I have requested (several days ago) for assistance with this mediation, as my health is still uneven and I am unable to give this the time I would strongly prefer. Unfortunately, the other Mediation Committee members are busy, and no one has yet been able to assist. I appreciate your continued patience and assure you that although this is proceeding slowly,I have not abandoned you. Thanks much to all of you for understanding. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the previous non-mediation discussion which was here [1], which I see as indicative of a problem we might face in this mediation: This is a complex mediation, with a number of distinct issues and a fairly large pool of editors involved. You'll have to let me drive, or this will turn into the same kind of chaotic unorganized dispute as has been seen so far. In order for mediation to succeed, it is important for the participants to be able to focus on one issue at a time, and work within the framework not disrupt it. I have every confidence that the editors involved all want to resolve this, or you would not have all agreed to mediation. I plan to work through the list of Issues to be mediated one at a time, and hope to post a corresponding list of Agreed items as each item is resolved. That said, the first item is What should the organization of the main article be? and I invite each of you to post a preferred structure. If you support an already posted structure, simply say Support EditorFoo's version. Ok?
The second "ground rule" is one you all know by heart, so it will come as no surprise: comment on content, not contributor. I will cheerfully and promptly remove any posts on this page which involve speculation on any editor's bias, ancestry, or any other personal aspect of that editor. Please feel free to complain on my talk page or email me, I would prefer this page be limited to what promises to be a lengthly and complex mediation, and not individual complaints about the mediator or other parties. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Per request, What should the organization structure/relationships of the many articles be? has also been opened for views to be posted. Add to both or either, but be aware that all of you need to voice a position on both. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
15:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC): I am semi-back, thanks for your patience while I was "out sick". I note we have heard from the following parties:
I will request input from the two editors not heard from, and those of you who have entered a position in only MAIN or ARTICLE please add your position to the other section. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
0. lead - 3-6 paragraphs 1. background/history (subarticle - Race and intelligence (history)) - 2-3 paragraphs 1.1. intelligence (main: IQ, intelligence) - 1-2 paragraphs 1.2. race (main: race) - 1-2 paragraphs 2. research (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Research) - 2-3 paragraphs 3. media portrayal (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) - 2-3 paragraphs 4. controversies (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Controversies) - 2-3 paragraphs 5. end material (subarticle - R&I (references) or switch to footnote ref system)
In my view, research contains three major sub-articles:
My concerns generally circle around whether or not this article is primarily about "Race and intelligence research", or "Race and intelligence". One seems much more expansive than the other, and without organizing the research portion into distinct areas, I think that excessively detailed arguments wind haphazardly throughout the structure.
For example, without segregating "interpretations" from "test data", we have problems where one editor will make a citation to a certain study, and a claim about what that study means. Then another editor will make a citation refuting that claim, and possibly citing another study and making additional claims of their own. This can go on endlessly (and does in many places right now). I think this "ad hoc, argue every point, counter point, and counter counter point" methodology leads to a disjointed series of articles.
On the other hand, if under "test data", we simply stated the GRE test results (without claiming they proved a specific hypothesis), or IQ test data, we can avoid this furball. Under "interpretations", we can more easily summarize conflicting interpretations about various categories of data, rather than conflicting interpretations about each specific point made in every journal article over the past 20 years.
I also think the basis of this specific dispute is because of a fear that my proposed structure diminishes the importance of research on R&I. Although inevitably placing research at something besides the root level will diminish its dominance of the article, I don't believe that this is being done in bad faith (specifically to denigrate research that asserts genetic causes to racial gaps), or that a loss of dominance is a loss of any importance.
I think that "interpretations" is a research topic, and shouldn't necessarily be under "controversies". I guess I see "interpretations" as being specific to study citations, and controversies being more broad. For example, one researcher may interpret some set of test data as showing 60% genetic contribution to the B-W gap. Another may interpret that same set of test data as showing 0% genetic contribution to the B-W gap. The "controversy" section would probably deal with one researcher insisting that blacks are inferior to whites genetically, without specifically speaking of a given study...a lot of the "aggregationalists" such as Rushton would fall into this category. This kind of division I think allows us to avoid a spiral of death, where a controversy is named, a few studies cited, then a few counter studies cited, then counter counter studies, etc, etc, etc. If we keep the specific details of "interpretations" to specific details around single studies, and keep the controversies more general, we may be able to avoid this anti-pattern currently in the article.
The sections I see under "controversies" are:
Utility of research is the general category of disputes about the fundamental questions being asked - the meta-questions of "what is race?", "is race real?", "do the answers to these questions really have any meaning?", etc.
Potential for bias is a terrible name, but essentially seems to be a catch-all for ad-hominem attacks on the other side - I think maybe WRN is right that these sections need to be organized in some different manner.
Regarding "consequences" or "significance" or "practical importance" of group differences., I have some severe difficulties with those characterizations. The pattern ostensibly cited is the "practical validity" pattern - where "validity" is the correlation between score and outcome. The model for this is "the practical validity of IQ", where we measure IQ scores and outcomes such as income, health, marriage, number of children, etc.
This idea of "practical validity" doesn't apply very well to a category with a dual nature, since the direction of what is considered a "score" is a matter of POV. For example, in a number of hereditarian books and papers, arguments about how IQ differences between groups correlate with non-IQ differences between groups are made. In short form, the illustration they seek to show is "when IQ is controlled for, these gaps between races in Y diminish by X". This prejudges the question by both implying that IQ is a natural function of race, and that it isn't racism which causes differences.
You can turn it around, and seek to show "when race is controlled for, these gaps between high and low IQ groups in Y diminish by X". (I.e., high IQ people may be richer than low IQ people, but if control for how "black" someone is, you find that the gap diminishes, implying that people are richer or poorer based on race, not IQ.)
The assertion of "consequences" or "significance" or "practical importance" is a specific interpretation of the data.
-- Kevin Murray 23:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
0. lead - 3-6 paragraphs
1. intelligence (main: IQ, intelligence) - 1-2 paragraphs 2. race (main: race) - 1-2 paragraphs 3. history (excluding specifics on history of research) - 4 - 10 paragraphs 3.1 summary of history of research (reference to reserach history section at R&I research) - 1-2 paragraphs 4. research summary (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Research) - 3-4 paragraphs 5. media portrayal - 4-10 paragraphs 6. controversies - 4-10 paragraphs 7. end material (switch to footnote ref system, with separate bibliography common to the project)
Research should not be a single section in the main article. There should be three individual section for the three sections currently described as research: (not necessarily these titles)
I hate to be impatient, but a few of us are wondering if this process has stalled? futurebird 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Kevin Murray 14:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)-- Kevin Murray 13:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)-- Kevin Murray 13:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)-- Kevin Murray 01:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
JJJamal 11:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Bold text
I do not think there is a need for a "Race and Intelligence (Research)" article since it will only repeat material already in other articles and "Race and Intelligence" is already a summary article. Ultramarine 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I have requested (several days ago) for assistance with this mediation, as my health is still uneven and I am unable to give this the time I would strongly prefer. Unfortunately, the other Mediation Committee members are busy, and no one has yet been able to assist. I appreciate your continued patience and assure you that although this is proceeding slowly,I have not abandoned you. Thanks much to all of you for understanding. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the previous non-mediation discussion which was here [1], which I see as indicative of a problem we might face in this mediation: This is a complex mediation, with a number of distinct issues and a fairly large pool of editors involved. You'll have to let me drive, or this will turn into the same kind of chaotic unorganized dispute as has been seen so far. In order for mediation to succeed, it is important for the participants to be able to focus on one issue at a time, and work within the framework not disrupt it. I have every confidence that the editors involved all want to resolve this, or you would not have all agreed to mediation. I plan to work through the list of Issues to be mediated one at a time, and hope to post a corresponding list of Agreed items as each item is resolved. That said, the first item is What should the organization of the main article be? and I invite each of you to post a preferred structure. If you support an already posted structure, simply say Support EditorFoo's version. Ok?
The second "ground rule" is one you all know by heart, so it will come as no surprise: comment on content, not contributor. I will cheerfully and promptly remove any posts on this page which involve speculation on any editor's bias, ancestry, or any other personal aspect of that editor. Please feel free to complain on my talk page or email me, I would prefer this page be limited to what promises to be a lengthly and complex mediation, and not individual complaints about the mediator or other parties. KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Per request, What should the organization structure/relationships of the many articles be? has also been opened for views to be posted. Add to both or either, but be aware that all of you need to voice a position on both. KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
15:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC): I am semi-back, thanks for your patience while I was "out sick". I note we have heard from the following parties:
I will request input from the two editors not heard from, and those of you who have entered a position in only MAIN or ARTICLE please add your position to the other section. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
0. lead - 3-6 paragraphs 1. background/history (subarticle - Race and intelligence (history)) - 2-3 paragraphs 1.1. intelligence (main: IQ, intelligence) - 1-2 paragraphs 1.2. race (main: race) - 1-2 paragraphs 2. research (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Research) - 2-3 paragraphs 3. media portrayal (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Media portrayal) - 2-3 paragraphs 4. controversies (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Controversies) - 2-3 paragraphs 5. end material (subarticle - R&I (references) or switch to footnote ref system)
In my view, research contains three major sub-articles:
My concerns generally circle around whether or not this article is primarily about "Race and intelligence research", or "Race and intelligence". One seems much more expansive than the other, and without organizing the research portion into distinct areas, I think that excessively detailed arguments wind haphazardly throughout the structure.
For example, without segregating "interpretations" from "test data", we have problems where one editor will make a citation to a certain study, and a claim about what that study means. Then another editor will make a citation refuting that claim, and possibly citing another study and making additional claims of their own. This can go on endlessly (and does in many places right now). I think this "ad hoc, argue every point, counter point, and counter counter point" methodology leads to a disjointed series of articles.
On the other hand, if under "test data", we simply stated the GRE test results (without claiming they proved a specific hypothesis), or IQ test data, we can avoid this furball. Under "interpretations", we can more easily summarize conflicting interpretations about various categories of data, rather than conflicting interpretations about each specific point made in every journal article over the past 20 years.
I also think the basis of this specific dispute is because of a fear that my proposed structure diminishes the importance of research on R&I. Although inevitably placing research at something besides the root level will diminish its dominance of the article, I don't believe that this is being done in bad faith (specifically to denigrate research that asserts genetic causes to racial gaps), or that a loss of dominance is a loss of any importance.
I think that "interpretations" is a research topic, and shouldn't necessarily be under "controversies". I guess I see "interpretations" as being specific to study citations, and controversies being more broad. For example, one researcher may interpret some set of test data as showing 60% genetic contribution to the B-W gap. Another may interpret that same set of test data as showing 0% genetic contribution to the B-W gap. The "controversy" section would probably deal with one researcher insisting that blacks are inferior to whites genetically, without specifically speaking of a given study...a lot of the "aggregationalists" such as Rushton would fall into this category. This kind of division I think allows us to avoid a spiral of death, where a controversy is named, a few studies cited, then a few counter studies cited, then counter counter studies, etc, etc, etc. If we keep the specific details of "interpretations" to specific details around single studies, and keep the controversies more general, we may be able to avoid this anti-pattern currently in the article.
The sections I see under "controversies" are:
Utility of research is the general category of disputes about the fundamental questions being asked - the meta-questions of "what is race?", "is race real?", "do the answers to these questions really have any meaning?", etc.
Potential for bias is a terrible name, but essentially seems to be a catch-all for ad-hominem attacks on the other side - I think maybe WRN is right that these sections need to be organized in some different manner.
Regarding "consequences" or "significance" or "practical importance" of group differences., I have some severe difficulties with those characterizations. The pattern ostensibly cited is the "practical validity" pattern - where "validity" is the correlation between score and outcome. The model for this is "the practical validity of IQ", where we measure IQ scores and outcomes such as income, health, marriage, number of children, etc.
This idea of "practical validity" doesn't apply very well to a category with a dual nature, since the direction of what is considered a "score" is a matter of POV. For example, in a number of hereditarian books and papers, arguments about how IQ differences between groups correlate with non-IQ differences between groups are made. In short form, the illustration they seek to show is "when IQ is controlled for, these gaps between races in Y diminish by X". This prejudges the question by both implying that IQ is a natural function of race, and that it isn't racism which causes differences.
You can turn it around, and seek to show "when race is controlled for, these gaps between high and low IQ groups in Y diminish by X". (I.e., high IQ people may be richer than low IQ people, but if control for how "black" someone is, you find that the gap diminishes, implying that people are richer or poorer based on race, not IQ.)
The assertion of "consequences" or "significance" or "practical importance" is a specific interpretation of the data.
-- Kevin Murray 23:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
0. lead - 3-6 paragraphs
1. intelligence (main: IQ, intelligence) - 1-2 paragraphs 2. race (main: race) - 1-2 paragraphs 3. history (excluding specifics on history of research) - 4 - 10 paragraphs 3.1 summary of history of research (reference to reserach history section at R&I research) - 1-2 paragraphs 4. research summary (subarticle - Race and intelligence (Research) - 3-4 paragraphs 5. media portrayal - 4-10 paragraphs 6. controversies - 4-10 paragraphs 7. end material (switch to footnote ref system, with separate bibliography common to the project)
Research should not be a single section in the main article. There should be three individual section for the three sections currently described as research: (not necessarily these titles)
I hate to be impatient, but a few of us are wondering if this process has stalled? futurebird 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Kevin Murray 14:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)-- Kevin Murray 13:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)-- Kevin Murray 13:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)-- Kevin Murray 01:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
JJJamal 11:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Bold text
I do not think there is a need for a "Race and Intelligence (Research)" article since it will only repeat material already in other articles and "Race and Intelligence" is already a summary article. Ultramarine 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)