From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

Contents 1 Managing Race and IQ Article 1.1 Proposed Direction and Current Issues 1.2 Nature of the article 1.3 Guide for editing 1.4 Guide for reacting to edits 1.5 Talk pages 1.6 Other 1.7 Relevant Wikipedia Policies and Guidlines

[edit] Managing Race and IQ Article

This is a set of guidelines I'm suggesting for the Race and intelligence article. Comments are welcome.

[edit] Proposed Direction and Current Issues

• There are many issues with the article. Firstly there are issues that are beyond our ability to change; it is a controversial topic that falls across a major political and social faultline particularly in terms of the USA. The article neccesarily covers views that many will regard as overtly racist but which others will regard as reasonable speculation. Others may regard those views as bold science that is being supressed by political correctness. Consequently assumption of good faith is difficult, a situation made worse by the article being a troll-magnet.
• The biggest issue within our ability to control is the percieved purpose of the article and what the article actually does. The article (as of March 2008) appears to be an attempt to describe what the relationship might be between race and IQ. The problem is that on one side there are those who say there is a relationship (a small but significant group of IQ researchers) and every other related discipline for which the question does not really make sense. That is, there is not a clear, alternative consensus theory of race and intelligence - primarily because niether 'race' nor 'intelligence' have clear and consistent interdisciplinary meanings. The current consensus, majority view is best described as 'huh?'. I don't believe there is a viable article possible on 'race and intelligence'. However this article has repeatedly survived AfD, generates vast amounts of discussion and the topic is covered in notable books and journal articles.
• What this article is really about: this article is about a POV. Wikipedia has many articles about controversial POVs and this article fits that pattern. The actual content of the article is a description of prominent people who have asserted a genetic race and intelligence link, what evidence they used, what their many critics said and what other researchers have found. Consequently one particular POV is neccesarily given focus, the view best exemplified by Arthur Jensen. Previous attempts to bring a NPOV have failed, in part, because they obscure the theme of the article.
• The only viable future for the article is as an account of the positions put forward historically and in more recent times by a group of researchers associated with the Pioneer Fund. Neutrality will be achieved by fully referencing, and documenting the critics of those researchers and people influenced by that research.

[edit] Nature of the article

• 1. The article looks at why people have claimed there is a link between race and IQ/intelligence, who those people were/are, who disagreed with them and why and what relevant research there is. The article covers the debate rather than attempts to say what the actual relation is (readers will have to draw that conclusion)
  • 1.1 The issue needs to be seen in the context of psychology and that claims within this subject do not neccesarily have the same standing as other sciences or use the same standards of evidence or use the same modes of argument.
    • 1.11 However the claims touch on subjects beyond psychology. The views of notable bilogists, geneticists and anthropologists need to be given sufficient weight.
  • 1.2 The issue needs also to be seen as happening within popular culture and that coverage by news media is also relevant to framing the topic.
  • 1.3 Neutrality, in this case, is best found by presenting a range of views and counterviews.( This is not always the case in scientific discussions where neutrality may be found by presenting the position which appears to most closely correspond to reality.)
  • 1.4 Comprehensiveness should be an objective. The article documents views which may be considered fringe views - therefore well referenced accounts of such fringe views are to be welcomed.

[edit] Guide for editing

• 2. Criteria for inclusion of a reference
  • 2.1 notability has to be established:
    • 2.11 data and factual claims: need to have appeared either in a peer-reviewed journal or book OR in a non-peer-reviewed source but have then been the subject of further peer-reviewed articles.
    • 2.12 popular accounts or impact on popular culture: needs to be referenced to a major news source
  • 2.2 relevance has to be verifiable: either
    • 2.21The source explicitly states that the issue it discusses impacts on the race IQ debate or
    • 2.22 A notable review of the source (supportive or critical) explicitly states that it impacts on the race IQ debate
    • This clause allows for topics that in themselves relate something other than race (eg nationality) to something other than IQ (eg academic achievment) so long as a claim has been made explicitly linking the issue with race and IQ.
  • 2.3 Reverts and deletion of sections, data, graphics or references should be avoided except:
    • 2.31 Removing general random vandalism
    • 2.32 racial abuse or racist comments by editors - this does not include referenced accounts of views of notable people. Using racist ideas and mentioning racist ideas are different. A passionately anti-racist person may well include ideas in the article that many people will find abhorent.
    • 2.33 Overly long accounts of topics covered elsewhere. The whole Bell Curve article doesn't need to be repeated here but it does need appropriate coverage.
    • 2.34 Racist-baiting; this article is not the place to name call or identify racists. Again this does not include accusations of racism by third parties that are properly referenced.

[edit] Guide for reacting to edits

• 3. assume good faith (even from people with dodgy views). We don't delete willy-nilly if an edit doesn't appear to meet point 2 we look it up and look up papers critical of it. This may result in writing-for-the-enemy, but that serves the broader aim of the article: what is it that the Race-IQ people think, why do they think it and why do people claim they are wrong.
  • 3.1 assume every addition to the article (except those listed under 2.3 ) is potentially a positive addition to the article. If it is poorly written, rewrite it. If it is poorly sourced, refernce it. If it appears to be synthesis, look for an explicit race-IQ connection. Do these things first before commenting and certainly before reverting. If neccesary let the questionable edits remain for as long as it takes.
  • 3.2 react to deletion by other editors calmly.

[edit] Talk pages

• 4. The talk page (as we all know) is for discussing improvements to the article and not for discussing race and IQ.
  • 4.1 adopt stoicism that would make the Dalai-Lama look quick tempered in the face of trolling. The talk pages will be troll magnets.
    • 4.11 Assume Not a Racist and Assume not Part of a Politically-Correct Cabal Hiding the Truth
    • 4.12 Beware of racists and trolls using racism to bait people into arguments. If you really can't let some comment stand either report it (if it is serious enough) or simply append a bold Disagree below without further explanation. Don't tell racists that they are racists. The ones that know it already don't care and the ones that don't will just be insulted and think you are the troll.
    • 4.13 Beware of people baiting-racists for sport. Some people will come to the article looking for an opportunity to call racists some unpleasant names. While the emotional reaction is understandable this article is not the place for it. This isn't the Battle of Cable Street.
    • 4.14 Psychology or Psychometrics bashing. Don't pick on psychology - it has self-esteem issues.
  • 4.2 Civility is niether political correctness nor appeasment. Civility is of lesser importance between people who naturally get along. Formalities and excessive politeness is a hallmark of simmering tensions. Civility will not solve our problems but it will keep a lid on some of them.

[edit] Other

• 5. be wary of attempts to solve meta-arguments. This issue in particular has a higher level discussion on what is the mainstream position and to what extent the view of Jensen et al are fringe of pseudoscience. Avoid in the article and talk pages attempting to establish which view is the consensus or mainstream position. Avoid terms like fringe-science and pseudoscience except when explicitly used by a referenced, notable and relevant source. Be prepared to let somebody else have the last word.

[edit] Relevant Wikipedia Policies and Guidlines

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not In particular:
  • WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages.
  • WP:CENSOR Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements.
  • WP:BATTLE Wikipedia is not a battleground.

• Wikipedia:Assume good faith
• Wikipedia:Civility
  • WP:NPA

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view In particular:
  • WP:ASF Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.
  • WP:DUE Undue weight. Note: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."

• Wikipedia:Controversial articles
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories Fringe theory in a nutshell: "Nonsense is nonsense, but the study of nonsense is scholarship" - Gershom Scholem. It should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group

• Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines