Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence (book)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Race Differences in Intelligence (book), 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: Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 June 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Nom Withdrawn.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Having the graph from the book

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Of pure interest, what is the rationel for not including the graph from the book? It is what the book wanted to "prove", and it found the typical correlation of 0.4 decimal with brain size and IQ that others found - helmuth nyborg, phillip rushtoh, earl hunt etc.....MicroMacroMania (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your phrase, "It is what the book wanted to 'prove'", basically sums up why not to put the graph into Wikipedia article text. The reviews of the book, uniformly negative on the part of all the independent reviews, point out that the book aimed to prove something before the authors gathered their data, and the data were very poor. It's not a reliable source. If we had independent, reliable, secondary sources that had all published the same graph to assert the same factual statements about the world, we would have something to put in Wikipedia article text, but here we do not. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Repeated ideologic vandalism

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Many leftists try again and again to delete the main informations of this book on the article page. They delete the picture of the book, they delete the table, they want to minimizer this article and to maximizer the negative critics. Race differences in intelligence receive a fully positive reception from specialists of intelligence, from all the great names in intelligence (Gottfredson University of Delaware, Rushton University of Western Ontario, Nyborg University of Aartus, Serge Larivée University of Montreal, Thomas J. Bouchard Jr. University of Minnesota, John B. Carroll University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Raymond B. Cattell, University of Hawaii, David B. Cohen, University of Texas at Austin...). Could a moderator do something against this ? Like exclude them ?

~~80.236.246.37 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)~~Reply

We are an encyclopedia, we do not give unadorned center stage to terrible "data" that has no actual academic or scholarly value. WP:UNDUE / WP:FRINGE. see the above section and the numerous others in talk archives -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted the article back to what we agreed to based on the long discussion, that is here on the discussion page.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not a conventional wikipedia page

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Reviews of the book fault the selection of data used, the methodology, and the conclusions drawn from the data, resulting in criticism that it is "the sort of book that gives IQ testing a bad name."

Ok, but it shouldn't be in the intro, as it's not the case for other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The WP:LEAD summarizes the article's body (and may include a summary of the criticism in it). —Paleo Neonate – 09:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

DELETE 2nd Paragraph as it Quotes a surreptitious charged SMEAR with NO Quote Links and is NOT indicative of the general academic literature consensus

DELETE Reviews of the book fault the selection of data used, the methodology, and the conclusions drawn from the data, resulting in criticism that it is "the sort of book that gives IQ testing a bad name."

<=== NO QUOTE SUBSTANTIATION ie CONTRIVED or FRAUDULENT ATTRIBUTION indeed the main other academics in this area including the preeminent Professor Murray of the Bell Curve Fame have roundly praised Lynns methodology which said praise is precisely quoted in the articles contents Vademecum15 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The 2nd paragraph is a summary of the contents of the article, the quote is referenced in the section "Reception".--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic