural effects on IQ test performance: A review and preliminary normative indications on WAIS-III test performance (2004) 36 cites

• The secular rise in IQ: Giving heterosis a closer look (2004) 36 cites

• The status of the race concept in physical anthropology (1998) 33 cites (not sure of relevance for intelligence)

• Deconstructing race and ethnicity: Implications for measurement of health outcomes (2006) 30 cites

• Genes, race, and psychology in the genome era: An introduction (2005) 22 Cites

• Myopia, intelligence, and the expanding human neocortex: Behavioral influences and evolutionary implications (1999) 21 cites (not sure of relevance for race)

• Whole brain size and general mental ability: A review (2009) 18 cites

• On models and muddles of heritability (1997) 14 cites

• Is the demise of IQ interpretation justified? A response to special issue authors (2007) 12 cites (questionable inclusion)

• Psychopathic personality and racial/ethnic differences reconsidered: A reply to Lynn (2002) (2003) 11 cites

• Size matters: A review and new analyses of racial differences in cranial capacity and intelligence that refute Kamin and Omari (2000) 10 cites

• Genetic aspects of intelligence (1975) 10 cites

• Whole brain size and general mental ability: a review. (2009) 9 cites

• Hereditarian scientific fallacies (1997) 9 cites

• Some history of heredity-vs-environment, genetic inferiority at Harvard(?), and The (incredible) Bell Curve (1997) 8 cites

• Genetic differences and school readiness (2005) 7 cites

• Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments (2012) 5 cites (no abstract for this)

• Intelligence (I.J. Deary) 2012 (5 cites) (not sure of relevance to race)

• Personality psychology: Current state and future prospects | (2005) 5 cites (not sure of relevance to race)

These results are obviously imperfect. First, they should really be broken up by discipline. Further, not every article included really meets the criteria of a review article. Textbooks should also be included - we just need a plausible system to weigh their relative influence. I think the idea of using some kind of metric is sound, however, as opinions on this topic are extremely subjective. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I should state that the Scopus database only goes back to 1973, ... incorrect, but not sure why earlier articles for Jensen were not showing up ... hence my observation that we'd also have to include some historical articles. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

What you say about Google Scholar is not true. Quoting from the Wiki article: Some searchers consider Google Scholar of comparable quality and utility to commercial databases. The reviews recognize that its "cited by" feature in particular poses serious competition to Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge, although, in a study limited to the biomedical field, the citation information found in Google Scholar have found to be sometimes inadequate, and less often updated. Your limitation to articles is also arbitrary, because lots of research on race & IQ is published in multiple-author books and monographs. Scopus appears to be rather unreliable. For example, it reports six citations for "Personality and Scholastic Achievement in Three Ethnic Groups", but Google Scholar reports 20, most of them articles. Moreover, the Scopus list does not include some of Jensen's most important and highly cited articles, such as his 1982 Behavioral and Brain Sciences target article on Spearman's hypothesis. In short, Scopus is not reliable here and even if it were, citation counts are not the way to judge what sources are relevant in Misplaced Pages.

Your argument that a survey from 1984 and a consensus statement from 1994 are only of historical interest makes no sense. Both and especially the 1994 statement are frequently cited in newer research. If you were right, then surely the 1996 APA report, the 1994 AAA statement, and the 1996 AAPA statement, all prominently cited in the article, are also outdated. The idea that sources have some clear expiration dates leads to absurdity.

Ceci and Williams's self-serving claims about consensus are unsupported by anything other than their own words. There are other recent sources, such as Earl Hunt's new textbook Human Intelligence (2011), which hold that the causes of the racial gaps are currently unknown and that strong claims in either direction are not supported by evidence.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The limitation to articles is based upon what is searchable through Scopus. I didn't imply that books should be excluded, just that I wasn't sure what metric to use to weigh them. The purpose of the citation index is to get a feel for the actual distribution of influence and the relative weight of sources in the field. It might be a useful guide but it would not be a solely determining instrument for an article's inclusion or exclusion. Some of your points on Google Scholar are valid. It returns a reasonable result of an individual author. Trying to search for sources through key words is another matter. In the latter instance, it becomes unworkable. Thus, if I search for "race AND intelligence" it returns 759,000 results. Now, this is many more results than Scopus or an equivalent database would provide but they are ranked based upon the frequency of the appearance of those terms in the title or text rather than on citations or some other measure. Nor can I do much to order those search returns. It would take days to go through it whereas I can establish a similar result through Scopus in minutes. Scopus may return less results but I can be reasonably confident that recent work in established journals will be returned. Now, it may then be feasible to turn to Google Scholar and search for individual items or authors but I'd suggest that we use Scopus or Web of Science first. Scopus is widely used in Academia even if it imperfect. I don't think it's plausible to say its unreliable. The use of citation counts is relevant because it's the only way to arbitrate the 'undue' tags that have proliferated throughout the article.

Ceci and William's statement may not be true and it may be self-serving. I don't know. I do know that we're using their other statements to support contentions in the lede. I also think they have a reasonable claim to speak for their field in op-ed piece. However, if such a statement were to be inserted it would need support from other sources. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ceci and Williams's claim about "an emerging consensus" is self-serving, unverifiable, and contradicted by other sources, but their other arguments do not suffer from such limitations. Establishing what the scientific consensus is in a field where expressing certain viewpoints leads to public condemnation, academic ostracism, and, in some countries, police investigations, is obviously a tricky matter. Snyderman and Rothman's survey showed that the views of scientists, when surveyed anonymously, on controversial topics are often at great variance with what the media and individual scientists consider to be the mainstream view.

There is a Misplaced Pages guideline on identifying reliable sources, so there's no legitimate rationale for coming up with standards for reliable sources that apply only to this article. A good way of finding relevant sources is to look at prominent books and reviews that deal with race and intelligence. For example, there are very few accounts that do not give a prominent place to Arthur Jensen's views.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've previously said the validity of the Ceci and Williams claim would depend on the addition of other sources.

As to the other matter, it's not issue of whether sources are reliable but as to whether they've been given undue prominence. I'm suggesting that we could use a citation index to help us determine that. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we also should look into whether this article gives undue prominence to Richard Nisbett. Google scholar shows 160 citations to Intelligence and How to Get It, while The g Factor is cited 2,181 times. Yet in this article there are 13 citations to Nisbett's book, and only three citations to The g Factor. I haven't examined Scopus, but based on Google scholar Nisbett's book seems to be given far more weight than it should. Zeromus1 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that that is supportable. Bear in mind, however, that Nisbett's article was only published in 2009 - therefore it's averaging 40 citations a year and is highly cited. Jensen's article is averaging 145 citations, however. That doesn’t mean Jensen’s article is supported and this is a crude measure, etc, but Jensen's publication is obviously important to the topic even if a lot of those citations are criticisms. But I'd like to get an overview of the field first. Also, what I’d really like to identify is a highly cited review publication or textbook that addresses the issue of race and intelligence.

I got a piece of free software called Publish or Perish which makes the Google Scholar results sortable etc. The other thing I've been wondering is what kind of weight we can give to Google Scholar's ranking? Does it provide a better result than simple citation counting. There's a decent evaluation of its ranking algorithm here if anyone's interested. It obviously over-rates publication titles rather than text for searches. There are lists below of some searches I did through Google Scholar that were sorted using Publish or Perish. Some of these publications or more or less relevant and I’m not suggesting that all of these publications or that only these publications should be included. It’s just an indication of some important publications that address the subject. Now doing a basic search for Race AND IQ through Google Scholar we get the following results:

Publications Google Scholar ranks the highest (three publications edited out as irrelevant):

• RC Lewontin, ‘Race and Intelligence’ (1970) in Race and IQ. Cites 151 Cites per year 3.51

• S Scarr-Salapatek, ‘Race, social class and IQ’ (1971) in Science. Cites 216 Cites per year 5.14

• A. Montagu, Race and IQ (2011). Cites 63 Cites per year 31.5

• AR Jensen, RA Figueroa, ‘Forward and backward digit span interaction with race and IQ: Predictions from Jensen’s theory’ (1975), Journal of Educational Psychology. Cites 85 Cites per year 2.24

• C Lane, ‘The Tainted Sources of ‘The Bell Curve’ (1999) in Race and IQ. Cites 58 Cites per year 4.14

• U Bronfenbrenner, ‘Nature with nurture: a reinterpretation of the evidence’ (1975) in Race and IQ. Cites 30 Cites per year 0.79

• J. Tizzard, ‘Race and IQ: The Limits of Probability’ (1975) in Journal of Ethnicity and Migration. Cites 34 Cites per year 0.84

• WF Bodmer, ‘Race and IQ: The Genetic Background’ (1972) in Race Culture and Intelligence. Cites 25 Cites per year 0.61

• RS Cooper, ‘Molecular Genetics as Deus ex Machina’ (2005) in American Psychologist. Cites 29 Cites per year 3.63

• U Bronfenbrenner, ‘Is early intervention effective? Some studies of early education in familial and extrafamilial settings’ (1975) in Race and IQ. Cites 17 Cites per year 0.45

• S. Rose, ‘Darwin 200: Should scientists study race and IQ? NO: Science and society do not benefit’ (2009) in Nature. Cites 19 Cites per year 4.75

• JR Flynn, ‘Race and IQ: Jensen’s Case Refuted’ (1987) in Arthur Jensen: Consensus and … Cites 25 Cites per year 0.96

• P Watson, ‘How Race Affects IQ’ (1970) in New Society. Cites 20 Cites per year 0.47

• S Ceci, WM Williams, ‘Darwin 200: Should Scientists Study Race and IQ? Yes: The Scientific Truth Must Be Pursued (2009) in Nature. Cites 13 Cites per year 3.25

• T Sowell, ‘Race and IQ Reconsidered’ (1978) in Essays and Data on America … Cites 17 Cites per year 0.49

• SE Luria, ‘What can biologists solve’ (1975) in Race and IQ. Cites 13 Cites per year 0.34

• A Montagu, ‘Intelligence, IQ, and Race’ (1999) in Race and IQ. Cites 1 Cites per year 0.07

• H McGary, Race and Social Justice (1998). Cites 45 Cites per year 3

• JP Rushton, AR Jensen, ‘Race and IQ: A Theory-based review of the research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to get …’ (2010) in The Open Psychology Journal. Cites 16 Cites per year 5.33

• C Senna, The Fallacy of IQ (1973). Cites 13 Cites per year 0.33

Most cited, total (several publications edited out as irrelevant)

• D Goleman, Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ (2006). Cites 13738 Cites per year 1962.57 Google Rank 237

• AR Jensen, How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement (1969) in Harvard Educational Review. Cites 3397 Cites per year 77.20 Google Rank 276

• B Hart, TR Risley, Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children (1995). Cites 3125 Cites per year Google Rank 208

• PJ Williams, The Alchemy of Race and Rights (1991). Cites 2742 Cites per year 124.64 Google Rank 398

• C Jencks, M Phillips, The Black-White Test Score Gap (1998). Cites 2218 Cites per year 147.87 Google Rank 81

• AR Jensen, The G Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (1998). Cites 2181 Cites per year 145.40 Google Rank 48

• A Lareau, Unequal Childhoods: Class, race and family life (2011). Cites 1994 Cites per year 997 Google Rank 417

• I Lopez, White by Law 10th Anniversary Edition: The Legal Construction of Race (2006). Cites 1686 Cites per year 240.86 Google Rank 487

• U Neisser, G Boodoo, TJ … ‘Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns’ (1996) in American … Cites 1592 Cites per year 93.65 Google Rank 344

• JR Flynn, ‘Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure (1987) in Psychological Bulletin. Cites 1300 Cites per year 50 Google Rank 185

• LJ Kamin, The Science and Politics of IQ (1974). Cites 1253 Cites per year 32.13

• TF Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America (1997). Cites 962 Cites per year 60.13 Google Rank 485

• AA Summers, BL Wolfe, ‘Do Schools Make a Difference’ (1977) in The American Economic Review. Cites 838 Cites per year 23.28 Google Rank 82

• A Montagu, Man’s most dangerous myth: the fallacy of race (1997). Cites 816 Cites per year 51 Google Rank 286

• JR Flynn, The Mean IQ of Americans: Massive Gains 1932 to 1978 (1984) in Psychological Bulletin. Cites 757 Cites per year 26.1 Google Rank 158

• AJ Sameroff, R Seifer, A … ‘Stability of intelligence from preschool to adolescence: The influence of social and family risk factors (2008) in Child … Cites 595 Cites per year 119 Google Rank 663

• RJ Gregory, Psychological Testing: History, Principles and Applications (2004). Cites 582 Cites per year 64.67 Google Rank 285

• E Turkheimer, A Haley … ‘Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children’ (2003) in Psychological … Cites 573 Cites per year 57.3 Google Rank 83

• AL Reiss, MT Abrams, H… ‘Brain development, gender and IQ in children: A volumetric imaging study (1996) in Brain. Cites 564 Cites per year 33.18 Google Rank 597

• SJ Ceci, ‘How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components? A reassessment … (1991) in Developmental Psychology. Cites 520 Cites per year 23.64 Google Rank 66

Most cited per year (this list unedited)

• D Goleman, Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ (2006). Cites 13738 Cites per year 1962.57 Google Rank 237

• A Lareau, Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life (2011). Cites 1994 Cites per year 997 Google Rank 417

• S Walker, C Spohn, MD … ‘ The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity and Crime in America (2011). Cites 513 Cites per year 256.5 Google Rank 174

• I Lopez, White by Law 10th Anniversary Edition: The legal construction of race (2006). Cites 1686 Cites per year 240.86 Google Rank 487

• B Hart, TR Risley, Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children (1995). Cites 3125 Cites per year 173.61 Google Rank 208

• C Jencks, M Phillips, The Black-White Test Score Gap (1998). Cites 2218 Cites per year 147.87 Google Rank 81

• AR Jensen, The G Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (1998). Cites 2181 Cites per year 145.4 Google Rank 48

• PJ Williams, The Alchemy of Race and Rights (1991). Cites 2742 Cites per year 124.64 Google Rank 398

• AJ Sameroff, R Seifer, A … ‘Stability of Intelligence from preschool to adolescence: The influence of social and family risk factors (2008) in Child … Cites 595 Cites per year 119 Google Rank 663

• U Neisser, G Boodoo, TJ … Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (1996) America … Cites 1592 Cites per year 93.65 Google Rank 344

• JG Altonji, RM Blank, Race and Gender in the Labor Market (1999) in Handbook of Labor Economics. Cites 1253 Cites per year 89.5 Google Rank 562

• AR Jensen, ‘How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement’ (1969) in Harvard Educational Review. Cites 3397 Cites per year 77.2 Google Rank 276

• RJ Gregory, Psychological Testing: History, principles and applications (2004). Cites 582 Cites per year 64.67 Google Rank 285

• D Cole, No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System (2000). Cites 818 Cites per year 62.92 Google Rank 609

• T Duster, Backdoor to Eugenics (2003). Cites 615 Cites per year 61.5 Google Rank 748

• TF Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America (1997). Cites 962 Cites per year 60.13 Google Rank 485

• E Turkheimer, A Haley … ‘Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children’ (2003) in Psychological … Cites 573 Cites per year 57.3 Google Rank 83

• AP Streissguth, HM … ‘Moderate prenatal alcohol exposure: effects on child IQ and learning problems at age 7 ½ years (2006) in Alcoholism: Clinical and … Cites 387 Cites per year 55.29 Google Rank 381

• D Conley, Being Black, Living in the Red: Race, Wealth and Social Policy in America (1999). Cites 766 Cites per year 54.71 Google Rank 552

• M Harris, A Raviv, ‘Differences of Opinion Make a Horse Race’ (1993) in Review of Financial Studies. Cites 1090 Cites per year 54.5 Google Rank 383 FiachraByrne (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

For the discipline of psychology at least, the text to get would appear to be Robert J. Gregory's Psychological Testing: History, Principles and Applications (2010).FiachraByrne (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We've clearly fallen into the POV pushing train here. The expressed sentiment appears to be that the views of Rushton and Jensen should be elevated even further, and this sentiment is being pushed by what appears to be original research and over-reliance on primary sources. If people are serious about contributing to this article, they are going to have to put away primary sources pick up some tertiary sources, like textbooks and external reviews, to get an understanding of the mainstream view of this topic. aprock (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you've come to those conclusions regarding POV pushing or original research. The attempt is to address in some kind of objective manner the undue tags that have been added to the article. If you look at the citation results from Scopus I've identified review articles and, as I haven't cherry picked them, they reflect a diversity of views. I can't select research articles or textbooks in a simple non-labour intensive manner with Google Scholar but in the post just above yours I've identified what I think is the single tertiary source that appears in the top 20 (based on total citations and citations per year) for those results. Now, it's a text book about psychological testing so, without having access to it at this point, I presume that it at least supports the validity of IQ tests. But I've highlighted the text not because it reflects my POV (it doesn't if that matters) but because it is a highly cited textbook that addresses race and IQ. Therefore, it should be a suitable source for the perspective of that discipline. I haven't doctored the results to reflect mine or any other point of view and, again, if you actually look through the Google ones I don't believe Rushton appears at all. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As interesting as your research on Scopus has been, it is precisely original research and cannot be any kind of basis for determining which primary sources to cite. aprock (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Whereas your personal opinion is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.92.159.73 (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that James Flynn is probably the most reliable commentator on this topic ... but who cares? I have no expertise on this issue.

The writing of any article in WP depends upon researching good sources. The number of citation returns can be used to identify publications which are widely cited in the field thus indicating their importance, relevance and reliability in the field. Scopus and Google Scholar have been used to identify: 1) the citation returns for a single scholar - (Jensen using Scopus); review literature for the topic (using Scopus); and the most highly cited or ranked (according to Google) publications in the field (using Google Scholar). From the Google Scholar search I've identified a single tertiary source that is not currently used in the article but it would be quite possible to identify more by examining more returns. The Scopus returns identify many more secondary and tertiary sources. If I'm not mistaken this is what you were calling for yourself in previous posts? The citation returns from the Scopus or Google Scholar database searches are not themselves going to be included in the article so I don't see how WP:NOR is relevant. The initial impetus to investigate citations was to explore to what degree WP:UNDUE applied to certain tagged sections of the article. The policy on WP:UNDUE states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". The methods it advocates to establish the proportional prominence of a given viewpoint are decidedly impressionistic but that would probably be sufficient in most scenarios. However, I'm attempting to introduce an objective measure to assist, but not determine, the relative weight that should be given to the primary, secondary and tertiary sources for the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, any improvements we make to the article will have to be made one at a time. Rather than attempt to fix the entire article at once, I think it would be best to focus on specific steps we can take to incrementally make it better.

Are we agreed that this article gives undue prominence to Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It? It is the article's most cited source. It's cited more than the 1996 report from the APA, and more than any textbook. Intelligence and How to Get It is not actually the most prominent source that exists about race and intelligence, but this article treats it as though it were.

A few months ago, ArtifexMayhem went through the article and removed a lot of the material cited to Jensen that he viewed as excessive. I suggest that the same thing should now also be done for some of the excessive Nisbett material. Zeromus1 (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, we need good, highly cited secondary or, ideally, tertiary level sources for each of the relevant disciplines who have approached this research question (sociology, psychology, genetics, etc). We should then use these sources to frame the positions by discipline in each section and then drill down to primary sources to make sure that there's good coverage of all major viewpoints, arguments and rebuttals. I'm not sure the edits by ArtifexMayhem improved the article nor am I convinced, even if the presence of his 2009 publication is excessive, that editing out Nesbitt's points will necessarily improve the article either. Additionally, you appear to be advocating tit-for-tat editing which is not conducive to establishing any kind of consensus.

Anyhow, as I said citation counts, used on their own, are a crude measure. Bear in mind also that most of the citations removed were to Rushton and Jensen's 2010 article, which is hardly their most cited. Obviously more recent material won't have had the opportunity to get as many citations (and that Google counts everything) and recent articles & publications will have more up-to-date arguments and analysis of data and so, provided the primary research has had a chance to make it into the secondary literature, it should be treated more favourably. Going on citation counts alone it seems that Rushton and Jensen's 2010 article was over-cited and probably still is - but you'd have to look at the content of the article, the quality of sources which cite it, what disciplines they are in, how often the publication's authors are in fact citing it and what those sources say about it . Equally, you'd have to do the same for Nisbett's 2009 article . Having said that I'm not hugely in favour of removing content and citation counts should just be a guide to the use of sources. Also, overall I'd have to say that Jensen, pivotal as he is to the whole question, has pretty good coverage in terms of breadth and depth.

Nisbett has two publications cited.

• 2005 publication cited once in this article and entitled "Heredity, environment, and race differences in IQ: A commentary on Rushton and Jensen" (39 total cites; 4.88 per year);
• 2009 publication cited 13 times in this article entitled Intelligence and how to get it (160 cites in total; 40 per year).

Relevant publications by Nisbett which are not currently cited in the article include:

• RE Nisbett et al., Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments (2012) (19 cites; 19 per year)
• RE Nisbett, 'Race, Genetics and IQ' in The Black-White Test Score Gap (1998) (99 cites; 6.6 per year)

Jensen has 9 publications cited where he is either the sole or co-author.

• 1969 article cited 1 time in this article entitled 'How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement' (3397 cites; 77.2 per year);
• 1973 book cited 1 time in this article entitled Educability and Group Differences (15 cites; 0.38 per year);
• 1993 article with Whang cited 1 time in this article entitled 'Reaction time and intelligence' (44 cites; 2.2 per year);
• 1994 article with Johnson cited 1 time in this article entitled 'Race and Sex Difference in Head Size and IQ' (68 cites; 3.58 per year);
• 1998 book cited 3 times in this article entitled The G Factor (2181 cites; 145.4 per year);
• 2005 article with Rushton cited 7 times in this article entitled 'Thirty Years of Research on Race Difference in Cognitive Ability' (229 cites; 28.6 per year);
• 2006 article with Rushton cited 1 time in this article entitled 'The Totality of Available Evidence Shows the Race IQ Gap Still Remains' (35 cites; 5 per year);
• 2006 book cited 2 times in this article entitled Clocking the Mind (133 cites; 19 per year);
• 2010 article with Rushton cited 5 times in this article entitled 'Race and IQ: A theory-based review of the research in Richard Nisbett's Intelligence and How to Get It' (16 cites; 5.33).

Relevant relatively recent publications by Jensen which are currently not in the article include:

• AR Jensen, JP Rushton, 'Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy' in Psychology, Public Policy and Law (2005) (35 cites; 4.38 per year)

FiachraByrne (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggested cutting out some of the Nisbett material just because looking at the article history, that appears to be the cleanest way to solve the problem of undue weight. When the Jensen material was removed, Victor Chmara reverted the removal once and then his revert was undone, but as far as I can see it never was brought up on the talk page. If we could do the same thing with Nisbett, that would be an easy way to solve the undue weight problem for him also.

The reason I'm unsure about your suggestion is because I'm not sure it's realistic we'll able to take a top-down approach and rewrite the whole article. It likely will take at least a month, and who knows what might change in that time? The Devil's Advocate helped a lot with reaching a consensus about the lead, but now there's a discussion at WP:AE about possibly indef blocking him. In my user talk, Victor Chmara said that he usually stays away from this article, and I'm not confident I'll still be around in a month either. Are you confident you'll be around for long enough for your approach to bring real improvements to the article? Zeromus1 (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, I could not agree more. High quality secondary sources are key. Where did you want to start? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm a little perturbed by how easy it appears for some users who work on this page to be sanctioned so I might review my participation here. Also, I've several deadlines for the next few days so I won't be posting so regularly, probably. Incidentally Zerosmus1 I left a comment on the discussion at WP:AE, for what it's worth, of my own limited experience of working with TDA on this page. I can't really advocate editing on the basis of when people may become blocked or banned, however. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow, as an immediate issue I think a fair point is raised that Nisbett's 2009 publication, while useful in addressing many of the issues, is over-represented as a source. Therefore, it would seem logical to replace some of those citations with 3rd-party-authored quality secondary sources that discuss Nisbett's findings. Due to the recency of Nisbett's book there aren't going to be that many that discuss the aspects of his text that deal specifically with race and IQ, unfortunately (63 mention race and IQ all told). As an aside, is it reasonable, if not ideal, to treat the literature review section (and only that) of primary research articles as secondary sources? Perhaps if we just agreed to follow WP:MEDRS so far as possible it might facilitate things. Anyhow, there have been about 160 citations of Nisbett's 2009 book and 63 mention race and IQ. I've been through a few of these and thus far the best I can find is this one which may be adequate for some points but is far from ideal. Are the arguments which Nisbett presents in his 2009 publication and which are contained in this WP article novel to the 2009 publication or has he published most of these points before and therefore could other secondary sources be used? Longer term I'd like to identify a few, reliable 3rd-party-authored secondary sources for each of the relevant disciplines that review the literature in some kind of systematic way and that present the arguments of the various proponents fairly. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, the paper you linked to appears to be about brain size. I can't tell whether it's a secondary source, but if it is it would be a good source to cite in the article's "Brain size" section. However, that section actually is not one of the sections that cites Nisbett, so I don't think it will be helpful for reducing the undue weight given to him.

I recently put some time into reviewing this article's citations to Intelligence and How to Get It, and also the history of the Jensen material that has been removed, to make some suggestions about how to solve this problem. The article currently has 13 citations to Nisbett's book. Here is my opinion about what to do with each of them:

1: "Richard Nisbett, another psychologist who had also commented at the time, later included an amplified version of his critique as part of the book Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count (2009)." It's reasonable for a history of the debate to include a mention of Nisbett, so I don't think this should be removed.

2. "The African American population of the United States is statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors such as poorer neighborhoods, schools, nutrition, and prenatal and postnatal health care." This sentence has two sources, Nisbett 2009 and Cooper 2006. The Cooper source is adequate to support the sentence, so I think the Nisbett source can be removed as redundant.

3. "Nisbett argues cultural traditions valuing education can explain the high results in the US for Ashkenazi Jews (Talmud scholarship) and East Asians (Confucianism and the Imperial examination system)." This entire sentence (Cultural traditions valuing education) is just one sentence, cited entirely to Nisbett. I'm not convinced Nisbett's point is separate from the point made by the "Education", "Logographic writing system" and "Caste-like minorities" sections. If there are sources besides Nisbett that discuss cultural traditions valuing education outside of these other topics, then this section should be expanded using these sources, but I don't believe a one-sentence section cited only to Nisbett should stay in the article.

4. "A number of scientists, supported by the American Anthropological Association, reject any genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps." This sentence is part of a paragraph that's a back-and-forth between Jensen, Rushton, Nisbett, Herrnstein and Murray. I don't see the point of it besides giving more undue weight to all of these authors. I suggest getting rid of the whole paragraph.

5. "On the other hand, cultural psychologist Richard Nisbett has argued that "(t)here are a hundred ways that a genetic difference in intelligence could have arisen – either in favor of whites or in favor of blacks."" This sentence is contrasting Nisbett's viewpoint with Brace's, so we shouldn't remove one without removing the other. I'd be okay with replacing Nisbett with another source, or leaving this part alone for now.

6. "Dickens and Flynn argue that the conventional interpretation ignores the role of feedback between factors, such as those with a small initial IQ advantage, genetic or environmental, seeking out more stimulating environments which will gradually greatly increase their advantage, which, as one consequence in their alternative model, would mean that the "heritability" figure is only in part due to direct effects of genotype on IQ." This is cited to Hunt & Carlson and to Flynn & Dickens as well as to Nisbett. The other sources are more than adequate, so as with #2 I think the Nisbett citation can be removed as redundant.

7-9: The "racial admixture studies" section has several citations to Nisbett. These were originally part of a back-and-forth between Nisbett and Jensen, in which the Jensen material was later removed. I don't see the sense in this removal. Why did they also remove Mackenzie, which was a high-quality secondary source? I'm reluctant to remove the Nisbett material in this section because it offers a lot of detail that isn't in other sources (as far as I know), but I also don't think a single sentence cited to Jensen in three paragraphs of text was undue. It might be best to just change this section back to the way it was before the removal.

10 & 11: The "Mental chronometry" section has another back-and-forth between Jensen and Nisbett. I suggest removing most of the Jensen and Nisbett material (especially in the section's second paragraph), and replacing it with a secondary source such as Hunt (2011).

12 & 13: The "Policy relevance" section has two citations to Nisbett, and they are redundant with one another. It cites Nisbett for each of two sentences of the same paragraph, both of which are to say he thinks interventions should be better researched. I think we only need one of the two.

If other people agree with this proposal, The number of citations to Intelligence and How to Get It will be reduced from thirteen to six or seven, which seems more consistent with that book's amount of prominence. My proposal also will slightly reduce the number of citations to Jensen and Rushton, which might be valuable if the article has an undue weight problem for them also. What do others think about my proposal? Zeromus1 (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I said the source was far from ideal. I haven't had time to go through them all systematically. Superficially at least I think most of your suggestions are fine but, personally, I can agree until I've had time to read through the specific sections of the article that would be effected. I won't be able to do this for a couple of days, I'm afraid. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to say no to #2. The only relevant quote in Cooper's paper is: 'Abundant historical and social science data exist to demonstrate the impact of skin color gradients as a marker of social status. What Rowe would apparently like to do is dismiss the role of institutionalized racism in shaping the structural determinants of success in U.S. society, like the job, housing, and educational markets'. I don't think Cooper adequately supports the statement that, "The African American population of the United States is statistically more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors such as poorer neighborhoods, schools, nutrition, and prenatal and postnatal health care." He mentions lower birth rate weight but doesn't state explicitly that it has anything to do with prenatal care (although he clearly believes it's caused by social determinants). He supports much of the meaning of the first part of the sentence, 'more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors' but little else. If we're to replace Nisbett in this instance we'd need a better source for this statement. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The brain size topic already has it's own article. I would suggest updating that article appropriately, then applying the appropriate wp:summary style here. Adding new information here without first adding it to the main articles for that topic would not make sense. aprock (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, thanks for noticing that sourcing issue. What do you recommend? I can't think offhand of any high-quality secondary sources that go into as much detail about #2 as Nisbett does, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. If you know of one, we could replace the second Nisbett citation with it. Or we could change that sentence to say "more likely to be exposed to many detrimental environmental factors", and cite it to just Cooper. Either option would be fine with me.

Also, can you give an opinion about the rest of the changes I proposed? Zeromus1 (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going through them as I have time. For the moment I'd be inclined to leave #2 but I don't imagine it should be so difficult to get another source to support that statement. FiachraByrne (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with #3. I can't find sources that would allow for an expansion of that section. If anyone else can, please chip in. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like there's consensus to remove this section so removing this now. BlackHades (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No. 4. I guess you could drop Nesbitt from this but I would have thought the genetic contribution to any putative difference in IQ between "racial groups" is kind of key to the whole argument? edit - perhaps use the Hunt evaluation of Jensen's and Rushton's estimate quoted by Aprock below? FiachraByrne (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No. 6. I haven't checked the other sources, but if what you say is true Nisbett can be removed from this.

Nos 7-9. I'd more or less return that section to the way that it was previously. I think the editing of sources to remove some sections was highly selective.FiachraByrne (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nos 10 & 11. I don't have Hunt's book so I'd like to hear Aprock's and Victor's opinion of this proposal.FiachraByrne (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nos 12 & 13. Agree - but I'd be inclined to rewrite that whole section. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me about most of these, but I'm not sure you understand what I'm suggesting in #4. I'm suggesting getting rid of that whole paragraph, not just the part cited to Nisbett. "A number of scientists, supported by the American Anthropological Association, reject any genetic contribution to racial IQ gaps. The American Psychological Association, while maintaining the causes of the gap are presently unknown, stated that "what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis." Jensen & Rushton and Herrnstein & Murray, however, argue that there is a substantial (50–80% in the US according to Rushton and Jensen) genetic contribution to the black-white IQ gap."

What does this paragraph accomplish? It's just rehashing what the rest of the article says about the viewpoints of these groups and researchers. I don't approve of how it says "a number of scientists" when citing Nisbett, Mountain & Risch, but lists the four hereditarian researchers by name. It would be more neutral to say "Nisbett, Mountain and Risch" instead of "A number of scientists". This paragraph also gives undue weight to Nisbett, Jensen and Rushton, while ignoring the views of researchers like Loehlin and Hunt who take intermediate or agnostic positions. Because this whole paragraph has so many problems, and appears to add nothing of value to the article, I'm suggesting the paragraph should be removed. Zeromus1 (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd regard that section as a secondary lede which should/could be used to summarise the broad positions within the field. The reason, I presume, behind referring to "A number of scientists" in the first section and naming individual researchers in the second is that the first is a mainstream stance and the second is not. I think it provides a good precis of positions prior to the more in-depth treatment which follows and also distinguishes between general positions held by bodies associated with particular disciplines and the position of individual researchers who are not mainstream. To argue for or against the phrase 'a number of scientists' you'd have to construct an argument as to whether or not it's a mainstream position in the sciences generally. Likewise with the naming of Jensen & Rushton. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think either the hereditarian position or the 100% environmental position is mainstream. Victor Chmara made the point below that mainstream sources such as Earl Hunt most often take an agnostic viewpoint that rejects both of the extreme positions. Hunt's book also summarizes the positions of Jensen, Rushton and Nisbett, so this paragraph could be replaced with a summary from him. There seems to be a consensus that Hunt is a reliable mainstream source that this article should use more of, so maybe replacing the primary sources in that paragraph with Hunt's summary would be the best option. What do you think of that suggestion? Zeromus1 (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

break

I'm not sure I understand the objections to Nisbett as a source. The current problem with the article is the undue weight given to Rushton and Jensen, to the great exclusion of more mainstream researchers. aprock (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Aprock, contrary to what you seem to think, "mainstream" does not mean "people who agree with me." Nisbett is a social psychologist who has never done original research on intelligence. He has never published a single article in specialist differential psychology journals. He has published a few polemical accounts of the race and intelligence issue, and is certainly not a mainstream intelligence researcher, or an expert on intelligence at all. In contrast, Jensen is about as mainstream as it gets. For example, his The g Factor is the bible of contemporary psychometric intelligence research, cited more frequently than any other work in the field. Rushton, too, was widely published in specialist journals, and, IIRC, sat on the editorial boards of Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences. Non-mainstream researchers do not have such credentials.

The problem with this article is that some people want to exclude certain arguments and certain lines of evidence even though they are reported in reliable sources. Ideally, this article would give an impartial account of all the relevant evidence and all the various arguments and counter-arguments that researchers with different perspectives have put forth. Inevitably, Jensen and his coauthors are going to feature prominently in a neutrally written article, because race and intelligence as a topic of scientific research exists today largely because of Jensen's work. For example, it's bizarre to suggest that Nisbett's views should have a prominent place in the article but not Jensen's, considering that most of Nisbett's work on this topic is explicitly about countering Jensen's arguments.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Aprock, contrary to what you seem to think, "mainstream" does not mean "people who agree with me." If you're going to preface your remarks with a gross assumption of bad faith, do you really think anyone is going to take you seriously? I suggest you strike that remark. aprock (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

When you're claiming that someone is or isn't mainstream, you're expected to back up the claim with sources. Otherwise it's just your personal opinion. Of course, this is far from the first time you've attempted to have Jensen or others written off in a similarly cavalier way.--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Rushton and Jensen's conclusions are not in the mainstream is not a personal opinion. The status of their research done by Rushton and Jensen has been hashed over multiple times on the talk pages here. The most relevant place to review would be and . To date, there is no direct evidence or even a proposed mechanism which suggest that the achievement gap among races is due to genetics. If you review tertiary sources like Hunt's Human Intelligenc, he is quite clear about the validity of their conclusions:

The 80% default hypothesis is an extreme and excessively precise statement. It is based on the assumption that factors that contribute to the between-group differences are the same factors that contribute to within-group differences. This is doubtful... The evidence required to quantify the relative differences is lacking. The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence..

You'll find similar assessments from any other mainstream tertiary source. See also chapter 15 of The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. aprock (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The status of the hereditarian view has indeed been hashed over many times, and never has anyone been able to demonstrate that it does not deserve a prominent place in this article. The attempt to marginalize the views of people like Jensen contravenes WP:NPOV, because Jensen is very prominently featured in reliable sources. Hunt, for example, while not endorsing Jensen's "default hypothesis", discusses Jensen's views at length, and also rejects Nisbett's views ("Nisbett's extreme statement has virtually no chance of being true"). Hunt explicitly refuses to endorse either of the "extreme" hypotheses about the causes of racial differences, which is what we should do in this article, too. Hunt's concluding chapter in the The Cambridge Handbook also gives a thorough trashing to the sort of obscurantist views presented by Daley (who?) and Onwuegbuzie (who?) in their chapter in the book.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No one has said Rushton and Jensen (and Lynn) do not deserve a prominent place. What has been said, and the reason for the tags, is that the current weight given to their research, and their out of the mainstream conclusions, is undue. Regarding Hunt, I certainly agree that it is a high quality tertiary source reflective of mainstream consensus. And a source which the article should broadly reflect. The extensive hashing over primary sources (as has been occurring above) ahead of tertiary and secondary sources is precisely what need avoid. aprock (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there's agreement on the use of Hunt as a good secondary source and you both have access to this source can we use it to replace some of the primary sources in the article? There is, I think Aprock, a problem with the overuse of Nisbett's 2009 book which also needs to be addressed. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Aprock, you seem to be under the assumption that I want to add more primary sources, or that I want to increase the amount of weight given to Jensen and Rushton, but I haven't proposed either of those. I've proposed to add back one Jensen citation that was removed earlier, and also to remove two others currently in the article, so the overall effect will be to slightly reduce the number of citations to Jensen. I'm also proposing to add back one secondary source (Mackenzie) that was removed without a good reason, and to reduce the amount of weight given to Nisbett. If you think the article gives undue weight to Jensen and Rushton, it certainly gives undue weight to Nisbett also. Addressing the problem of undue weight to Nisbett doesn't have to mean we have to deny there's a problem with undue weight to Jensen. All it means is that we're addressing the Nisbett problem first, because Intelligence and How to Get It currently is the article's most cited source, and it shouldn't be.

Also, I agree with everyone else that Hunt is a good mainstream secondary source. I've already proposed that the Jensen and Nisbett exchange in the Mental Chronometry section be replaced with a summary from Hunt, and I'm open to similar proposals for some of the other sections. Zeromus1 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The only arguments against Nisbett I've really seen on this talk page are based on google scholar, which cannot be used to establish due weight. Given that it's a relatively recent tertiary source by a well respected scientist published for a lay audience, it's hard to see how it is out of place here. That said, it's certainly the case that we should also incorporate other tertiary sources like Hunt and Daley, while reducing reliance on many of the primary sources in the article. aprock (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, Victor has a few points but no-one can really argue that Nisbett is an unreliable source. I'm not so sure that he's so central to the field that he should be the preeminent authority in the article. Also, I think it would be better if the article leant more towards 3rd party secondary sources rather than those most central to the dispute. If nothing else, as with the Hunt example above, there'd be a much better chance of achieving consensus. Plus, you'd have to look at the actual nature of Zeromus's suggestions which are, I think, pretty fair all in all. As regards Google Scholar, well, it's just an indication (and only an indication) of how relevant the scholarly field thinks a given publication is. But you'd have to drill down into the actual citations to establish that. And, of course, you'd have to look at the quality and nature of the publication. Good systematic reviews in secondary sources by otherwise non-interested and authoritative parties in each of the relevant disciplines would be ideal. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nisbett's oversized footprint here is attributable in no small measure to the impact of at least one on/off again topically banned user editing under two disclosed accounts who may have earnestly believed Nisbett provided "balance". That's because, in my estimation, his conception of how this article should be constructed is along the lines of "Jensen/Rushton say" and that he might pretend "NPOV'd" by a kind of "go through the motions" after-shave, or platitude, "What Jensen/Rushton say is not so." And Nisbett had a neat and tidy Rushton/Jensen "rebut" in a teensy appendix in his book that was overly cited to satisfy this fake-do NPOV. And thus Nisbett got cited to death about what he thought about Rushton/Jensen's ideas (which were in his appendix!) Nisbett's not an unreliable source. He may be a ridiculously overused source, but that's only because so are Jensen and Rushton. Jensen and Rushton do not demarcate this topic. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Lack of post-adolescence follow up in Moore, Eyferth, and Tizard studies

Under "Uniform rearing conditions" I added the following line regarding the Moore, Eyferth, and Tizard studies. "However unlike the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, these tests did not retest the children post-adolescence when heritability of IQ would be much higher."

This is an important fact to mention as heritability of IQ is somewhat low pre-adolescence but very high post-adolescence as mentioned earlier in the article under "Heritability within and between groups" which states "It has been argued that intelligence is substantially heritable within populations, with 30–50% of variance in IQ scores in early childhood being attributable to genetic factors in analyzed US populations, increasing to 75–80% by late adolescence."

Aprock reverts my edit saying "not in cited source". Although he doesn't make it clear what exactly he's objecting. But everything in the line I added can be confirmed by sources that are already cited in this article. The argument that heritability of IQ is higher post adolescence is already mentioned earlier in the article as stated above. The fact that the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study retested the children post-adolescence is also mentioned in the article under "Uniform rearing conditions" which states "The children were restudied ten years later." As for the fact that Moore, Eyferth, and Tizard studies never retests the children, this is confirmed by materials already sourced in the article here and here. None of the cited sources to Moore, Eyferth, and Tizard give any indication of a retest. The fact that these studies have no follow up was also previously mentioned in earlier versions of this article as seen here

So it's unclear to me what Aprock's objection could be. Is it that heritability of IQ is higher post-adolescence? Is it that Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study does retest post-adolescence? Or is it that Moore, Eyferth, and Tizard never does retests post-adolescence? BlackHades (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The source does not mention anything about retesting the children in post-adolescence. If I somehow missed the section where that is discussed, I apologize. Otherwise, a pointer to the page and paragraph would be helpful here. If you're arguing that we should include content describing what is not in the source, that probably won't pass muster. aprock (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue of lack of retesting post-adolescence in the Moore, Eyferth, and Tizard studies is mentioned here and here. I can add those citations. It just didn't seem necessary since it was seemed clear these studies did not ever retest. Would you have any objections to simply adding these new citations? BlackHades (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source from the book "The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur Jensen" by Helmuth Nyborg. pg. 402.

"Moore study differs from the Minnesota study in two possibly relevant ways. First, Moore's sample was smaller - there were 9 children whose biological parents were Black who were adopted by White families and there were 14 similarly adopted children who were biologically biracial. Second, the children were administered IQ tests at an earlier age than the follow-up tests administered in the Minnesota study. The data would be more dispositive if the sample were larger and if the children were older." BlackHades (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you are suggesting that we introduce your own original research into the article. If you don't have a source for the content you want to introduce into the article, then it doesn't belong. If you want to include the criticism of Moore, I don't think that's out of line, but applying it to all the studies when there are not sources to support that is original research. aprock (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There would be the similar criticisms for Eyferth and Tizard. Since like Moore, they all have the same issue in regard to the lack of retesting. I'll find them and post them here...Here's one for Eyferth. I'll search for Tizard right now.

"The children tested in this study were young. At these ages analyses of performance on tests of intelligence usually find some evidence of between family environmental influences on performance." ---The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur Jensen by Helmuth Nyborg. pg. 406. BlackHades (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's Tizard.

"Tizard (1974) compared Black (African and West Indian), White, and mixed-parentage children and found no significant differences among the three groups on several language comprehension tests and on the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence(WPPSI); the single significant difference was in favor of the non-White children. Moore (1986) found that at age 7, 23 Black children adopted by middle-class White families had a mean IQ of 117, whereas a similar group of children adopted by middle-class Black families had a mean IQ of 104, both significantly above the national Black mean of 85. To be more informative, future studies need to be supplemented by follow-up testing, as in the Minnesota Study. Behavior genetic studies consistently show that, as people age, their genes exert ever more influence, whereas family socialization effects decrease (see Figure 3)."---Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R (2005). "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability". Psychology, Public Policy and Law 11 (2): pg 259. BlackHades (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Neanderthal DNA a factor?

Given that a couple of years ago, Eurasians were found to have some neanderthal DNA (with Asians having even more than Europeans) but people of African heritage having none, there is a correspondence between IQ results and neanderthal DNA. Is anyone aware of any studies into this? groovygower (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

IQ of Koreans adopted by White families studies

There are several studies listed in the article on the IQ of Blacks adopted by White families, however studies done on Koreans adopted by White families seem strangely omitted.

There are several studies done on the IQ of Korean children by White families in Western countries such as US, Belgium, and Netherlands. (Winick 1975, Clark & Hanisee 1982, Frydman & Lynn 1989, Stams 2000). These studies should be added to the article. But before I add them, would there be any objections to adding these studies? Would there be any reasons why these studies are not in the article currently? BlackHades (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I say go for it. Misplaced Pages is known for it's NPOV, so even if something 'seems' contraversial, if it's backed up with evidence (as studies are ), it's definately worth mentionning. groovygower (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Korean adoptees have been studied in Sweden, too. They score slightly higher than the native population whereas other non-Western adoptees (mainly Indians, Thais, Chileans, Sri Lankans, Colombians, Ethiopians, and Ecuadorians) score substantially lower than the native population. There are comparable differences in school performance. However, we should find and use some secondary source that sums up these various studies.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the time to put this all together. Trying to collect relevant studies, secondary sources, and create tables of the results. Any assistance from others to help put this together will be greatly appreciated. BlackHades (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of Richard Lynn's books may discuss these studies. Lynn is a highly opinionated author, but if you intend to include this material, citing his books would be preferable over citing the primary papers. --Mors Martell (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation of AAA 1994 statement.

The lede reports the AAA 1994 as saying that "intelligence cannot be biologically determined by race". The statement actually says that "The American Anthropological Association (AAA) is deeply concerned by recent public discussions which imply that intelligence is biologically determined by race." The lede does not seem to reflect well the content of the statement. Could this be improved? Might I suggest replacing the sentence with: "The position of the American Anthropological Association is that variation in intelligence cannot be meaningfully explained by dividing a species into biologically-defined races." Thoughts?--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Given...

WHEREAS, differentiating species into biologically defined "races" has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits), 

— American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" and Intelligence, 1994.

"Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior,implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.

— American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race", 1998. (emphasis mine)

..we certainly could expand the sentence with more specifics. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

POV editing

It appears that Black Hades has decided to approach editing the article in a distinctly POV manner, removing sourced material which does not support the hereditarian view (, , ), and adding content which supports the hereditarian view (, , , , ). I suggest that more care be taken in done bringing the article into a neutral state. aprock (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% incorrect. This article is currently terribly out of NPOV due to some editors, that support the environmentalist viewpoint, that have been systematically practicing WP:Truth. Hence a lot of highly relevant studies that meets WP:Verifiability published in major mainstream journals have either been completely omitted or mischaracterized (e.g. Templeton, Flynn) if they even remotely hint at the possibility of genetic contribution. All relevant studies that meets WP:Verifiability should be EQUALLY represented and positions by major scientific figures should be accurately presented in order to meet NPOV. BlackHades (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In regards to you reverting my removal of Wicherts. Wicherts statements are directly a rebuttal to Rushton's position which was previously in this article. Rushton's position was removed at some point but not the rebuttal to it. This is just one of the many examples of editors here practicing WP:Truth. Why do you want to keep a rebuttal to something that no longer exists in the article? Either Rushton's position should be re-entered into the section along with Wicherts's direct rebuttal of Rushton or neither should be there. I'm trying to make this page NPOV which some editors clearly are not. BlackHades (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Rushton's work is cited both in the section text and references. At the same time, Witchert's critique discusses the issue more broadly than simply referring to Rushton's work. I suggest you take better care to read the sources, and present them in a balanced manner instead of just deleting relevant sourced material. Your attempts to make the page "NPOV" are not clearly achieving that goal. In fact, a cursory review of your edits indicates that you may be achieving the opposite. aprock (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Rushton's work is only cited to criticize it. His position and POV is never given. Regarding your statement of Wicherts, I agree there is some more broadly discussed critiques than just Rushton, that in retrospect, does belong there. But the ones specifically tailored to Rushton does not belong there. Not without re-entering Rushton's position and POV. It makes no sense to rebut something that's not even there. BlackHades (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is there so many relevant studies that meet WP:Verifiability that was completely omitted from this article? For example, studies relating to the heritability of brain size, trans-adoption studies of Koreans, the complete lack of criticism or rebuttals of environmentalist studies such as Witty and Jenkins (1936), the complete mischaractization of Templeton's position, inaccurate figures of the Shuey's study, etc. You can't deny that some editors, in support of the environmentalist position, are guilty of systematically practicing WP:Truth that have made this article completely out of NPOV. BlackHades (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think there is a serious problem with the edits of particular contributors, I suggest you take your issues to WP:AE. This article is covered by WP:ARBR&I, and the proper sanctions can be considered there. aprock (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The heavy violators seem to no longer be editing so I don't feel it's necessary to go to WP:AE at this point. However, a lot of their WP:Truth editing still exists in this article and that should be addressed for NPOV. Which is what I'm doing. BlackHades (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In regards to your revert of my changes to the "Genetic Arguments" lede. How is the previous lede more NPOV than the changes I made? The American Anthropological Association never states "reject any genetic contribution". They state they don't agree with the implication "that intelligence is biologically determined by race" which is what I changed it to. And the American Psychological Assocation clearly states that their position is that there is not enough evidence to support either the environmentalist position nor the genetic position. To try to omit one or the other would not be NPOV. And to specifically state Rushton, Jensen, Murray, and Herrnstein is both not NPOV and undue weight. There is certainly more scientists than these four that support the hereditarian position which is why it was changed to "a number of scientists". You haven't given any reasons for this revert. BlackHades (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, you appear to be arguing strictly from the perspective that the article does not give due weight to the hereditarian point of view. On the contrary, as it currently stands, the article gives undue weight to scientifically marginalized research of hereditarians. This is in no small part due to the fact that the only editors which have been making extensive edits over the last four years have been the kind of hold the hereditarian hypothesis as primary. Please reread the APA report. While the specific wording might due with some improvement, the APA does not regard genetic and environmental explanations as equally relevant. aprock (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. At some point in the past, yes there were editors in support of the hereditarian view, that engaged in WP:Truth, that made the article not NPOV. But currently as the article stands right now, the opposite is true. It is editors in support of the environmentalist view, that have engaged in WP:Truth, that has now caused the article to give undue weight to the environmentalist view while completely omitting or mischaracterizing highly relevant studies that meets WP:Verifiability as shown by my many examples above. You can clearly see this the way hereditarian views consistently have rebuttals to them while environmentalist views quite often does not. Even when plenty of sources that meet WP:Verifiability that is heavily critical of those environmentalist positions exists. BlackHades (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

By all means, continue to edit the article to improve it. The most important advice I can give you would be to refrain from introducing content based on primary sources, especially those with no secondary source to give weight to the content. aprock (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The most glaring issues I think are resolved now. There are some sections that still needs some adjustment but overall there seems to be better balance. In regards to the POV tag. That tag was added back in December 2011 when Hipocrite was making major changes to the "Genetic arguments" lede and Victor Chmara was reverting them. The current lede looks much different now than any of the versions back then. It more accurately portrays AAA and APA and there is more balance overall. Unless there's a specific objection you have, I don't see the need for the tag anymore. BlackHades (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at recent edits and try telling me editors that support the environmentalist position isn't practicing WP:Truth by removing relevant sourced content. Including Wicherts which you yourself said was "relevant sourced material". BlackHades (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

69.115.61.253 and KillerChihuahua removing relevant cited material.

69.115.61.253 and KillerChihuahua appear to be making repeated attempts to remove relevant cited material from the article that clearly meets WP:Verifiability with several primary and secondary sources. The material in question being average brain size differences. Average brain size differences have been acknowledged by both hereditarians and environmentalists and discussed in length by both in what relation it may or may not have on IQ gaps. In accordance with WP:point of view neutrality requires that due weight be given. And for editors to not practice WP:Truth by removing relevant sourced material that meets WP:Verifiability. BlackHades (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

69.115.61.253 first attempted to removed said cited material on January 3, 2013 seen here. It was quickly reverted by The Devil's Advocate here He appears to be reattempting to remove the same cited material he has previously attempted last month. BlackHades (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, as you can easily read from our edit summaries, we don't consider your material to be relevant at all. There is no "due weight" to give to something which is only marginally related to the topic of this article. Your POV pushing and edit warring to include this questionable content, whch only serves to underscore unfortunate racist biases, is hardly improving this article - quite the contrary. KillerChihuahua 00:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Examples of reliable sources that meet WP:Verifiability that discuss brain size, intelligence, and race. BlackHades (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2FBF03210739?LI=true
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699090186U
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2742800?uid=3739824&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101770772057
http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1990.66.2.659
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/1993/00000021/00000002/art00001
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/6893659/reload=0;jsessionid=igXnFCM7wCA0OYrkGdSg.4
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925492796030545
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/17/10/921.short
http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1990.66.1.337
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.410100308/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290022J
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1997-43129-007
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/52/1/69/
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wichertsPAIDrejoinder.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/gFactorBookReview98.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699090187V
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290017L
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/law/11/2/311/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886994901325
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886999002561
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289697900040
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002839320400003X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160289695900020
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199107253250403#t=article+Results.
http://analyseeconomique.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/whole-brain-size-and-general-mental-ability-a-review.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028969900015X
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6935981
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.a.20395/full

Whether YOU believe the material is relevant or not is completely irrelevant when countless number of reliable sources absolutely consider it relevant. POV pushing through WP:Truth will NOT be tolerated. BlackHades (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Your desired additions are a violation of WP:SYNTH. You are edit warring to include questionable information. I strongly advise you to gain consensus for these edits before reverting again. KillerChihuahua 04:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to go through and type the issues with each and every one of your references, but for example, the pubmed (second from end) is about the human FACE. I cannot begin to say how inappropriate that source is for this article. KillerChihuahua 04:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks very much for watching this article. BlackHades, I also strongly suggest you not replace any of this material without consensus. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Doug, Steve Rubenstein asked me to watch this article a while back, and I'm sorry to say I haven't put in a lot of effort to it, but I'm trying to bump it up on my priority list. I feel guilty every time I see it on my watchlist. :-( KillerChihuahua 06:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Start-Class Anthropology articles
• Mid-importance Anthropology articles
• Start-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles