This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of the race and intelligence controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
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 History of the race and intelligence controversy, 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:
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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How about we add this one to the intro:
Nonetheless, in recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. [1] It is now clear that at least some of the genetic variants that contribute to higher intelligence are not evenly distributed across races. [2] [3] [4] This does not necessarily imply that race differences in IQ are genetic. [5]
Piffer replicated his replicated his results using more SNPs and published them on psych. We can add the caveat at the end if it makes you guys feel better.
93.149.193.190 ( talk) 17:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any objections against Psych as a journal?
Let me remind you that: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
And: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
Even if you ALL agreed this info should be censored, it should still be on Wikipedia.
93.149.193.190 ( talk) 17:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How about we add it like this:
Nonetheless, in recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. [1] [2] It is now possible to check whether these genetic variants are evenly distributed across races in publicly available databases. [3] [4] 5.171.96.57 ( talk) 19:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
References
What findings? the genome wide significant associations with EA or the fact that you can check their incidence by race in a publicly available database? 5.171.96.116 ( talk) 01:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok, how about for now we add the first sentence like this:
In recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. Collectively, these SNPs account for about 10% of the variance in educational attainment in European populations. [1] [2]
And then we add:
Whether these SNPs are evenly distributed across races and the significance of said findings remains controversial. [3] [4] [5]
References
How about adding it like this?
In recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. Collectively, these SNPs account for about 10% of the variance in educational attainment in European populations. [1] [2] The distribution of these genetic variants across races is consistent with the environmental explanation for observed racial differences in IQ scores. [3] [4] 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 17:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
References
Whats wrong with that paragraph guys. I would have thought you would love it. 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 18:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
It is neither and you know it. Both articles are published in reputable scientific journals. The paragraph says exactly what the articles say. The only reason you do not want the content to be included is because, even though the article says they do not, the polygenic scores in fact DO support a genetic component to the gap. And you hate the idea that people might actually check and realise what these polygenic scores mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.71.31 ( talk) 21:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
IP-hopping troll. See this. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How about we include a section on the free speech and academic discourse surrounding this issue. The firing of Noah Carl and Stephen Hsu, the stripping of honours of James Watson, the attempts to fire Amy Wax and JP Rushton, the physical violence against Charles Murray in Middlebury College, and the fact that Sam Harris said to Ezra Klein that he has scientists whose names would be well known to him, who have stellar reputations, who agree with him, and who are terrified of speaking out. Let me know and I will write the paragraph and get the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:484:877C:94F0:50F5:133D:B6CD:D3A6 ( talk) 06:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
Hi, does anyone know why my contribition was deleted? 98.153.62.223 ( talk) 01:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm open to being persuaded but that's the background. "DUE" in that quote refers to our core policy of presenting views in relation to WP:DUE weight. Cheers, Generalrelative ( talk) 02:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)The reason is that it's not clear that the views this study refutes are notable for inclusion in the article. If there were multiple reliable independent sources like this refuting those views then the situation would be different. The recent history is that an overtly racist IP argued for adding it after their more direct strategy of POV-pushing failed. It seems they figured they could use this study as a Trojan horse to justify presenting hereditarian arguments in more detail or something of that nature. Regardless, the basic issue is that this study does not appear to be DUE for inclusion when the views it refutes have so far not been considered to be. Further, if it were to be included, it would need to be presented in much more detail than the OP has done in order to avoid facile misreading. And it's not at all clear that such a detailed presentation would be DUE.
Please read WP:BRD and wait until after a consensus about this has been reached here before reinserting disputed content. Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 09:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
If the disputed content is rewritten so that it directly represents the sources (that is, if the WP:SYNTH issue is resolved), then a second task is to make the text accessible to readers. Please see WP:MTAU. Perusing the proposed text, I see the terms genome-wide, genetic loci, population structure, assortative mating, population substructure, and polygenic. I'd wager that most Wikipedia readers who do not have specialized training in genetics or related fields would have no clear understanding of what any of those terms mean. Those terms can and should be translated into commonly understood English. NightHeron ( talk) 11:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
are we satisfied that the others are not synthesis?No. See my comment above of 12:06, 7 October. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
MrOllie: Would you please state the point he is making that is not explicitly in the sources?
Generalrelative: Why is MrOllie claiming the problem is that he makes a point not in the sources, do you agree with that or do you stand by your claim that the problem is that the sources are not about the topic of this Wikipedia page? You made several false statements to back up that claim, 98.153.62.223 provided exact quotes were the articles discuss the topic of this Wikipedia page explicitly. Are you telling us not to believe our lying eyes? 72.17.88.210 ( talk) 01:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
FYI IP 98.153.62.223 has opened up a discussion on this matter at NORN. Let's see if others feel like weighing in. Generalrelative ( talk) 02:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of the race and intelligence controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
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 History of the race and intelligence controversy, 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:
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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How about we add this one to the intro:
Nonetheless, in recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. [1] It is now clear that at least some of the genetic variants that contribute to higher intelligence are not evenly distributed across races. [2] [3] [4] This does not necessarily imply that race differences in IQ are genetic. [5]
Piffer replicated his replicated his results using more SNPs and published them on psych. We can add the caveat at the end if it makes you guys feel better.
93.149.193.190 ( talk) 17:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any objections against Psych as a journal?
Let me remind you that: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
And: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
Even if you ALL agreed this info should be censored, it should still be on Wikipedia.
93.149.193.190 ( talk) 17:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How about we add it like this:
Nonetheless, in recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. [1] [2] It is now possible to check whether these genetic variants are evenly distributed across races in publicly available databases. [3] [4] 5.171.96.57 ( talk) 19:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
References
What findings? the genome wide significant associations with EA or the fact that you can check their incidence by race in a publicly available database? 5.171.96.116 ( talk) 01:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok, how about for now we add the first sentence like this:
In recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. Collectively, these SNPs account for about 10% of the variance in educational attainment in European populations. [1] [2]
And then we add:
Whether these SNPs are evenly distributed across races and the significance of said findings remains controversial. [3] [4] [5]
References
How about adding it like this?
In recent years scientists have found thousands of the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) associated with educational attainment (a close proxy for IQ) in what are known as genome-wide association studies. Collectively, these SNPs account for about 10% of the variance in educational attainment in European populations. [1] [2] The distribution of these genetic variants across races is consistent with the environmental explanation for observed racial differences in IQ scores. [3] [4] 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 17:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
References
Whats wrong with that paragraph guys. I would have thought you would love it. 93.149.193.190 ( talk) 18:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
It is neither and you know it. Both articles are published in reputable scientific journals. The paragraph says exactly what the articles say. The only reason you do not want the content to be included is because, even though the article says they do not, the polygenic scores in fact DO support a genetic component to the gap. And you hate the idea that people might actually check and realise what these polygenic scores mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.71.31 ( talk) 21:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
IP-hopping troll. See this. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
How about we include a section on the free speech and academic discourse surrounding this issue. The firing of Noah Carl and Stephen Hsu, the stripping of honours of James Watson, the attempts to fire Amy Wax and JP Rushton, the physical violence against Charles Murray in Middlebury College, and the fact that Sam Harris said to Ezra Klein that he has scientists whose names would be well known to him, who have stellar reputations, who agree with him, and who are terrified of speaking out. Let me know and I will write the paragraph and get the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:484:877C:94F0:50F5:133D:B6CD:D3A6 ( talk) 06:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
Hi, does anyone know why my contribition was deleted? 98.153.62.223 ( talk) 01:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm open to being persuaded but that's the background. "DUE" in that quote refers to our core policy of presenting views in relation to WP:DUE weight. Cheers, Generalrelative ( talk) 02:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)The reason is that it's not clear that the views this study refutes are notable for inclusion in the article. If there were multiple reliable independent sources like this refuting those views then the situation would be different. The recent history is that an overtly racist IP argued for adding it after their more direct strategy of POV-pushing failed. It seems they figured they could use this study as a Trojan horse to justify presenting hereditarian arguments in more detail or something of that nature. Regardless, the basic issue is that this study does not appear to be DUE for inclusion when the views it refutes have so far not been considered to be. Further, if it were to be included, it would need to be presented in much more detail than the OP has done in order to avoid facile misreading. And it's not at all clear that such a detailed presentation would be DUE.
Please read WP:BRD and wait until after a consensus about this has been reached here before reinserting disputed content. Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 09:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
If the disputed content is rewritten so that it directly represents the sources (that is, if the WP:SYNTH issue is resolved), then a second task is to make the text accessible to readers. Please see WP:MTAU. Perusing the proposed text, I see the terms genome-wide, genetic loci, population structure, assortative mating, population substructure, and polygenic. I'd wager that most Wikipedia readers who do not have specialized training in genetics or related fields would have no clear understanding of what any of those terms mean. Those terms can and should be translated into commonly understood English. NightHeron ( talk) 11:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
are we satisfied that the others are not synthesis?No. See my comment above of 12:06, 7 October. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
MrOllie: Would you please state the point he is making that is not explicitly in the sources?
Generalrelative: Why is MrOllie claiming the problem is that he makes a point not in the sources, do you agree with that or do you stand by your claim that the problem is that the sources are not about the topic of this Wikipedia page? You made several false statements to back up that claim, 98.153.62.223 provided exact quotes were the articles discuss the topic of this Wikipedia page explicitly. Are you telling us not to believe our lying eyes? 72.17.88.210 ( talk) 01:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
FYI IP 98.153.62.223 has opened up a discussion on this matter at NORN. Let's see if others feel like weighing in. Generalrelative ( talk) 02:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)