Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & MBK004 (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Coren (Talk)

Per [1], Hipocrite has given permission for me to correct spelling in his #Evidence section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2

So far, all the evidence presented has been against Ludwigs2. Although I feel he has done wrong, I don't think he's the only one, but I can't construct evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to add the stuff about the other guys. Ludwig2's behaviour was so blatanly in-your-face that I just had to get it off my chest. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

lol - lots of pots, but just one kettle... --Ludwigs2 03:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Request to MathSci to correct evidence claim

MathSci: You write "David.Kane, self-identified in real life as opposed to black intake in elite colleges". This is not a true statement. Please remove it from the evidence. I do not oppose "black intake in elite colleges". I have some concerns with the current amount of affirmative action practiced by elite colleges and favor more transparency with regard to their actual policies. (What reference this has to the current discussion is beyond me. But I am glad that this arbitration is providing a forum for you to demonstrate your standard approach for dealing with editors with whom you disagree. Keep up the good work!) David.Kane (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What about this [2]? Did you not self-identify as the "David" that made that comment on Oct 4, 2009 during WP:Articles for deletion/EphBlog and is this not in fact an ongoing subject on that website? I can certainly expand the phrasing, if you wish. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

MathSci: You seem confused. If you think I am "opposed to black intake in elite colleges" then you should be able to quote me writing something like "I am opposed to black intake in elite colleges." So, quote me! The link you provide is to a long discussion about the responsibility (if any) of Williams to make clear the graduation rates of various subgroups of students. And, indeed, I think (I am the David there) that elite college should be more transparent about this. Isn't it obvious to you that these are different topics? "More transparent about graduation rates" is not the same thing as "opposed to black intake." David.Kane (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I might have misinterpreted what you meant when you wrote, "Looking at the 6 year data from the Diversity Initiatives, you are three times more likely to fail to graduate from Williams if you are black then if you are white. Does Williams have an obligation to tell this to admitted students?" (Your bolding.) Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You have, indeed, misinterpreted it. No worries, though. I am happy to assume good faith. Simply remove your false claim from the evidence section. In the quote I am (obviously?) reporting the facts of differential graduation rates at Williams. (I believe that the same is true at other elite US colleges.) David.Kane (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this phrasing acceptable: "David.Kane, self-identified in real life as being in favour of making higher failure rates of ethnic minorities at elite colleges known to admitted students, volunteered ...."? Mathsci (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, my first question is what relevance you think that has to the arbitration? To the extent you insist, then I would prefer a more neutral and accurate summary. After all, I do not know the data for all, or even many, elite colleges. Also, some ethnic minorities (like Asian Americans) probably have lower failure rates. Anyway: this would be a fare claim: ""David.Kane believes that elite colleges should be more transparent when it comes to reporting student performance, for example, graduation rates by student sub-group." (I think this policy should apply to other dimensions besides race --- athletes, for example.) You can even cite this comment for your source. I think that links to off-wiki writings are somewhat rude. David.Kane (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I will make the phrasing specific to Williams College. You did not talk about athletes, you talked specifically about black students being three times more likely to fail than white students—in fact you put that expression in bold face. You're free to give your own explanation in your section if you wish. If you find references to off-wiki writing "somewhat rude", why did you create User:David.Kane/EphBlog, an article on that off-wiki site? In that article you named and shamed Robert Shvern, sombody who can't be very old. That article in your user space has been partially blanked because it was a BLP violation. Isn't putting that kind of personal information on on a very public site like wikipedia, which appears almost immediately on a google search, also "somewhat rude" or possibly even worse? Mathsci (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made the change to something that agrees (a) with what you've said here and (b) what you wrote on EphBlog. I hope it's OK. Mathsci (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

MathSci: No, it's not. You are making it very hard to assume good faith here. First, you insist on bringing up off-Wiki statements that have nothing to do with race and intelligence. Second, you mischaracterize my views despite my repeated requests that you stop doing so. Your new version is includes the claim that "in favour of making the higher failure rates there among minority groups, such as African Americans, known to incoming students." This is so misleading as to be false. Why can't you simply describe my opinion accurately? I even provide you with a quote above. Imagine that the topic was capital punishment and I was in favor of it for murderers. You then claim that I am "in favor of capital punishment for minority groups, such as African Americans." Don't you see how misleading that would be? I am, in this hypothetical, in favor of capital punishment for everyone. So, to fail to tell the reader that is the equivalent of lying. And the same is true here. I am in favor of making graduation rates for all groups public. To imply that I am only in favor of doing so for minority groups, as you continue to do, is the best possible evidence of the sort of bullying and intimindation that you regularly engage in on Wikipedia. David.Kane (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's very hard to know what you believe. It's certainly not what you wrote, which is unfortunate for you. For example look at these links [3][4][5]. You seem to be using wikipedia as some kind of extension of your blog to push a rather extreme point of view and asking other like-minded people to help you. When I read those kinds of statements, they seem to have an unambiguous meaning. Similarly your libelous EphBlog article. In that article you were harrassing real life people in a vindictive way: you are now doing the same to me. You haven't answered the question on Robert Shvern. Do you have an explanation for that as well? Mathsci (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

MathSci: I have no interest in "harrassing" people. All I am trying to convince you to do is to describe my views accurately (to the extent that you have some strange compulsion to do so). Is that too much to ask? You should realize that your refusual to do so is not the wisest strategy. With regard to Robert Shvern (to the extent that anyone cares), his exploits were thoroughly reported in the Williams Record. I have not made any claims about him on Wikipedia that were not already reported in this reliable source. David.Kane (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

2nd Request to MathSci to correct evidence claim

Mathsci: Xaveogem did not set a two week deadline - I volunteered a 2-week deadline, primarilly in order to get you to cease hounding him. In fact, I've corrected you on this point once before. do you need me to dig up the diffs, or will you just go ahead and correct it? --Ludwigs2 03:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you must be a little bit confused. You were certainly not the editor who suggested terminating the mediation. Anyway when I prepare the diffs over the next few days, I will correct any inaccuracies that might have accidentally slipped into the initial statement. I hope that you will also take similar care with your evidence. I would also request, in view of the strong language you use when addressing me on wikipedia, that you try to avoid interacting with with me during this ArbCom case. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)The request I made here was serious.

don't take it personally - I use strong language when I talk to most everyone. I'm blunt, and honest, (and prone to deep, bitter sarcasm) which is an occasionally brutal combination. and no, of course I was not the first person to suggest terminating the mediation, but I did (in fact) volunteer the two week time limit, and I'm reasonably sure that I have corrected you on this point once before. I suppose I'll need to dig up the diffs for that, though. --Ludwigs2 04:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Diffs: where I suggested the two week limit and where I corrected you previously.

Ah, one other thing: I'm not pro-Fringe, and there's not a damned shade of evidence you have that would suggest that I am. I know more about science than you do, my friend, and my problems with brangifer stem from his complete lack of competence with scientific issues. The man worships science, I think, in the manner of a Golden Calf, but he has proven himself time and again incapable of following basic scientific reasoning. More to the point, I had been avoiding mentioning him in this ArbCom case because he's not in any way concerned with R&I at all (yes, I am well aware that your full-scale assault on me began a scant 2 or 3 days after I threatened to start an RFC/U on him, even though I hadn't interacted with you for months, but that little machination of yours - if true - is just too incomprehensible to address). I'd ask you to refactor him out of your comments as off-topic. If we have to get into the AltMed/brangifer/pseudoscience/Fringe thing in any detail, then this arbitration will start expanding like mildew in a YMCA. Don't get me wrong, I would enjoy that debate - it would give me the opportunity to bend arbcom's ear about mistakes they made with their last judgement on pseudoscience - but this procedure would become unwieldy. Better to keep this discussion simple and on point. --Ludwigs2 05:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are a well known fringe advocate. If you are alleging you have any real world credentials, you should self-identify. Hipocrite (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that, you've been listening to people who have a habit of talking out of their asses. I have no interest in discussing real-world credentials, and no interest in self identifying. I'm simply telling you that I know science (as a general topic) better than the vast majority of people on the project - something I can prove in conversation at need, to anyone who bothers to listen (which, to date, has not included anyone from your little clique). I wouldn't dream of competing with an expert outside my own field, of course (e.g. my math skills, while decent, would not be up to Mathsci's level), but scientific reasoning is my thing. would you like me to give a short list of the errors in scientific reasoning that brangifer habitually makes, or maybe take a stab at sussing out some of evidentiary and discursive errors that you seem to make?

My problem to date, H, has been that I have made the unfortunate mistake of challenging people who imagine themselves as firm defenders of scientific principles, when they are (in fact) actually advocating for some sadly unscientific positions (possibly for noble reasons, but still...). These people thus decided that I must be the enemy, and because their enemy is fringe advocates, they decided that's what I must be (a misconstructed syllogism which still makes my eyes roll). I don't consider any of them serious threats, although I've gotten tricked into being blocked by some of the slyer ones. more often the hard-line, anti-fringe rhetoric they try to use on me simply misses its mark, and they end up tripping over their own words. I still find it hilarious that Mathsci actually thinks I disagree with him about R&I; I don't know whether that's a simple refusal to give me any credit, or whether he has not completely grasped the distinction between content (where I largely agree with him) and process (where I find his behavior execrable).

but whatever: I think he's too angry at me now to think clearly. c'est la vie.

So look: if you want to treat me like a fringe advocate, go ahead. All that really does is assure that I will never lose an argument to you. The label is irritating, as is the constant squabbling that goes with it, but it is compensated by the advantage of knowing all your salvos are aimed in the wrong direction. You can keep trying to politic for it if it makes you happy: I've had people trying to hang the fringe label on me for years, but it always falls off when push comes to shove. Just don't say I didn't warn you. --Ludwigs2 07:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

'I know more about science than you do' and 'I have no interest in discussing real-world credentials' seems a bit contradictory to me. If you had no interest in discussing your real-world credentials then why did you bring them up as though they should be respected? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't - Hipocrite brought them up. all I said was that I know a hell of a lot more about science than most people (which is true) and I can prove that easily in casual discussion. If I need you to respect my scientific opinion, then I will convince you to respect it by force of reason. The issue only came up because of some brainless accusations that I'm a fringe advocate. I have little use for labels, and less respect for people who use them unwisely. --Ludwigs2 22:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually your claim of greater scientific expertise (than Mathsci) came before Hipocrite's post. The post wherein the claim was made has no attempt to use force of reason to back up the claim that I can see. I do see the opposite, where you are making judgments about another editors scientific ability and attempting to lend weight to those judgments by claiming your own scientific ability as greater. From there it seems perfectly reasonable that your claim could and should be questioned, but you declined as is your right. Of course it also means that no one has any reason to take your claims as anything but chestbeating. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

take it any way you want, IP. if it becomes an issue then we'll see what happens; if it doesn't, then it doesn't really matter what you or I believe. I do not want you to believe that I am "the kind of person who would be right" about scientific issues; all I request is that you analyze any specific scientific issues that arise with appropriate reason and detachment. If you can do that, we're good. If you can't, that is so entirely "not my problem" that I don't even know where to start with it.

Do you have anything else to say on this issue? --Ludwigs2 18:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I put a similar assertion of Ludwigs2 in my evidence. This diff [6]. Ludwigs2 wrote: "I understand the scientific perspective - there are few people on wikipedia who understand science in general better than I do, and you are not one of them". The only person who's made statements like that to me on wikipedia is User:Abd. Wasn't he going to patent jamjar tests for the general public to verify cold fusion in their own kitchens? Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where we expanded the universe of editors to deride? Please strike your comment re: User:Abd. You're not scoring points here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, what Ludwigs2 wrote was a personal attack. And secondly it was similar to the comments that Abd made here on the talk page of cold fusion and elsewhere. The discussion there involved hydrino theory, a fringe theory that is apparently not accepted in mainstream physics. Probably Rushton's adaptation of life history theory is a similar kind of fringe theory. Mathsci (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, peters, that's a standard tactic. Mathsci can't think of anything to criticize me with directly, so he compares me to someone he feels he can criticize, in the hopes that some of the badness will rub off. it's a shitty, stupid thing to do, and every time he does it (which is fairly frequently) my opinion of him sinks a little lower. but, such is life on wikipedia. It's like trying to write an encyclopedia in a frigging daycare. --Ludwigs2 22:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would think of refactoring "It's a shitty, stupid thing to do" and "frigging daycare", because of WP:NPA. You have been blocked for that recently and making that kind of exaggerated and offensive statement on an ArbCom page is not advisable.

I haven't criticized either you or Abd. But both of you have made statements about my own competence in science. Diffs of statements like those are used as evidence in ArbCom cases (for you R&I, for him Abd&WMC). Actually I don't directly edit any parts of articles on dodgy science or science outside my expertise. Why would I? I will summarise reviews of books by Richard Lynn. I will write about the history of a controversial subject involving dodgy science when it's well documented in WP:RS. But when I write about science, it is usually about something within my professional expertise, e.g. FBI transform or Plancherel theorem for spherical functions or Commutation theorem. Mathsci (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

and I didn't criticize you either - not unless you are under the impression that no one could possibly be more knowledgeable about science than you are. You are not one of the people on wikipedia who understands science in general better than I do (that I know from experience). That doesn't mean you're not good at science in your own field, and I would never make such a claim. Nor would I compare you with someone I disliked just to score points. Nor would I habitually try to label you with some dumb pejorative label (I have done that to you on occasion, out of pique, but nothing compared to your constant name-calling towards me and others).

I understand and respect your desire to maintain the image of a high-minded, conscientious wikipedian, Mathsci, but please do yourself a favor and stop trying to claim that image right after you do something lowbrow. I can't resist the irony of it. oh, and thanks for he advice.--Ludwigs2 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I edit or create articles. I'm not here on wikipedia to have WP:FORUM discussions on science. I do discuss secondary sources. On WP:FTN I offered you the possibility of corresponding off-wiki to put an end to this kind of sniping, but apparently you refused my offer (I haven't checked my email). We are judged on wikipedia by the articles we write or contribute to and how much we write. I also don't bear grudges. In the case of CoM and Ottava Rima, I did not participate in the ArbCom cases, except in ORs to try to help him when he delivered an OTT ultimatum on the workshop page. As explained on WP:FTN, Elonka and I have had dinner together (she had the foie gras with figs) and I've bought Charles Matthews a tomato juice. Mathsci (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll jump into this oh-so-productive discussion to point out that mathematics is not science any more than lens-grinding is astronomy. Glad to be of service. Rvcx (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

yeah, it's time to end this thread. I've said all I need to say here anyway. but don't diss Math - the core of science is its style of reasoning, which has a lot in common with mathematical reasoning. Math is science that somehow got detached from reality. --Ludwigs2 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics is generally regarded as a science. That is certainly the way it's classified by the University of Cambridge. In fact in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences (Cambridge) we have several astrophysicists and cosmologists some of whom are quite close colleagues of mine. Outside universities, my employers have been the Royal Society, the Miller Institute and the CNRS. All these are fairly well known scientific institutions. Mathsci (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse funding and organizational structure with ontology. Pure mathematics is funded in the UK by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and you'd hardly claim that mathematics was engineering or physical science. What's more, the very term "mathematical sciences" suggests that sciences can be mathematical, not vice versa; pure maths is usually lumped in with the sciences at the university level for convenience sake. Rvcx (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not how the University of Cambridge sees it, but I'm sure you know better. Mathsci (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge lumps the mathematics faculty in with the school of physical sciences. Mathematics is not a physical science. Thus: some minor mislabeling for convenience sake. The "Centre for Mathematical Sciences" is the name of a collection of office space, not any academic organizational structure. Apparently both Cambridge and I do know better than your stab at ontology. I will now disengage from this thread. Rvcx (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a philosophical discussion for another forum, but I'd draw clear distinctions between mathematics (deriving consequences from a known set of laws), science (deriving laws/models from observable data), and engineering (using partially known laws/models to create systems with a set of desired properties). The actual practice of any discipline usually requires a balance of all three, but it's fascinating how little many academic mathematicians seem to know about scientific notions of evidence, proof, and truth. I'll stand by my initial statement: mathematics is a tool employed by scientists, and the tool can't be mistaken for the job it's being used to perform. (And I say this as a mathematician, at least by formal qualification.) Rvcx (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics is not about deriving consequences from a known set of laws. Quantum field theory and general relativity, the two theories that try to explain the very small and the very large scale structure of the universe, are formulated wihtin and give rise to new forms of mathematics. String theory and conformal field theory are particular parts of these theories that mathematicians study a lot because of completely unforeseen predictions. That cannot be called "deriving consequences from a known set of laws." Structures in mathematics, particularly in number theory, mirror those of quantum field theory. That's part of the geometric Langlands program. By formal qualification do you mean Ph.D. or something higher? Mathsci (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty sketchy understanding of what constitutes pure mathematics (and "new forms of mathematics") for someone who claims to be a mathematician. I'm not going to be the next victim of your outing attempts, but I will admit that I've drawn funding from EPSRC on occasion. Rvcx (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Vertex algebras are new forms of mathematics, are they not? They will be part of the Part III graduate course I give in the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos next year, As for claiming to be a mathematician, I have spoken at an International Congress of Mathematicians and was tenured faculty at DPMMS, before my current permanent research position. Since ArbCom knows my real life identity, I'm not sure that this way of attacking me will be very helpful for you. Mathsci (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

How easily I forget that every conversation with Mathsci is about dick-measuring and personal attacks. Shame on me. Rvcx (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor this personal attack immediately or you are likely to blocked by a clerk. You simply cannot behave like this on an ArbCom page. Please refactor. Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) @Mathsci, you started this latest degeneration by insulting an editor, Abd, having nothing to do with these proceedings (your selling jamjars comment) just to deride your editorial opposition. You respond that you "didn't criticize" Abd? I'm still waiting for you to strike your insult and we can close this sorry thread. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What insults? Abd's business has been mentioned on the evidence page of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley and it talk page (my last ArbCom case)—I believe the experiment involves something like a jam jar—and is described by Abd here on wikiversity.Mathsci (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Was your comment meant as a compliment out of respect? Abd has nothing to do with anything here. Whether there's a real Mason jar out there somewhere or not is immaterial and its existence does not change the nature or intent of your comment. You engage in derisive commentary and then try to pass it off as mere factual observation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I've taught structured programming to undergraduate and graduate students at Cooper Union, one of the premier engineering schools in the U.S. I might have even been doing so while you and other editors at R&I were still being weaned. Big deal, more diversion having nothing to do with the topic at hand. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 wrote on this page, "I know more about science than you" There's also a similar statement in my evidence. I don't why he says this, because science is not very much involved in this case, at least the bits of the article I have edited. History is involved. I haven't said I'm a better mathematician or scientist than other wikipedians. Rvcx did cast doubts on me being a mathematician, so I gave him four or five facts about my career which would confirm that I have had the career of a pure mathematician. And I mentioned that ArbCom knew my real life identity Rvcx has already said on WP:ANI that I'm a poor editor because I don't use the preview button properly. I can't do very much about that. I am in fact 2 years older than Elonka. As you'll see from the modified message above, Abd's business was part of the evidence in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley and was discussed on the talk page. Abd was the previous person to make remarks like Ludwigs2. Rvcx was the next one. Mathsci (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So let's be clear, Mathsci - on the numerous occasions you've referred to me as a Fringe advocate or supporter of pseudoscience (or any of the other variations on that theme you've used), you intended those as compliments to my intellectual abilities? I had no idea you cared so much! --Ludwigs2 02:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

@Mathsci, alas, apparently not being weaned (though I'm still older), all the more reason you should consider dispensing with the puerile denunciations and your seeming fixation on who said what about whom. As I said, Abd and Abd's business have nothing to do with matters here, I really don't get why you keep implying it does, or seem to be indicating you brought it up for any reason other than to be derisive of your editorial opposition. Clearly you're not going to strike your comment and you're old enough to know what good manners are, your choice. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Possible improvement by limiting list of sources used in this article

I have a new idea for how to improve the process of editing this article. But, before suggesting it on the evidence page, I wanted to get a sense as to whether anyone but me thought it a good idea. Should we limit the sources used for this article to a select (less than 20) group of the most highly regarded articles and books? This idea is inspired by MathSci's repeated (and correct!) insistence that using excellent secondary sources is the best way to edit an article like this. I agree. But just because he and I (and others?) agree means nothing since any other editor can use whatever reliable sources she wants to. This leads to endless fighting over issues of source quality and WP:UNDUE. But, if we restricted the article to just 20 or so sources, all those problems go away. And, in fact, I bet that we could agree on such a list. (MathSci and I, at least, agree that sources like Mackintosh, Loehlin and others are excellent.) We could then revisit the list once a year or so. Thoughts? David.Kane (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to post a reply out of sequence, but I request that an Arbitration Committee clerk move this section to the workshop page, as this is not evidence. On my part, I disagree with the substance of the suggestion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On the face this is appealing; at the moment, however, I believe that while the best understanding of the topic requires reputable sources editors agree on (a list worth maintaining), it also requires including the better known "contentious" sources and positioning them appropriately in the larger narrative. "UNDUE" is not the product of the insertion of a source; it is the product of insertion of a source without appropriate contextual narrative. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a "list of approved sources" is already the problem: there seems to be an implicit list of secondary sources which are assumed to be reliable beyond any question, with anything not on that list dismissed as fringe. Sadly, that's not how reliable sources work: every source is written for a particular purpose and from a particular perspective, and each one varies in its reliability from topic to topic. This is in addition to the issue of undue weight raised by Vecrumba—the fact that something is a reliable source is not an excuse to give prominence to some minor detail appearing therein. Rvcx (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a consistent problem (across multiple articles). Primary sources are (of course) not to be preferred, but sometimes they are the best (or even the only) sources to adequately convey a particular aspect of a scholarly debate. The issue needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis; trying to impose a 'blanket' rule about sourcing is counter-productive, and sometimes flies in the face of NPOV. --Ludwigs2 18:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is quite impossible to avoid primary sources, as they (studies and those who conduct them) are the fount from which all interpretations flow. Secondary sources are required to document "feedback" from the scholarly community, if you will. Article narrative includes the original study/inferences/conclusions, reviews from reputable secondary sources, and the inevitable reviews by secondary sources (which may also be primary sources) of each other. Per comments already and below, it would be useful to have a list of sources which editors could generally agree to not dispute, but the issue, of course, is representation of said sources, which a mere list does not address.

   I also have to say I take exception to characterizations which have been put forward that there is a conspiracy on the part of some to create content at R&I which institutionalizes the genetic inferiority of blacks versus whites. Such contentions constitute a gross disservice to the R&I topic, and, indeed, completely misrepresent the topic and purpose of the article: conclusions of genetic inferiority, superiority, or equality are all equally inappropriate.

   P.S. It's not rocket science to figure out that (despite the best efforts of researchers) by its very nature there must be some cultural bias in determining what cognitive skills correlate to what one considers to be "intelligence." (That does not mean the article therefore has "systemic bias.") Genetics, environment, and what studies test—and do not test— and attempt to quantify as (presumably) correlating to the somewhat amorphous "intelligence" are all factors to be considered and discussed as part of R&I. It's our job (that we have volunteered to take on) to do so with objectivity and respect.

   P.P.S. I suppose I should add that if someone believes my assessment is flawed, I'd like to understand how and why. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about it, technically:

1. The study and data are the primary source
2. the interpretation is already a secondary source
3. other secondary sources may choose to interpret the primary source differently

So, we can't simply report A, B, and C scored X, Y, and Z without the scholarly interpretation(s) of said results. Conflicting analyses of the same set of data are common. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment There are many good secondary sources in this case by the world's top psychometricians; they cannot simply be dismissed by editors that don't particularly want to read them. That is merely an excuse for writing bad and biased articles using primary sources that no wikipedian can evaluate. Most of the secondary sources come to the conclusion I outlined. I did not invent that conclusion: I read the sources and then summarised what they said, That is the wiki way.

The book of Mackintosh has a section of 34 pages on ethnic groups and carefully gos through the arguments for the hereditarian case. In the case of adoptive mixed race studies of Eyforth, Tizard and Scarr-Weinberg (151-156), he concludes, "If it would be rash to argue that they refute the genetic hypothesis, it would surely be absurd to argue that, taken as a wholem they support it. If we recall the cautionary note sounded at the outset of this discussion—that is a racist society it will never be possible to bring up lack and white children in truly comparable environments, the results of these studoes are surely consistent with the possiility that if the environmental differences could be miraculously eliminated, the —two groups might well have approximately equivalent IQ scores." He then examines environmental causes of black-white differences. Observing that US test score for blacks in 1995 are comparble to those of whites in 1945, he writes, "Although we have no serious idea about which factors are responsible for these changes over time, there can be no doubt that they are environmental. By the same token, then, even if we cannot identify the environmental factors for differences in IQ between blacks and whites, there is no reason for asserting that the differences must be partly genetic." He then consider other ethnic groups and test bias. He discusses Jensen notions of Level I and Level II abilities, but points out that Jensen never claimed it to e a fully-fledged theory, just a simple empirical generalization from a simple set of obervations. He then writes that, "Although Jensen and others have sometimes argued that the validity of Spearman's hypothesis proves that black-white differences must be genetic in origin (an argument no doubt responsible for its rejection), this conclusion does not even remotely follow. Just because a test is a better measure of g, it does not follow that it is more heavily influenced by genetic factors. Many psychometricians, Jensen among them, have argued that Raven' Matrics provide one of the best measures of g. But scores on Raven's Matrices have probaly been increasing faster over the last 50 years than scores on any other IQ test, and we know that these gains are environmental in origin." In his conclusion Mackintosh notes that, "it is not a simple matter to decide whether an IQ test is biased. It requires the evaluation of alternative explanations and the balancing of probabilities, rather than confident, glib pronouncements." Of other cultures, such as Africa, he comments that, "Administering such tests to people of other cultures may well tell us whether they do or do not share the same values. But it will not necessarily tell us much about their 'intelligence'."

John C. Loehlin in "Group Differences in Intelligence" on pages 176-193 of Handbook of Intelligence (not used in the article, accept en passant) writes the following in conclusion (page 189). Like Mackintosh, he says that no inference about the genetic hypothesis can be drawn from the adoption studies because of "confounding of variables". He continues, "So we are left with the usual conclusion: More research is needed." He then suggest various directions.

James R. Flynn's latest writings on Race and IQ can be found in Where Have All the Liberals Gone? Race, Class and Ideals in America (Cambridge University Press 2008). I've briefly looked at this on the web and probably will pick up a copy tomorrow (I get a 20% reduction in Cambridge at the C.U.P. shop).

I think that primary sources should not be used in the article, except possibly in a final short and tentative "future directions" section and there only with great caution if at all. I looked at this interminable discussion on WP:RSN about using the results of a non-scientific blog to speculate about genes that contribute to intelligence [7]. The article certainly cannot go that way; speculative, unevaluated research has no place in an encyclopedia like wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm dismayed by the direction of this discussion. Primary sources are discouraged because the relative importance, the veracity of the source, and the quality of the research is not something that can be determined from the source itself. Secondary sources, sources that are attributed to well qualified experts in the field, are where we should be always be looking for our material because wikipedia editors are not here to interpret or judge the works of others. If it is 'impossible to avoid primary sources' for any given topic, then perhaps we should not be covering that topic at all.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No way on the "restrict to 20 approved sources" idea. Folks, this is wikipedia. If editors can't edit these articles with the same policies and tools that apply to all the other articles throughout the wiki, without imposing "special criteria" on sources, claims, etc., they shouldn't be editing it at all. And the use of primary sources is narrowly limited at wikipedia. Since most of the few instances where I've seen them used in this dispute were clear misuses, offered as "backup" for or against some disputed interpretation of the study published in secondary sources, we should be extra wary of using them in these disputed articles. Representative experts and other published authorities interpret primary sources, and we say what they say. Unfortunately, some editors who have this mistaken notion that achieving WP:NPOV means wikipedia should "set the record straight" where experts irl have "got it all wrong" resort to primary sources in order to add weight to their own conclusions and claims and circumvent those of secondary sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both RegentsPark and Professor marginalia. The number of sources cannot be limited a priori. It is necessary to identify experts in the area and to bear in mind that new reliable secondary sources can be published while the article is being written. History of the race and intelligence controversy has over 80 sources and more are added as the article evolves. Similarly the book of Richard Nisbett appeared in 2010. The book of James R. Flynn Where have all the liberals gone? (C.U.P. 2008) already referred to a draft version of the book. In his book Flynn devotes Chapter 3 (pages 68-111) to the black-white IQ gap and the race and IQ debate. Here is what he writes in conclusion:

Excerpt from pages 110-111 of Flynn's book Where have all the liberals gone?

What do we know? First, we know that the black-white IQ gap disappeared in Germany. But the numbers are scant, there are unknowns that could have biased the results, and one study should not convince anyone. Second, that the g pattern disappeared in Germany. This shows that the German environment at least addressed the root causes of the IQ gap insofar as it is environmental, something America does not seem to have done to date. The contrast focuses attention on the peculiar black subculture that exists in America. Third, what causes the g pattern is a special inability to deal with cognitive problems the more complex they become. Therefore, we could do well to look at anything in the American black subculture that signals a less cognitively complex environment. Fourth, about a third of the traditional black-white IQ gap has disappeared. This is encouraging, be we do not know whether it is due to hearing aids [a previous analogy of Flynn] or addressing root causes. Fifth, there is reason to believe that the black loss of ground on whites with age is environmental. I believe this is plausible because of the steady trend to lose 0.6 IQ points per year after infancy. But more to the point, at each age, there seem to be environmental factors that would engender a less complex cognitive environment. Sixth, if that is so, and if hints that black and white are equal in terms of their genotype for IQ at conception are not deceptive, then the entire black-white IQ gap is environmental. The number of "ifs" tells the reader why I believe all conclusions are tentative. And why I said at the start that anyone who claims to know that black and white are genetically equal for IQ is too bold. The race and IQ debate has raged for almost 40 years. I have been entangled in it for thirty years. It has been a constant and unwelcome companion, rather like living with an uncongenial spouse from an arranged marriage, It has occupied the time of legions of scholars and laid waste acres of trees. Will we ever see the end of it? At least the debate is entering a new and more sophisticated stage. Given the relatively high values for black IQ in infancy and age 4, the focus should now be on whatever causes the decline of black IQ (compared to white) with age. If that can be settled, the main event will be over. The significance of the debate should not be exaggerated. Everything I say in this book about what afflicts American blacks, the injustice they suffer because of their group membership, and what could be done to give them access to a good life is untouched by the outcome. If there is a genetic component in the racial IQ gap, blacks will have less favorable statistics compared to whites for academic achievement, occupation, income, and mortality. However, the intense feelings that surround this question are largely a product of human misery. If America afforded access to a good life to all of its citizens, blacks would have as much interest in why there are fewer black than Irish doctors as Irish have about why there are fewer Irish than Chinese accountants.

Mathsci (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) @RegentsPark, I think you misinterpret the intent behind my comments on primary sources. By that, I mean, being able to summarize a study including the author's interpretation, not for WP editors to interpret it in any way; the purpose is to provide that as an anchor for what secondary sources say about the study. Where discussion of quantitative results is concerned, you can't talk about interpretations of results without indicating what results are being discussed in the first place. In particular, I would emphasize that it is not the role of editors to use their personal judgement of what is "discredited" (a Wiki code word used to suppress "I don't like it" sources) and what is not. I trust this clarifies, I do believe we are on the "same page." (Also with reference to @Professor marginalia's comments.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been re-reading the article, and I do think the current article organization ("he said, she said" format which structurally gives the advantage to "the last word," also tending to polarize the presentation as if there is no middle ground) does not benefit presentation of the subject matter. The placement of lower scoring groups first in all discussions also repeatedly focuses the article on emphasizing what is perceived as a negative—after all, there have been no complaints that I've seen regarding hereditarians promoting the "Asian superiority hypotheses." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment on RFC by not-very-involved editor

I think it would really help to draw up a list of relevant secondary sources the article could draw on. (I always think it's a good idea to do that.) You could even go on from there to prioritise them using some more-or-less objective criteria, namely how recent, status of the academic publisher, how close to topic, comprehensive book-length treatment, how well reviewed. The last criterion I mentioned there could of course give rise to much argument because the book that one side loves is exactly the book that the other side hates. But the process should help the article move on. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already begun compiling such a list of sources. It can be found as a subpage to my user page, titled Intelligence Citations, and any Wikipedian is welcome to suggest additions to it. I haven't finished typing in all the sources I know partly because I have had very successful library visits on which I have gathered dozens of additional sources, and I have been busy in my off-Wiki life. But I still intend to keep adding sources to that citations list so that all Wikipedians who edit articles on intelligence can check the sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I can think of several additions that I’d like to suggest. Where would you recommend suggesting them? On this page, in your user talk, or somewhere else entirely? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The subpage on my user page includes a section I already put in to collect suggestions from other editors. I'll be on wikibreak while traveling to meet some of the people I share my professional research results with, but you or anyone reading this is welcome to post source suggestions on my user subpage meanwhile. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Update on minimal source list and further comment request

Many thanks for the comments above. Before I formally propose this, I would like more feedback. (Feel free to add your comments underneath each individual point below. That will help keep the discussion organized. Once I get some feedback, I will make a formal proposal at the Workshop page.)

• Here is a proposed list of 10 sources. I think that an excellent article could be written using just these. (Would anyone dispute that claim? What facts would you want in the article that are not covered in one of these sources?)
• Assume for a moment that the arbiters actually go with this idea. Are there any sources that should be removed from this list? (I think we could safely lose Deary.) Are there any that you would want added?
• The idea is not to fix this list forever. Each year or so we would have a big discussion about what new sources to add.
• Using this method would obviate 95% of the debate and edit-wars that currently plague the article. Would anyone dispute that claim? Again, it could still be a bad idea to have a special policy for this page, I just want to establish what would happen if we had such a policy.
• I agree with many of the comments above along the lines of "This is not the way Wikipedia does (or should) work." True! But whatever one might say about Wikipedia in general, its standard practices have failed on this article for years. Isn't it time to try something else?
• Thanks to MathSci for bringing many of these works to my attention and for convincing me about the importance of secondary sources. I also agree with several comments above that, on occasion, primary sources are needed. So, some are included on my list.

Thanks in advance for your comments. Note that the voices in favor and against this proposal seem to cut across some of our usual cleavages in interesting ways. David.Kane (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the list, I can't say I find this necessarily productive. If the list has primary sources, and additional secondary sources commenting on those primary sources are found, they should probably be allowed. However, I probably won't object unless I were to investigate and find either:

1. An WP:UNDUE weight violation, and additional sources are required for balance, or
2. A primary source is on the list, and secondary sources are found that significantly change the reasonable interpretation of that source.

I do not think that any 10 or 20 sources would be adequate to cover all notable points of view on this issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. I can't think of a single notable point of view that is not covered in at least one of these sources. Can you provide an example? David.Kane (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

General comment on minimal source lists: In my opinion, a minimal source list will work only if that list is restricted to review articles that are published in A level peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Primary sources, as well as sources that have not been peer-reviewed (this includes books) should not be included. If the list is not restricted to A level journal review articles, questions of POV and fringe will continue to haunt these wikipedia articles. --RegentsPark (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. Again, I continue to find it interesting that the debate on minimal sources cuts across some of the usual groupings. For example, both MathSci and I think that Mackintosh is excellent, regardless of whether or not it ever underwent a thorough peer-review process. RegentsPark, reasonably enough, disagrees. My point is not to argue for my particular list but to claim that this change has a better chance of "breaking the back of the dispute" than anything else that folks have suggested. David.Kane (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether you can't think of a single notable point of view that is not covered in at least one of these sources, limiting the sources to any preset number of sources is a recipe for POV unbalance and potential NPOV disaster. I see no good coming out of such an initiative.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ramdrake: Could you be more specific? I can think of reasons why my plan is bad, mainly because it goes against standard Wikipedia policy. But I, honestly, can't think of a scenario in which having a limitted set of sources (assuming that you, me, MathSci, Occam, et cetera can agree on this list, which I bet we can) is any more likely to lead to "POV unbalance and potential NPOV disaster." In other words, haven't you argued in the past that the article already has POV/NPOV problems? If so, then what mechanism involved in a limitted source list would make this problem worse than it is now? It is perfectly reasonable for you to argue that this plan would not make the article better on this score, but how could it make it worse? Again, one main concrete benefit is that we can stop the huge amount of edit warrning surrounding the addition and deletion of random fact X from not so important study Y. David.Kane (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It would basically delay integration of potentially valid but recent secondary sources until we come up to our "yearly" (or whatever) review of sources. Therefore it could increase NPOV imbalance (probably should have used a conditional there the first time around) by introducing a delay in integrating new sources. In addition, I don't see that there is anything to be gained by excluding a priori valid secondary sources just because we've "reached our quota of sources". 'Tis all.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would delay things in theory. But, how about a specific example? What specific source from 2010 or 2009 or 2008 or whenever does this article have to have in order to avoid POV problems? I can't think of one. David.Kane (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(I can't find the name of the logical fallacy.) If the sources are selected to support what the major editors agree what should be in the article, of course there wouldn't be specifics as to added sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Policy#The privileged nature of mediation

The above-mentioned section suggests that none of the disruptive activity during the mediation, by parties to the mediation, should be considered, unless intentionally disruptive. If accepted by the ArbCom, it makes most of the evidence presented inadmissible. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The mediator is not protected by that. The goal is to protect the parties, not the mediator. Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that interpretation. It does seem to mean that we cannot use evidence from the time the mediation was open against those parties, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it protects their actions outside of the mediation though, does it? Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there has ever been a serious test of the concept of the privilege of mediation; insofar as how exactly it applies and what scope it has. It's fairly clear, on its face, that things that come out in the course of good faith arbitration should not be held against the participants (given that the intent of the privilege is to allow that mediation to take place). It also seems clear to me that being engaged in mediation should not become a carte blanche to misbehave either.

At a first guess, I would estimate that only behavior by parties, in the course of mediation, and done in good faith by the parties, is privileged. This obviously excludes behavior unrelated to the dispute being mediated, editors not parties to the mediation, and behavior disrupting the mediation itself. — Coren ^(talk) 00:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

well said. --Ludwigs2 06:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Case timeline

I intend to post a proposed decision sometime early next week to give enough time for discussion before committee activity falls off due to Wikimania and summer vacations. If there are key points of evidence or workshop proposals you feel must be expressed, they should be posted by next Monday (June 21st) if you want to make sure that it has been examined in detail. While we keep an eye on the workshop and evidence pages during discussion and voting on the proposed decision, the focus unavoidably shifts away from them and they tend to receive less attention. — Coren ^(talk) 01:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Previous MathSci involvement with ArbCom

I was unaware that MathSci was involved in a previous Arb Com case. Note one of the remedies: "Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to edit war — especially not on arbitration pages — and to avoid personal attacks at all times." Avoiding personal attacks has not been, uhhh, MathSci's highest priority in his interactions at Race and Intelligence and related articles . . . David.Kane (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane misunderstands that case which was involved with me removing my name twice as a party during the RfAr: that was deemed to be edit warring. The other point concerned comments on Wikipedia Review. It might perhaps be advisable for David.Kane to read that ArbCom case more carefully before making innuendos. The case has been courtesy blanked, but each page can be read by clicking on the link provided. ArbCom members and participants in that case (such as Shell Kinney) are well aware of what happened then. Indeed ArbCom did not consider the interchanges on Wikipedia Review to be admissible for comment. Coren's redrafting of Stephen Bain's original proposal did not make that clear. Likewise one of the current arbitrators, prior to being elected to ArbCom, made comments to me on Wikipedia Review that would probably be deemed uncivil if made on wikipedia, but are completely the norm on WR. David.Kane should perhaps worry more about his own wikipedia editing record: the userfied article User:David.Kane/EphBlog contained major BLP violations against living people until largely blanked by Professor marginalia. Mathsci (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Who has the burden of proof?

User:Rvcx accuses me of personal attacks - I have no idea who this editor is and don't recall any interaction with her, so I do not know how she could file a complaint against me at ArbCom.

Captain Occam accuses me of personal attacks and an absence of good faith. He provides as an example the time I accused him of being a charlatan during the discussion of regression to the mean, when he and mikemikev were making claims about regression to the mean that are just false. If this were the Arithmetic article and someone argued that sometimes in base ten number systems 2+2 equals 22, I posit that anyone who cares about writing a good encyclopedia would accuse that person of being a charlatan and declare that they cannot assume good faith from someone who makes such arguments. I continue to believe this. I believe i have an obligation to Wikipedia to point out that Captain Occam and Mikemikev's insistence on lying about the regression to the mean means that one now has adequate evidence to conclude (not assume, but conclude based on evidence) that they are acting in bad faith.

We all know that the claim that average differences in IQ are genetic in origin is fringe science. Biologists and biological anthropologists who are experts in genetics understand this; cultural anthropologists and sociologists who are experts in race know this. Alas, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and very few geneticists or sociologists are active editors. So the burden is on a few people who consistently make reasonable arguments and provide reliable secondary sources (like Aprock or MathSci, who have demonstrated their commitment to the encyclopedia by adding valuable content to many other articles) to protect the scientific integrity of Wikipedia.

I have merely pointed out that to claim that people of a certain race are on average innately less intelligent (meaning, g, general intelligence) is to make a racist claim. This to me is obvious on its face and needs no further evidence or justification. Well, the internet is free. People can write what they want to. I am just calling it as I see it. But let's be clear: this is not a personal attack. It is the claim that blacks are inherently (or genetically) inferior, at least in general intelligence, that is an attack on all black people. It is an attack that is made without evidence, but that does not stop people from making the attack. Oh well.

In the meantime someone has accessed my e-mail account through Wikipedia to send me this e-mail:

From: John Doe Sr. <johndoe464@gmail.com>

Slrubenstein,

Where is your evidence? If you're going to actively resist the possibility of a partly genetic explanation to the black/white IQ gap, call those who accept that possibility racists, and carry on with that behavior for years on end, then maybe you should be putting forth more effort here. May I suggest that you are a die hard adherent of Bosnian anthropology, which is evidently held in high regard at Columbia University, his former employer.

This is typically warped. No one has yet to provide any evidence at all that the cause of average IQ differences between races is genetic. What is to resist? Do I also "resist" traveling faster than the speed of light, or being able to identify the speed and direction of a subatomic particle at the same time? Uh, okay, I guess so. You call it "resisting," I call it "waiting for evidence. Yawn." As to adhering to Boasian anthropology advocated by Columbia University, well, I have to say this is another one of those "accusations" I wish I received more of. Boas was a world-class scientist and no one yet has been able to discredit his work (except through the syllogism that he was Jewish and therefore his research was Jew science and therefore it is wrong). Columbia University is one of the leading universities in the world. Please, keep the insults coming! Can I be one of those Quinean philosophers those morons at Harvard seem so stuck on? Can I be one of those MH Abrams literary critics those idiots at Cornell take so seriously? Whatever. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

@Slrubenstein: Regarding "I have merely pointed out that to claim that people of a certain race are on average innately less intelligent (meaning, g, general intelligence) is to make a racist claim. This to me is obvious on its face and needs no further evidence or justification." This is part of what makes the article contentious, that there are editors who are racists, were racists (per Mathsci) or make racist ("by definition") statements. The article is about measures and quantifications. There is plenty of debate over "g" and what it really means, including that it's not particularly discerning. I don't see any impediment to discussing an inclusive set of studies and scholarship about those studies and avoiding "claims" regarding "intelligence." If you state there is (absolutely) no link between genetics and (group) intelligence, and stating there is a(ny) link between genetics and (group) intelligence (in any manner) is racist, then in essence you are stating any editors who advocate for any genetic link, no matter to what degree (i.e., any "hereditarian"), is racist. That can be taken as a personal attack on anyone who is not a 100% environmentalist, slice and dice it however you like.
   "Inferior/superior" does not belong in the article or in any discussion except for discussing the historical origins of testing which was initiated in support of the meme that blacks are inferior. If we stick to measures and quantifications, we can discuss those rationally; the article is categorically not a soapbox for racist versus non-racist. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

By Slrubenstein's logic, anyone who suggests that Japanese are genetically shorter than Scandinavians is also a racist. If we are to assume good faith, we must assume that Slrubenstein simply doesn't know what the epithet "racist" actually means, so let's clarify: racism means putting race before individual differences. It means using racial differences as an excuse for discrimination—asserting that different races have different rights. Even if it were conclusively proven that the overlap between the intelligence distributions for two races was tiny—if only one in a hundred Europeans were more intelligent than one in a hundred Chinese—that statistical assertion would not constitute racism as the term is used in modern society. If editors ever begin advocating (as opposed to documenting) decision-making on the basis of race, which has never happened in the history of these articles, then there would still be no need to accuse them of racism because the real problem would be using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy instead of as an encyclopedia. Frankly, what is being advocated (whether palatable or otherwise) would be completely beside the point.

I want to make this very clear, from one editor to another: calling someone a racist is a vile personal attack with no relevance to our mission here, and such behavior merits an immediate ban. Rvcx (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Your statement is irrelevant because Slrubenstein wrote No one has yet to provide any evidence at all that the cause of average IQ differences between races is genetic. Also, we are not talking about a hypothetical "tiny" difference: editors are skewing articles to assert that a large difference in IQ scores is due to genetics. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I was very specific about this: even a huge statistical difference in IQ between races would not be racism. It would be a statistical assertion, which could be true or false, but it would not be racism. And frankly, genetics is a red herring in this racism issue. If statistics show a 15-point gap in mean IQ between two races, and this gap does not appear to be closing (these are both conclusions a wide cross-section of experts have endorsed; both the MSI statement and the APA panel) how is saying it's genetic any different than saying it's because of culture or Vitamin D deficiency or baggy clothes? Why would one be racism and the other not? This whole argument reveals two things:

* Editors are refusing to accept the difference between facts and values. Whether or not there are differences between races is a fact, subject to scientific inquiry. There are no value judgements inherent in objective studies of reality. Arguing that a fact can't possibly be true because if it were the consequences would be dire is utterly irrational. (On this particular issue, such consequentialist reasoning also reflects an incredibly fragile framework for egalitarian ethics, but I digress.)

* Editors continue to anoint themselves experts capable of deciding what facts are true and false, and that's not an editor's job. There are reliable sources documenting notable researchers who refuse to rule out genetic causes for racial IQ disparities. Whether or not an editor has ruled out these causes or not is completely beside the point, and I'm shocked that editors would so freely admit to using Wikipedia as a way of advocating their own personal beliefs.

Can we please get back to the task of editing an encyclopedia instead of arguing our concerns about race? Rvcx (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

<sigh...> no one debates that there are differences in test scores between (purported) races. Everyone debates the causes of these differences. Science doesn't really care about the moral implications of the results it produces; it just produces results, and leaves the rest of us to argue over what they mean

I personally share Slrubenstein's belief that there are no meaningful genetic differences between races (with respect to intelligence, or with respect to anything, really). I recognize that scientific study has produced a racial-difference result that needs to be explained, and I recognize that scientific theory has not yet adequately explained the result. I have no interest in prejudging science as to what that explanation should be, and nether should any of you. And that's all that really needs to be said on the matter. If you cannot restrain yourself from advocating for your beliefs on this matter, than you should find another hobby than editing wikipedia. --Ludwigs2 06:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is ths Rvcx who has never contributed to the article? Just another googler who thinks this is a discussion forum? First of all, comparing intelligence to height is a stupid comparison, because no one important believes that being short means that one cannot make important contributions to society or makes one unfit to vote; intelligence is a singular trait in that it is connected to a peson's ability to succeed at a wide range of important activities. Second, it is the racist who is ttacking other people. To call someone a racist is to point this out, it is not in an attack. If I accuse someone of violating our NPA policy, have I just attackd them? That is absurd. Third, the reason this is an issue is not because of what I think of any editors (I called Captain Occam and Mikemikev charlatans, not racists, and the reason had to do with their repeated misrepresentation of statistics, no value judgements at all). Jensen may be a racist because he suggests that his research would justify eugenics programs. Racism becomes an issue when a host of people, including people with PhDs, ignore evidence, misrepresent the absense of evidence, and persist in advocating fringe science despite decades of debate and discussion voiding their claims of any scintific merit. let's be clear here: the claim that racial differences in intelligence are innate is wrong because here is no evidence to support it. It is racist because people believe it despite the fact that the vadt majority of scientists do not, and use it to promote discriminatory social policy. That is an attack, and Wikipedia should not be used to support this attack against others. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Your first two sentences are ad hominem personal attacks; please refactor them. 2) Your view that intelligence equates to value as a human being while height does not is a personal view and has no relevance here. 3) The epithet "racist" is commonly interpreted to address beliefs, not behavior, and it is thus an inappropriate attack. 4) I hope that you will make an effort to edit neutrally in spite of your confessed biases on this topic. Rvcx (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Rvcx, you have made assertions about "race and intelligence" which cannot be backed up by any reliable secondary source. Why should anybody at all on wikipedia be in the slightest bit interested in your personal opinions or theories if they are at odds with reliable secondary sources? Wikipedia is not some kind of WP:FORUM and I think that you have a basic misunderstanding of how articles are written or sourced. Mathsci (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, I find your lack of diffs disturbing. Editor after editor has provided reliable sources which assert that there is no compelling evidence for either the strong environmental or strong hereditarian hypothesis (and in fact that many aspects of the environmental hypothesis have been refuted). Reliable sources are hardly obscure. One signed by 52 prominent researchers was published in the Wall Street Journal; the American Psychological Association convened a panel to address the issue (which was clear that genetic causes could not be refuted), and their leading journal published eleven different responses laying out data suggesting causation. None of these are primary sources; they are commentary by notable scholars on studies that have been performed by others. Often many studies. The repeated refusal of some editors on the R&I articles to acknowledge the scientific legitimacy (which is distinct from "truth") of any of this work stretches assumptions of good faith and neutrality to their limits. Rvcx (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to my evidence, please remember to click on the blue links to subpages which give large numbers of diffs. At the moment I am preparing a subpage on Mikemikev's WP editing patterns—not so hard since his total number of edits on WP is less than 500—together with a chronology with diffs of mediation. The articles you mention are all primary sources. You do not seem to understand the difference between primary and reliable secondary sources: that's not so surprising since so far, as detailed in my evidence, you've had very little experience in editing serious wikipedia articles. Above you gave your personal interpretation/evaluation of a full page statement in the WSJ and the status of its authors: you call them "prominent" but none of them for example is a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences, the highest and most prestigious institution in the US. Christopher Jencks and Richard Nisbett are members. Similarly none of the UK signatories are Fellows of the Royal Society. Nicholas Mackintosh is an FRS. On the other hand many signatories are grantees of the Pioneer Fund. But what use is your personal opinion in this case? The APA report is a primary source: it is is mentioned and discussed in numerous reliable secondary sources. Your comments on wikipedia connected with the subject of race and intelligence display no intellectual grasp of what is in the reliable secondary sources (some are reproduced or summarised above, like the long excerpt by Jim Flynn, but even those you don't appear to have read). Meanwhile, please click on the blue links to see all those diffs. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, please refactor all allegations against me of lying and manipulating statistics. mikemikev (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)