![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Honestly, I don't see the commonsense or logic to add an map showing "I.Q statistics from 2002" which is less informative than the list ( that someone removed) which already showed way better and accurate information that displays the number of I.Q scores in each countries from 2002. And their both basically the same thing, only difference is the list was way more accurate and informative on statistics. How exactly do we know which country has the highest I.Q to lowest I.Q? please stop vandalism and reducing accurate information. (And sorry for my english). WarriorsPride6565 ( talk) 6:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I would just like to add my vote FOR re-inserting the two lists. The data is very useful and furthermore tends to tally with the research conducted by Rindermann, which is based on international standardized tests that no-one should have an issue with. In my observations, arguments against appear to be politicized - i.e., they show the "wrong" results, hence they should be suppressed. -- SublimeWik ( talk) 03:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
WHY is an open encyclopedia, whose stated goal is to "compile the sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia" attempting to REMOVE VALID content? I stumbled upon this today, and I'm baffled as to why a legit table with useful knowledge would be removed? All the sourcing is correct, there are two easy-to-read columns for 2002 and 2006, and yet it's been removed for what reason? It's much easier to read the information from a table than a cluttered graphic, AND there are competing articles with this wikipedia entry which show the exact same tabled information. I'll be adding this content back, and once someone states an actual reason as to why we shouldn't allow it, then we can discuss it here. -- Pedbsktbll ( talk) 04:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
There was no mention of copyright violation here or in the history I viewed. If that is the issue, then why was there nothing posted here regarding it? Otherwise, it simply appears to have been removed for no reason at all. However, if it is indeed a copyright issue, then we should look into verifying and the content should be removed in the meantime. -- Pedbsktbll ( talk) 04:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
That the chart of national estimates of IQ be removed.
Per the previous discussions, there has been no consensus to indicate that the inclusion of the numbers: 1) provides additional encyclopedic information about the subject of the article - a book which put forth a widely discredited theory, and in fact due to the length and visual eyemagnet of the huge chart obscures that fact which is the most notable feature of the book 2) does not to a casual reader present the discredited information in a way that appears that Wikipedia is endorsing it 3) does not violate copyright as a very significant portion of creative method of arriving at the numbers. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: The table was flagged as Copyvio here, and the table was removed by clerk and closed at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2012_April_13 after removal. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 03:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Lists of uncreative fact are not copyrighted in the U.S. However, one must be clear that a list is "fact" and not speculation. See Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. There is ample evidence that this list is not purely formulaic, including that the authors did not use consistent standards even within their own work: "In some cases, the IQ of a country is estimated by averaging the IQs of countries that are not actually neighbors of the country in question. For example, Kyrgyzstan's IQ is estimated by averaging the IQs of Iran and Turkey, neither of which is close to Kyrgyzstan."
The copyright question, of course, can be overcome in the same way that all copyright issues are overcome - by seeking and obtaining permission. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission gives some recommended text; it's generally a good idea to start with the publishing house, as this is a service they're used to. That would leave the editors of this article needing only to assess other inclusion factors, since the copyright barrier would be removed. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
National IQ and National iq have previously or currently directed to this article. Those redirects have been nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_10#National_IQ. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Could we get an explanation for the removals of the maps? Obviously some of the stated reasons for the removal of the list does not apply. A map does not attract vandals and there is no possible copyright issue. The issue of "truth" is not something that Wikipedia aims to judge so an inclusion in Wikipedia is not a endorsement of correctness of the national IQ scores. Rather, the scores has caused widespread debate both inside and outside academia and have been used in many peer-reviewed studies (such as a number of studies finding high correlations with several international student assessment tests and there are many studies examining how other factors are associated with the national IQ scores [2] [3])so they are notable which is a criteria for inclusion. Acadēmica Orientālis ( talk) 05:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
HEINER RINDERMANN* Institute of Psychology, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Germany
Factor analyses were done with MPLUS statistical software using Full-InformationMaximum-Likelihood (FIML; Raykov, 2005). This kind of analysis allows for the use of all data (no listwise deletion of a country and all its information if one observation in one variable is missing). In a factor analysis the first unrotated factor (g-factor) explained 94% (unadjusted) or 95% (adjusted) of the variance of the 20 student assessment scales and the intelligence test collection of Lynn and Vanhanen (see Table 1 and Figure 1 a,b).
This research actually wallidates the work of Lynn and Vanhanen.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.174.230.34 ( talk) 19:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Not only there is problems of data sets of the IQ tests, common IQ tests are criticized. This Criticism should appear in the article too. The tests are designed for European population and their descendents. They are biased against tropical population. Asian performs well partly because they are genetically closely related to Europeans. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migration
IQ test assume that certain mental capacity are important. Evolutionary speaking, those features only serve the needs of animals(humans are animals) within their own environment. Tropical population have lots of distinguish capacities to survive in their very different environment. But those capacities are not measured by the common IQ test. see the link for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views
I am from a region with a high average IQ on the chart. I am not trying to say my population is smart so my opinion is true. In stead, I am trying to say I don't have conflict interests regard my view of tropical population. I think the study is unscientific although it makes my population look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.236.148 ( talk) 04:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Honestly, I don't see the commonsense or logic to add an map showing "I.Q statistics from 2002" which is less informative than the list ( that someone removed) which already showed way better and accurate information that displays the number of I.Q scores in each countries from 2002. And their both basically the same thing, only difference is the list was way more accurate and informative on statistics. How exactly do we know which country has the highest I.Q to lowest I.Q? please stop vandalism and reducing accurate information. (And sorry for my english). WarriorsPride6565 ( talk) 6:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I would just like to add my vote FOR re-inserting the two lists. The data is very useful and furthermore tends to tally with the research conducted by Rindermann, which is based on international standardized tests that no-one should have an issue with. In my observations, arguments against appear to be politicized - i.e., they show the "wrong" results, hence they should be suppressed. -- SublimeWik ( talk) 03:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
WHY is an open encyclopedia, whose stated goal is to "compile the sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia" attempting to REMOVE VALID content? I stumbled upon this today, and I'm baffled as to why a legit table with useful knowledge would be removed? All the sourcing is correct, there are two easy-to-read columns for 2002 and 2006, and yet it's been removed for what reason? It's much easier to read the information from a table than a cluttered graphic, AND there are competing articles with this wikipedia entry which show the exact same tabled information. I'll be adding this content back, and once someone states an actual reason as to why we shouldn't allow it, then we can discuss it here. -- Pedbsktbll ( talk) 04:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
There was no mention of copyright violation here or in the history I viewed. If that is the issue, then why was there nothing posted here regarding it? Otherwise, it simply appears to have been removed for no reason at all. However, if it is indeed a copyright issue, then we should look into verifying and the content should be removed in the meantime. -- Pedbsktbll ( talk) 04:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
That the chart of national estimates of IQ be removed.
Per the previous discussions, there has been no consensus to indicate that the inclusion of the numbers: 1) provides additional encyclopedic information about the subject of the article - a book which put forth a widely discredited theory, and in fact due to the length and visual eyemagnet of the huge chart obscures that fact which is the most notable feature of the book 2) does not to a casual reader present the discredited information in a way that appears that Wikipedia is endorsing it 3) does not violate copyright as a very significant portion of creative method of arriving at the numbers. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: The table was flagged as Copyvio here, and the table was removed by clerk and closed at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2012_April_13 after removal. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 03:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Lists of uncreative fact are not copyrighted in the U.S. However, one must be clear that a list is "fact" and not speculation. See Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. There is ample evidence that this list is not purely formulaic, including that the authors did not use consistent standards even within their own work: "In some cases, the IQ of a country is estimated by averaging the IQs of countries that are not actually neighbors of the country in question. For example, Kyrgyzstan's IQ is estimated by averaging the IQs of Iran and Turkey, neither of which is close to Kyrgyzstan."
The copyright question, of course, can be overcome in the same way that all copyright issues are overcome - by seeking and obtaining permission. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission gives some recommended text; it's generally a good idea to start with the publishing house, as this is a service they're used to. That would leave the editors of this article needing only to assess other inclusion factors, since the copyright barrier would be removed. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
National IQ and National iq have previously or currently directed to this article. Those redirects have been nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_10#National_IQ. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Could we get an explanation for the removals of the maps? Obviously some of the stated reasons for the removal of the list does not apply. A map does not attract vandals and there is no possible copyright issue. The issue of "truth" is not something that Wikipedia aims to judge so an inclusion in Wikipedia is not a endorsement of correctness of the national IQ scores. Rather, the scores has caused widespread debate both inside and outside academia and have been used in many peer-reviewed studies (such as a number of studies finding high correlations with several international student assessment tests and there are many studies examining how other factors are associated with the national IQ scores [2] [3])so they are notable which is a criteria for inclusion. Acadēmica Orientālis ( talk) 05:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
HEINER RINDERMANN* Institute of Psychology, Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Germany
Factor analyses were done with MPLUS statistical software using Full-InformationMaximum-Likelihood (FIML; Raykov, 2005). This kind of analysis allows for the use of all data (no listwise deletion of a country and all its information if one observation in one variable is missing). In a factor analysis the first unrotated factor (g-factor) explained 94% (unadjusted) or 95% (adjusted) of the variance of the 20 student assessment scales and the intelligence test collection of Lynn and Vanhanen (see Table 1 and Figure 1 a,b).
This research actually wallidates the work of Lynn and Vanhanen.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.174.230.34 ( talk) 19:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Not only there is problems of data sets of the IQ tests, common IQ tests are criticized. This Criticism should appear in the article too. The tests are designed for European population and their descendents. They are biased against tropical population. Asian performs well partly because they are genetically closely related to Europeans. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migration
IQ test assume that certain mental capacity are important. Evolutionary speaking, those features only serve the needs of animals(humans are animals) within their own environment. Tropical population have lots of distinguish capacities to survive in their very different environment. But those capacities are not measured by the common IQ test. see the link for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views
I am from a region with a high average IQ on the chart. I am not trying to say my population is smart so my opinion is true. In stead, I am trying to say I don't have conflict interests regard my view of tropical population. I think the study is unscientific although it makes my population look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.236.148 ( talk) 04:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)